# Talk:Church of Saint Oswald, King and Martyr, Oswaldkirk

This review is transcluded from Talk:Church of Saint Oswald, King and Martyr, Oswaldkirk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 20:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Will review within next 24 hours.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Initial thoughts

Lead
This needs expansion to effectively summarize the article. Possibly  Done --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I would recommend an infobox like in St Dona's Church, Llanddona. Done--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Architecture
I'd like to see an architectural summary like in the St Dona's Church, Llanddona. History looks pretty sound, but will read thoroughly tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually it makes sense here to include history and architecture together, you cover both.

Oh, okay, I was thinking about separating them out, but I guess as the architecture is determined by the date of the restorations/renovations, it makes sense to deal with them together.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments from others
I was surprised to see the placement of the four images added by the reviewer tonight, since the bottom two violate WP:LAYIM, part of the layout requirements for a GA from WP:WIAGA. Even as an aesthetic manner, the final two images look odd, as the first overflows the Modern section, and the second even overflows the References section. 
The two images in the History section violate MOS:IMAGES—not a strictly a GA requirement, I don't believe, but nevertheless strongly recommended—in that they have text between them, which doesn't follow this rule: "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar." If there isn't enough room for both of them in that section without boxing text between them—and both of them specifically illustrate text from the final paragraph, since the interior shot is of the chancel—then either they need to be resized smaller, or one should be deleted. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I added them in a rush last night. They are not supposed to be final, more a "here's some more images, arrange them as you like". Especially as I'd mentioned an architecture section.. I'm equally surprised that you apparently think I am unaware of this, especially as I've been here almost 6 times longer than you have. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked you up, you joined nearly one year after me. So you aught to be aware that "tit for tat" GA reviews are not really liked. Your words User talk:Gilderien#GA review not mine. Pyrotec (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Well there are a lot of people or things on wikipedia which are "not really liked". On your talk page, Bluemoonset expresses his gladness that you are reviewing his article which could also be taken as a bias and therefore also "not really liked". Personally I see no difference, and it shouldn't matter anyway so long as the review is neutral and constructive (which it is). ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not reviewing Bluemoonset's article (nomination) neither was I asked to do so: the article is by an entirely different editor. The requirement is for the review to be carried out in accordance with the requirements for reviewing GANs, neutral and constructive could be part of that. Asking an editor who had never done a review to review your Good Article Nomination on the day that it was nominated, and is the subject of a "simultaneous" (since both reviews were "started on the same day") GAN review by you, is ... well ... surprising. Pyrotec (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Just in case there is doubt, I'm not suggesting that this particular review is "neutral and constructive" my concern is over the review of Hilston Park. Pyrotec (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I was not aware when I initially asked that he had not done a review before. It's still fine because if he gets stuck I can ask somebody else for their input. He hasn't finished his review yet. I did ask him to follow the format of a past GAC though. But I started Grapple X off as a reviewer after I reviewed several of his and he's now a prolific GA reviewer. As I said though, I see no problems with tit for tat reviews providing they are neutral and constructive. its not as if a deal has been made "you pass mine and I'll pass yours straight away" scenario. And why wait until what is likely to be the end of the summer before anybody else reviews it? And besides, if an article is passes and you strongly object you can always take it to GAR or provide your input into the review if it looks like it will be passed. Based on past very good experiences with you Pyrotec in which you appeared a laid back easy-going and highly capable reviewer, a thoroughly decent chap in summary, you'll forgive me for thinking your comments here have been a little uppity. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, damn, I thought we had a deal there ;) Seriously though, I always welcome constructive criticism of my edits and/or reviews, DYK/GA/whatever, so if you feel I have missed something, don't hesitate to give me a prod.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I thought your comments were a bit upitty both to Bluemoonset and myself, so I've responded accordingly. I've no wish to take this further. Hilston Park is probably a GA (I'd probably pass it, if I were reviewing it, not I'm not) so I'm not likely to reverse a Pass (but, yes, I've taken unwarrented passes to GAR and reversed them). Secondly, I looked at Grapple X and that lead me to Operation Grapple which is not a GA, and I can't find any articles that Gilderien has brought to GA, nor any for which he has completed GAN reviews. I am laid back I've not voted on GAN talkpages to ban certain editors from nominating an/or reviewing at GAN. I know that you have done so. But if Gilderien is working on the basis of "you pass mine and I'll pass yours straight away", it should be raised at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Pyrotec (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I was also of a similar opinion about Hilston Park, but I will reserve judgement until I have finished the review. You can't find any of my GA's 'cause I haven't got any, nor reviewed any, but I'm not working on that sort of basis, jokes aside. Thanks for your comments.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 09:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I appreciate your concerns but that is exactly what I was keen to dismiss you from thinking. I was a little heated/uppity in my response here as I didn't want you thinking that just because I said about the "tit for tat" review at the same time that this in any way would jeopardise the productivity of the reviews or make them any poorer than if anybody else had reviewed them in a few weeks. I can see though, especially as Gilderien appears to be newbie at reviewing that you might have thought this and this is why you spoke here as you found it concerning to the fair GA process. BTW User:Grapple X.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
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: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
I made some adjustments. I would generally prefer history and architecture to be separate but in this particular circumstance I think its fine. I think this just meets requirements now for a small village church.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much, especially for your many minor changes that I simply had not seen. Your check is in the post ;) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The final two sentences of the Modern usage section need to have a reliable source citation, or to be removed. Since there was a correction made to this section quite recently, I imagine the source does exist. Let's get the citation in there. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, this wasn't my source, but the churches together section is a reference for the fact that they hold a joint Christmas eve service, but not that it is in the Church, could I get away with this as a source?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't think that source works. There's no mention of the harvest festival, and as you note it's deficient in specifying which church does Christmas eve. Is the source you used for these two sentences not reliable, that you don't just use it? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
No, it was an official church announcement, but it's not online and I can't get hold of a copy offline at the moment.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Church of Saint Oswald, King and Martyr, Oswaldkirk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930073802/http://www.history.ac.uk/eseminars/sem2.html to http://www.history.ac.uk/eseminars/sem2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)