Talk:Miracle of the roses/GA1

GA Review

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 26, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass. The writing is good, making the topic interesting. However, the article could use a good copyedit and a few polishing touches.

2. Factually accurate?: Fail. Some sources need pages numbers. Given the abundance of sources available on this topic, I am wary of the use of significantly outdated sources. There are certainly more current and authorative sources available in some cases. Most concerning is the use of sources that do not fully support the article text. For example: "She would carry bread hidden in her clothes to feed these prisoners; one day, when caught, they were miraculously changed into roses." is supported by a source that says nothing more than: :"St. Casilda, V. 1126 Roses in her lap (bread changed into them)"

3. Broad in coverage?: Fail. This is nothing more than the summary of a few legends about the miracle. The miracle featured very prominently in Christian thought and symbolism for a period of time and has left an enduring impression upon orthodox (small o) Christianity. The legends need to be placed in better historical context and far more attention needs to be devoted to the symbolism and theological interpretations.

4. Neutral point of view?: Fail. This article fails to cover historical and theological aspects in any significant depth.

5. Article stability? Pass. The article is stable.

6. Images?: Comment. The series of three pictures of the saints make the formatting very unweildly.

The topic has a lot of potential, but a fair amount of effort is needed to improve the referencing and expand the coverage.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Vassyana (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)