Talk:Pohick Church/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Utopes (talk · contribs) 04:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Decided to give this article a review after being left stagnant for so long. After reading through the article, this article is ~~98%~~ 100% of the way to Good Article status. For the very minor grievances that I had, I fixed them myself. Mainly just copy-editing; however, the article was already in good shape so I only needed to fix spacing and add a comma. In the lead, I removed the mention of the previous name for the church, as the "Pohick Episcopal Church" is implied to be the same church being talked about. I moved the name to the first sentence as an alternate name. The rest of the body was surprisingly on point, and I couldn't find anything else to add. The history was very in depth, and gave due weight to all of the necessary topics. I believe that the sentences were far too long in general, being extended with commas and semi-colons more than what I believed was necessary. However, that does not detract from the quality of this article. Passed. Congratulations! Utopes (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to remove the "98%". I started this review in a different tab than the one I was reading and editing in. The article is good now. Utopes (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]