Talk:International Pentecostal Holiness Church/GA1

GA Review #1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hello, I will start the GA review within the next four days. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I am currently evaluating the article and will post results within the next 48 hours. Best wishes, Majoreditor (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: The prose is uneven. For example, see the last sentence in the lead: Traditionally centered in the Southeastern United States (the Carolinas and Georgia), the church today has an international presence which it has had to adjust to. The parenthetical statement is awkward, and the final clause, "which it has had to adjust to", isn't well crafted.

   B. MoS compliance: There are several MoS problems. Firstly, the lead is short and doesn't adequately encapsulate the article. Secondly, the body of the article contains several short, choppy sections. The "Schism" section consists of just three brief sentences, while the "People" section is a mere single sentence. Thirdly, the "Doctrine" section needs to be less of an embedded list and instead use prose to describe the denomination's beliefs. Finally, the article needs a good copy edit. I've corrected several minor punctuation issues but didn't manage to fix all of them.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable? Unfortunately, the article suffers from a lack of independent reliable sources. The bulk of the article's references are self-published by the denomination. Certain assertions, such as the number of adherents, should source from reliable third-party sources.
3. Is it broad in its coverage? Pass.

   A. Major aspects: Pass.

   B. Focused: Pass.

4. Is it neutral? Pass.
5. Is it stable? Pass.
6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: Unfortunately, the logo image does not include copyright information and the non-free use rationale that it should.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Pass.

Overall: While the article is admirable in many ways, it doesn't yet meet GA standards. There are several major issues which need addressing, such as the citations to reliable, independent sources and the image non-free use details. As a result, I cannot pass the article. Rather than placing the nomination on hold, it's best to give the article's editors the time they need to fix the issues raised in this evaluation. The article can then be re-nominated at GAN.

Don't be mad or discouraged. The article is off to a solid start; with some additional work this article will meet GA criteria. Best wishes, Majoreditor (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.