Talk:Live Prayer/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This is the review page. I am opening it now as the nominator has stated he will be around for the GA review and so I will add review comments later. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have fixed some of the inline references. However, the online sources all need publisher, access date, and author, if there is one.
• All references must meet WP:RS. Some of them seem to fail. e.g. http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=43286 - this seems to be a reader comment page.

—Mattisse (Talk) 03:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Writing is sloppy - I have removed some verbiage and duplication, here [[1]] and here [[2]], but there is plenty more - and here [[3]]. Not sure of the current usage in the USA but in British English "Evangelical" and "Evangelistic" have distinct and different meanings - see line 1 of the article. Good article? I would say not. Springnuts (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• I thank you for adding to the article and have to agree that this is not a GA. The nominator of the article is not working on it and does not seem available.

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Article is poorly written with choppy, short sentences b (MoS): References are incorrectly formatted with missing publishers, dates etc.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Seems to be factually accurate b (citations to reliable sources): There are may good references c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Needs to fill out the content b (focused): yes

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article has potential, as there are many good references. However the writing is poor. Sorry!

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)