Wikipedia:Peer review/Egami Church/archive1

Egami Church

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to make sure it fits the MOS and that no vital information is missing, I hope to nominate this for GA soon.

Thanks, Tai123.123 (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RoseCherry64

Lead

• Y First sentence does not end with a period.
• Y Not sure why
  MOS:ITALICTITLE
  doesn't seem to apply.

History

• Y Wikilink Naru Island.
• Y Comma after "the location of Egami Church".
• Y "this allowed them to" -> "allowing them to", flows better.
• Comma after "In [years]".
• Y Quote shouldn't be italic.
• "immigrated from" -> "emigrated from"
• Comma after "preexisting villages on the island".
• "its current state in 1919." should end with a comma, not a period
• "as a Important Cultural Property" -> "as an"

Architecture

• Y Put ref tag after "the finest wooden churches in Japan", it looks like you're citing that it's one of the finest wooden churches in general.
• Y Comma after "in Japan".

Cited sources

• Y The Japanese references do not have transliterations. I don't think this is required, but it gives people who can't read Japanese more context about the source.
• Y UNESCO source is repeated with different page numbers. To reduce
  WP:INLINECLUTTER, consider using something like <ref>{{harvnb|UNESCO World Heritage Centre|2017|p=82}}</ref> after the first cite. You also need to add a tag for works without authors with harvnb, see Template:Sfn#No author name in citation template
  for how to do this.
• Y UNESCO is written as Unesco in the reference.
• Y 横坂剛比古（MARO） -> |last=Yokosaka |first=Takehiko

Not really sure how much this has left for GA, really, but there were numerous issues I spotted on a quick look. RoseCherry64 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RoseCherry64 Thank you, I'm unsure how to follow through with the second citation tip you listed so if you have the time could you do it for me. Is there any other problems you see know Tai123.123 (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I will look through the article later and see if I have anything to add. RoseCherry64 (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more points. As for this being considered for good article status, I think it's too short and doesn't cover everything expected for a fairly comprehensive article about a church. A major problem is that there's nothing about the interior of the church in the article at all. RoseCherry64 (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RoseCherry64, I added content on the interior and expanded the history. Can you check if its enough and if its grammatically correct Tai123.123 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]