Talk:Eucharist in Lutheranism/GA1

GA Review

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

First Pass

This article does not appear to me to rate GA status.

• wiki tag -- for pete's sake, how can a GA have a tag like this right at the start?
• Weasel words tags. For pete's sake...in a GA nominee?
• Last Supper image. OK, this is sort of vaguely relevant, but really...
• Lead: Is a complete mess. Please revise based on MOS.
• Citations: Hardly any, and certainly not enough. How can you say Although there is agreement among most Lutheran branches on the core meaning of the Eucharist, there is also a significant divide between conservative and liberal beliefs. and not have any references? I've added a few tags for starters.
• Text says "at the front of the church with a rail (as seen in the picture below)" but no rail is shown.
• Spelling. Please run a spell check. Some words are commenly misspelled.
• Stability: changes are not numerous, but they are significant and substantial. It's not clear that this article has achieved a consensus view.

Here's what the automated peer reviewer says:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Nemonoman (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I will give this a few days for Major Repairs, but I would fail it today if I were hard-hearted. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made various edits to this article due to its inadequate expression and information. There is no way that it is anywhere near a "good" article at present. It is, in fact, a very inadequate article for a number of reasons. It needs a major overhaul. Afterwriting (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Findings

Since no editors have made any positive comments or made any attempts to fix even the most glaring problems, I reluctantly FAIL this article's Good Article Nomination. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)