Talk:More popular than Jesus/GA1
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Oishiisou (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Well written? edit
On the whole, well written - but the article would benefit from some reorganization in the first two paragraphs. It would be better to move "Lennon originally made the remark . . . provoked no public reaction" to the end of the second paragraph to avoid the awkward repeating of "five months later in 1966 . . ."
Citations? edit
A citation is needed in the third paragraph for "Christian spokesmen pointed out that . . ." Additional citations are also needed in the final paragraph of the background section for "The decline of Christianity had been the subject of regular discussion in the UK since the First World War." The citations in this paragraph are all from Gould's book on the Beatles - which is not an adequate source on the state of Christianity in the UK.
Broad, neutral, stable and illustrated? edit
Yes, yes, yes and yes.
Questionable title edit
I'm in agreement with several folks on the talk page who felt that the title should be more along the lines of "Beatles more popular than Jesus controversy". At present, the title doesn't indicate any connection to the Beatles.
As I am a new editor, I'd appreciate a second opinion. Oishiisou (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Resubmit for GA Review edit
While the enthusiasm of this new editor is admirable, the editor does not yet have the knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or Manual of Style to assess articles. Accordingly, it is recommended that the requesting editor resubmit the article for GA assessment and review. Thank you, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Are there any issues you can see with the article that prevent it from meeting the GA criteria? —Andrewstalk 21:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Adabow in this case, as I see no major obstacles to it becoming a GA. BTW, as this article has been on the GA list since 12 May 2011, it would be most unfortunate indeed to have to resubmit it for another very long period of time, only to have another editor to come along because they want to "help out", but are not experienced enough.--andreasegde (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- While I don't have time at the moment for a thorough review, I can clearly see that there are several statements made that are not sourced, an external link that appears to be improperly linked to a YouTube video in violation of copyright, POV statements, and section headers that are not in compliance with the MOS. "No major obstacles" does not equate to GA status. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 00:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Can you just list them? It would take all of ten minutes to fix them. (Youtube links are allowed in External links, BTW).--andreasegde (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- While I don't have time at the moment for a thorough review, I can clearly see that there are several statements made that are not sourced, an external link that appears to be improperly linked to a YouTube video in violation of copyright, POV statements, and section headers that are not in compliance with the MOS. "No major obstacles" does not equate to GA status. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 00:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Adabow in this case, as I see no major obstacles to it becoming a GA. BTW, as this article has been on the GA list since 12 May 2011, it would be most unfortunate indeed to have to resubmit it for another very long period of time, only to have another editor to come along because they want to "help out", but are not experienced enough.--andreasegde (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I've had enough of this. I will now take all of the articles I have nominated for a GA review off the list. At some time in the future (when some good and reliable GA reviewers return after their summer holidays), I will nominate them again. The GA reviews have become a joke.--andreasegde (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)