Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/All Saints Church, Huntsham"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Jolly Janner
(reword)
imported>Guliolopez
(Review. Some minor stuff. But these are layout issues and not impactful on the DYK nom. Looks good to me.)
Line 22: Line 22:
 
-->
 
-->
  
:* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING  :-->
+
:* [[File:Symbol voting keep.svg|16px]] Article is long enough, new enough, in scope and neutral. Hook is strong enough and is supported by a solid reference. QPQ seems to be covered. While I have a minor concern that Earwig's tool scores at [https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=All+Saints+Church%2C+Huntsham&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 18%] (indicating some CLOP from the English Heritage Listed Buildings source), it is not significant and easily addressed. I'd also have a minor concern that the extensive "list of clergy" looks a little incongruous, pushes the "organ" content quite low, and would require AGF on the sources. Otherwise looks good-to-go to me. [[User:Guliolopez|Guliolopez]] ([[User talk:Guliolopez|talk]]) 17:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  
 
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 17:34, 24 February 2016

All Saints Church, Huntsham

All Saints Church
All Saints Church

Moved to mainspace by Boddah (talk). Nominated by Jolly Janner (talk) at 07:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Article is long enough, new enough, in scope and neutral. Hook is strong enough and is supported by a solid reference. QPQ seems to be covered. While I have a minor concern that Earwig's tool scores at 18% (indicating some CLOP from the English Heritage Listed Buildings source), it is not significant and easily addressed. I'd also have a minor concern that the extensive "list of clergy" looks a little incongruous, pushes the "organ" content quite low, and would require AGF on the sources. Otherwise looks good-to-go to me. Guliolopez (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)