Talk:Prayer in the Catholic Church/GA1

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: Rawlangs (talk · contribs) 23:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Criteria edit

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review edit

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Overall, the prose does not read smoothly. For instance, it is unclear how the content of Belief in Prayer actually relates to the title of that section. Why, in explicating the catholic belief in prayer, is it necessary to know that Jesus prayed? I am not saying that it isn't important, but to a non-Catholic, it is not clear how it is important. The section reads like a collection of summaries of primary sources. Rather than summarizing, try to make factual claims supported by those sources that help readers understand their underlying concepts and why they are important. Some sections are written better than others. The section Forms of prayer is clearly written in that it provides factual information related to its topic, but only discusses petition, leaving out the signposted blessing, intercession, thanksgiving, and praise. Lack of signposting is a consistent problem in the article, and contributes to the overall lack of clarity. The section on devotions appears to be well written but fails completely to explain what a devotion is, which should be the obvious starting point of a section on devotions. There are many more problems in this article. Editors should start by fixing the ones listed above. A solid understanding of WP:BETTER will help editors make improvements to this article.	Fail
(b) (MoS)	There are errors and inconsistencies in punctuation (see WP:PUNCT), especially relating to the integration of footnotes (the number goes directly after the punctuation mark, not before, and a space follows the citation unless followed directly by another citation; see WP:FN). The lead does little to summarize the content of the article. Nothing in the lead, for instance, led me to expect I would be reading about either devotions or methods of prayer. There are many, many style problems in this article. Someone with a solid understanding of WP:Style needs to go over it carefully and repeatedly to clean it up. To comply with GA standards, the lead needs to be completely rewritten to comply with WP:LEAD, and someone needs to carefully address the many problems with paragraphing to comply with WP:LAYOUT.	Fail

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	There is a flag at the top of this article, which would typically qualify the article for quick failing, but I see the reference list as salvageable. As it stands, the article has references to all of its information, but many of these references are incomplete and poorly formatted. The sources are sometimes presented as bare URLs. URLs are susceptible to link rot. If the page ever changes, the link will no longer work and nobody will know how to verify the information in the article. Use the reference templates available in the cite tab when doing your references, and accurately fill out as many of those fields as you can so that even if the link dies, the information can still be found. If you cite books, make sure readers know what book is being cited. Citing the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" is fine, but cite the specific publication that was accessed. To a non Catholic person, the citation looks like it refers to a page number. As few editions of the CCC extend over a thousand pages, this could cause serious confusion. Give a full citation and your readers will thank you. Same goes for quoting the bible: let the reader know exactly what version you are quoting. The current references are inviting inconsistency and lost information and should be overhauled as soon as possible for clarity's sake. Few, but some, references in this article are properly and excellently formatted. Sermon notes of John Henry Cardinal Newman is a good example. Despite the problems, since it is possible to hunt down all of the information if I'm willing to figure out what exactly each reference is referring to, this section gets a marginal pass.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The vast majority of referenced works, with a few exceptions, are reliable. Try to find a better source for links like "Mother Teresa Prayers —" at some point, as there is little on that page to recommend it as a reliable source of information. Go to the library. There's loads of information on Mother Teresa in paper bound books if you're willing to look. In general, a very good job on sourcing information.	Pass
(c) (original research)	There is no obviously original research, though I would not claim to be an expert on the subject.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article fails to even talk about the aspects of prayer it promises to talk about. After reading teachings on prayer, I did not feel I even got an overview on teachings on prayer. There has to be more than two perspectives in the Catholic Church, and the article fails to unpack even the two it mentions. Expressions of Prayer does not address all of the forms of expression it signposts, and there are more types of expression. I've heard of nuns dancing the Hail Mary, and I would consider that an expression. The Song of Songs, as I recall, has some very interesting things to say about the expression of prayer. There is just so much material left on the table throughout the article. More research needs to be done, as this is a huge topic.	Fail
(b) (focused)	Because of the poor quality of the lead, the article lacks organization and thrust. Without a good lead, I have no notion of what the scope of the article should be, and so I have no way of knowing whether it goes off course. I don't think it does, but I'm only guessing without someone suggesting a structure. As it stands, the article is largely a loosely organized collection of quotations from primary sources. Is devotion a type of prayer? It's not listed in the types or expressions of prayer, and not explained in any way. Is this out of scope? Hard to say. A good lead will, I'm sure, help integrate the various sections into a cohesive whole. Write the lead!	Fail

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The article appears to be heavily and systemically biased. (See WP:BIAS) This type of bias can show itself as an exclusion of information. I would assume most of the people working on this article are Catholic. I would recommend trying to revise the article under the assumption that non-Catholics are reading it, and trying to provide useful and complete information to them. The article should be useful to someone with literally no prior knowledge of Catholicism. There are about 1.2 billion Catholics. That leaves about six billion non-Catholic potential readers. Reach out to them!	Fail

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
There do not seem to be any edit wars, though there probably should be if the article expands to the point it should. Very few people can agree on the same religious matters. There is so much diversity in prayer, even within Catholicism, and the issue can be so touchy and prone to heated disagreement that I am honestly surprised that this article is not under constant revision. However, this is not a reason to fail it in this category. Start some arguments if you feel strongly on a subject! Be bold in your edits! It can only improve the article in the long run.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Good job here. What about some images of people engaged in prayer though? There must be some on Wikimedia, and as people still pray, there should probably be images of them doing so.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The images all belong here, but the captions could use some minor work. All of them should conform to MOS:CAPTION, but this is a minor point. Good job.	Pass

Result edit

Result	Notes
Fail	The lead and early sections of the article need to be completely rewritten for clarity, and need to relate better to their headings. There is major systemic bias. There needs to be a lot more information included before the scope of the content aligns with the scope implied by the article title. Workshop the content, then start and resolve some arguments. What exactly, beyond the definition, is prayer? What does it mean to the average Catholic? Everything in the article needs to have a logical and readily apparent reason for being there for a non-Catholic person. Start by fixing what I have mentioned, then re-apply for GA status. You'll make it!

Discussion edit

Please add any related discussion here.

Perhaps this subject could be reeopened now with the refurbished article? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Additional Notes edit

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Add topic

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]