Talk:St Mary's Church, Nether Alderley

St Mary's Church, Nether Alderley 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
Date	Process	Result
August 15, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anglicanism Low‑importance

	St Mary's Church, Nether Alderley is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cheshire Low‑importance

	Cheshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Hey there. First off, good job on this article. It is informative and definitively holds encyclopedic value. So, congrats to all of the involved editors.

Let's see...there are only a few minor points which I will outline here in detail and in brief below. As these are all small items, I am confident they are able to be addressed in a short period. Also, feel free to make a mention if you disagree with part of my review.

Please notify me when finished, in order that I come back and pass the article. Ok, here we are:

Lead

In the lead, I question this: s an Anglican church lying at the end of a quiet lane to the south of the village of Nether Alderley, Cheshire, England. I'm concerned that quiet could be considered POV...
- I suppose it could, so I've added the reference from which I took the opinion; not sure if this helps. Clifton-Taylor is also expressing a POV. Is this OK? It adds a bit of colour to a potentially drab article. I've been there and it sure IS quiet - the lane is a dead-end which leads to the church, its parish hall, the old rectory (now a house), the new rectory (formerly the stables) and fields......and of course the mausoleum - that's all! I can always delete this bit if it's perceived as a problem.
  - Hmm, interesting point. Would "rural" work? Lazulilasher (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know what...I was thinking about it again, and after a reread, I think "quiet" is fine.
What's a Grade 1/Grade 2 Listed building?
- The link tells you all about this; to make an explanation about the listing process, its criteria etc. would just get in the way.
I'm not an architecture buff, but is "fine tower" appropriate or is
- I have added a footnote explaining this. Not sure if it works. But in the lead I was trying to make a summary of the features which make this a "notable" church, and the tower seems to be one of them. What do you think?

Other

I think some of the terms could be expanded, for example -- it would be useful to explain what a "benefice", clerestory, etc are. A mere brief entry is fine.
- Brief entries would be inadequate for what can be somewhat complicated (especially "What is a benefice?"). Is this not what blue links are for?
In fittings and furniture, should bible be capitalized? I'm assuming so, but I don't know for sure.
- You're right. Done.
The article needs a brief copy edit for flow, for example: The wooden bell-frame dating from the 16th century was strengthened by the addition of a steel frame in 2000. The Stanley pew was also restored in 2000. Would that be better cast as: In 2000, the Stanley Pew was restored, and the 16th century wooden bell-frame was strengthened with a steel frame.
- I've asked for help on this one.
  - A colleague has helped. Hope it is a lot better now.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
~~The prose is clear and the grammar is mostly correct. The flow is choppy, however and could use a brush-up. Again, nothing major, but I would look over the text with an eye for style/flow.~~ Much better now, good work.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:
Checked websites, they seem to be fine.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Good luck with improving this article! As I said, I think most of the issues are minor, so I am putting this on hold.