Jump to content

Talk:St Peter's Church, Sudbury

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSt Peter's Church, Sudbury has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 18, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 15, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the font in St Peter's Church, Sudbury, was removed in the 17th century to be used as a horse trough, but was returned to the church when the horses refused to drink from it?

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:St Peter's Church, Sudbury/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Prose is good, I made one minor copy-edit.
    The lead does not fully summarise the article, see WP:LEAD
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Sufficeintly references, sources, apper to be RS, no evidence of OR
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I wonder if there is anything more to be added; famous vicars?; notable burials; is there a graveyard?
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Licensed and captioned
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Just the lead and queries in the coverage section. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that is good enough now. I am happy to list. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

[edit]

I've expanded the lead and I think that it now summarises the article as a whole. As for broadness, I don't seem to be able to find anything regarding famous vicars or notable burials. There is a tiny burial area around the church, but I can't find a RS for this. I'm sure that it's particularly notable anyway. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]