# Talk:St Nicholas Church, Chiswick

This review is transcluded from Talk:St Nicholas Church, Chiswick/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 13:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


### Initial comments
This article doesn't need much input from a reviewer. A few very minor points you may like to consider:

History
"The church was formally visited" – I have a vague idea what visitation means in this context, but most readers won't have even that, and a link or brief explanation of the term would be a kindness.
Linked and glossed.
"Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein married Betty Carver in the church on 27 July 1927" – no he didn't: Major (acting Lt-Col) Bernard Law Montgomery did. We usually try to give people the labels that applied at the time of which we are writing. The "Fred Smith, later Lord Gruntfuttock" formula will do the trick.
Done.
Architecture
"Hoodmould" – the OED hyphenates hood-mould
Done.
Monuments
"the Italian government, as part of its campaign of glorification of the new Italian republic" – republic? Under King Victor Emmanuel II?
State it is.
Refs
Not that it matters for GAN, where consistency of referencing format is not a requirement, but I wonder why there is a single book with bibliographical details in the References section when the others are in Sources. (And I don't believe the capitalisation you've given the title of Riall's book.)
Fixed, Riall to Sources and Title Case.
That's my lot. Nothing to cause alarm and despondency. Over to you. Tim riley talk 13:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tim! Done all those. Always a pleasure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
A pleasure for me too. All fine now, so:


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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: 
Well referenced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Well referenced.
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: 
Tim riley talk 14:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)