Talk:Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summay[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Quite a readable and well-referenced article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The WP:Lead is rather "thin": it is intended to provide both an introduction to the article (which it does); and provide a summary of the main points. The first paragraph appears to be the introduction and this paragraph: "The cathedral's architect was Englishman Frederick Gibberd, the winner of a worldwide design competition. Construction began in 1962, and took five years. Earlier designs for a Catholic cathedral in Liverpool had been proposed in 1853, 1933, and 1953, but none were completed." appears to be the summary. I suggest this second paragraph needs some expansion, i.e. no mention of the crypt, the circular plan being driven by the need for a central altar and an existing crypt, structral problems, etc, etc. Despite the poor lead, I'm awarding this article GA-status.

Despite the poor lead, I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an Good Article. Pyrotec (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]