Talk:Scottish religion in the eighteenth century/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 17:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sabrebd, I will be performing a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. I don't think I have anything to stress at the moment, but will respond when you have begun to post comments. All the best.--SabreBD (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Sabrebd, I've completed both a thorough and comprehensive review of your article and I assess that it exceeds the criteria for Good Article status. I do, however, have a few suggestions and comments that should be addressed prior to its passage to Good Article status. Thank you for all your efforts in researching and writing this article, and for all your tremendous contributions to Wikipedia. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede adequately stands alone as a concise overview of Scottish religion in the eighteenth century. The lede defines accomplishments of the various religious sects in eighteenth-century Scotland, establishes context for these sects, explains why these religious sects in Scotland is notable, and summarizes the most important points of Scottish religion in the eighteenth century.
• The image of a Scottish minister and his congregation has been released into the Public Domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
• I suggest wiki-linking Presbyterian to Presbyterianism in the first paragraph.

 Done

• Lay patrons should also be wiki-linked to Laity.

 Done

• Rather than "United kingdom," perhaps consider using "Kingdom of Great Britain" or just "Great Britain."

 Done

• Abbreviations or acronyms should usually be preceded by a first mention of the full name, but I understand given the full name "Society in Scotland for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge" why you've chosen SSPCK. Since it links directly to a paragraph on the subject, I'm fine with its use here.

OK. I put it in full in the text. SSPCK is unusual in that it is more famous by its initials.

• For those of us outside of Scotland and unfamiliar with Scots terms, I would suggest wiki-linking Kirk to the Kirk article.

 Done

• The lede's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within the prose below, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Church of Scotland

• The image of William Robertson, Principal of the University of Edinburgh, is released into the Public Domain and is therefore suitable for use here.
• For the birth and death years of notable persons, consider using the "–" dash consistently for all, and for dates throughout the article.

 Done

• I know sources may be limited, and this is just a suggestion and not a deal breaker for Good Article status, but is there any further information on how a New England theologian like Edwards had such an influence on religious movements in Scotland?

The problem here is that there is rather too much written on this. Whole books are devoted to it. I will have to see if I can source and summarise something that does not overwhelm the article.--SabreBD (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sabrebd, what you've included in the article is sufficient. Should you find additional information on the influence of Edwards in Scotland, no more than two or three sentences are needed. -- West Virginian (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within the prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Secession

• The image of Ebenezer Erskine has been released into the Public Domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
• Would it read better in the first paragraph if rather than "that had been created in the Reformation," it was stated "that had its foundation in the Reformation?" Again, this is merely a suggestion.

 Done

• This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within the prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Episcopalianism

• The image of John Paterson has been released into the Public Domain and is therefore suitable for use in this section.
• "Regime changes" may work better here rather than "changes of regime."

 Done

• It wouldn't hurt to wiki-link Queen Anne here.

 Done

• While Wikipedia:Inline citation does not provide guidance on the usage of inline citations within the middle of a sentence, I would suggest considering consolidating inline citations at the end of sentences to improve the overall flow. Again, this is merely something to consider and it is not a deal breaker for Good Article status.

 Done

• Hanoverians should also be wiki-linked to House of Hanover.

 Done

• Penal laws could also be wiki-linked to Penal law (British), for those unfamiliar with the term.

 Done

• This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within the prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Cameronians

• This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within the prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Independent churches

• The image of Robert Haldane is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here.

 Done

• This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within the prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Minor sects

• The image of David Dale has been released into the Public Domain and is therefore suitable for use in this article.
• This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within the prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Catholicism

• The image of Lord George Gordon has been released into the Public Domain and is therefore acceptable for use in this section.
• Even though it is probably obvious, I would give temporal context to the first sentence of this section. I would suggest beginning the sentence or ending the sentence with something like "By the eighteenth century."

 Done

• Monarchs are mentioned above by specific name, but here the Pope is mentioned as "the Pope." The Pope who would have appointed Thomas Nicolson was Pope Innocent X.

 Done - mentioned by name.

• The Lord George Gordon caption content should be listed in the prose of the section.

 Done

• This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within the prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Missions

• This section should probably be titled "Protestant missions" as it does not mention "Catholic missions."

 Done

• This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within the prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Evangelical Revival

• The image of George Whitefield has been released into the Public Domain and is therefore suitable for use here in this article.
• In the second paragraph, rather than groups, should this be "classes?"

Not classes or really orders in the scholarly sense.--SabreBD (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within the prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Religion and society

• The image of the The Black Stool has been released into the Public Domain and is acceptable for use in this section.
• Sabbatarianism can be de-linked in the second paragraph since it is wiki-linked above in the previous section.

 Done

• The image of the Scottish communion token is licensed CC0 and is suitable for use here.
• This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within the prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

• Sabrebd, upon further review of the article, I find that you have incorporated many of my above suggestions and have sufficiently addressed my comments. It is hereby my pleasure to pass this article to Good Article status! Congratulations on another a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. There are one or two useful suggestions that I will come back to when I have time. Thanks again for a clear, helpful and rapid review. Much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)