# Talk:Shrine of the Immaculate Conception

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shrine of the Immaculate Conception/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 19:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I will review this article. It's an interesting and beautiful building, and since I love church architecture, I'm honored to do so. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This is a nice article about a beautiful building that's full of history and significance to the city of Atlanta.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
I did a spot-check on a few of the sources; from what I looked at, it looks like this article is meticuloously sourced. Nice job.
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
I'm AGF about this, since I don't know enough about the topic to review if it's broad enough. It looks likely that the editors followed the research; nice job.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
Vwey stable.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Images are fine for GA, although I have one question/suggestion. There are only four images and a map; are there more images available of the building (inside and out), its surroundings, and of the people mentioned? With such a historic building, I wonder if there are free images or images in the common domain? The one article about a historic church that I successfully brought through FAC (Stanford Memorial Church), has bunches of images and it's only 120 years old. Like I said, just a suggestion, perhaps to make this article pop more.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Such an easy pass and a pleasure to read. If you could expand it a bit more, it'd be good for FAC, I think. Best of luck as you work on more sacred spaces in Atlanta.