Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/All Saints Church, Huntsham"
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: | ||
--> | --> | ||
| − | :* | + | :* [[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
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
All Saints Church, Huntsham
- ... that the tower attached to All Saints Church (pictured) in Huntsham, Devon dates to the 14th century, but the rest of the church was completely rebuilt by Benjamin Ferrey in 1854-56?
- Reviewed: Huawei Ascend P7
Moved to mainspace by Boddah (talk). Nominated by Jolly Janner (talk) at 07:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC).
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)
