# Talk:Church Missions House

This review is transcluded from Talk:Church Missions House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 23:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Add a short description and then WP:ALT text to every image."an offshoot of Swedish photography museum" → "an offshoot of the Swedish photography museum"
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

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: 

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Thanks. I have done these. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Epicgenius not sure if you can access this source (I can't) but looks like a little on the future. Star Mississippi 21:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up @Star Mississippi. I don't have access to this yet, but maybe when ProQuest updates its database in 2-3 days. Nonetheless, that is an interesting development. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Very. I wonder if the 2022 sale that wasn't going to impact the museum's lease ever happened. Curious what its future will hold. Star Mississippi 03:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)