# Talk:Christ Church, Newton

This review is transcluded from Talk:Christ Church, Newton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Drmies (talk · contribs) 01:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comments
JackTheVicar, I'm almost done with this--just a few little things. I noticed that the references don't seem to be perfectly consistent. In note 4, the title needs italics; you could add "Newton Town", pages 4-5, if you like, for clarity. In note 5, the title needs quotation marks. Note 7 has "Newton, NJ" for the publication place, but note 8 has "Trenton, New Jersey". Please use one or the other consistently throughout--many references have the state in them. In note 13, I don't know why it says "citing a letter" in the middle of the reference. Wait: you mean to say that the website cites Ogden. The references needs to be the other way around, with the entry being the letter and the website (merely) the place of publication. Note 24 needs page numbers for the Lamb articleThere may be more--I would just ask you to go through those references with a fine comb so we can tick this off and get its on its way. I made some tweaks, including changing the column width for the citations from 33 to 30--on my screen that is a dramatic improvement. Hope you don't mind. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Drmies - I appreciate your taking this GA review on, I have been a long-time fan of your work and it's an honour to have an opportunity to collaborate with you. I have never noticed a difference between 33em and 30em, or rather I haven't been told what specific difference to notice, so I'll defer to your judgment on that fix. I think I addressed the note issues you identified and explained above--my legal education was always "(more recent) case X, citing (older) case y" and I see some of the style guides say your suggestion is the proper one for the humanities. Note 4 puzzled me a bit when I addressed it moments ago--since there's no guidance in style guides on how to format that kind of document. Did I format it correctly (i.e. with inserting "Newton Town" as per your suggestion)? I think I fixed a few issues with reference consistency (adding PA to Philadelpha, MA to Boston), I don't see any remaining issues regarding consistency that jump out on me. JackTheVicar (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Jack, I'm passing it. Yes, one of the reasons I picked it is that it had been sitting for so long, and I knew it was going to be a relatively easy review: you do good work.A few things. That reference 4, I looked at it and figured that one way to do it (it's a rather odd document--not a book, not an article) is to tread your "entry" as an entry in a larger work, by analogy with "work from an anthology". It looks nicer and it's a good opportunity to stick page numbers in. The cited letter, that's the way I was taught to do such things but, yes, I'm from a humanities background; it's pretty much the "quoted in" type of formatting. I don't do abbreviations for states (MLA advises against it) but it's fine if you want to do it and for this kind of article, where you frequently use...what's the word...less widely disseminated material, it makes sense. I mean, it doesn't make sense to add "NY" to "New York" if you're citing a book published by W. W. Norton, but this material is different, and thus adding the states is fine.Anyway, pleasure working with you: it was brief, but that's your fault since the article was in fine shape. All the best, Drmies (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Forgot one thing: I couldn't have predicted that 33 --> 30 would really make a difference but on my screen it did. This may be completely arbitrary, but I think it's a magic number--if only because 30em is what a wise man always chose, one of those dinosaurs from the Wiki past. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)