Talk:Thrivent/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 04:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

• Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
• If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
• Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See commentary
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	See commentary
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.	See commentary
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See commentary
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	See commentary
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See commentary
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

• This article has outstanding tags, and an unresolved merge tag. There is an 'expand section' tag indicating this article is not suitably broad.
• Several statements in this article are unsourced. Additionally, many sources are from the website of said organisation, which impacts on neutrality (it is the use of these sources, rather than the content from the source itself, which does this). Sources should be secondary sources, meaning that they are are not associated with the thing they are describing.
• This article contains a large amount of images of different buildings. I would suggest remove one or two for readability, or place them in a gallery format for readability, but this will not impact on GA promotion.

As it stands, I do not believe this article is ready for GA status. I will be happy to discuss this review and would encourage re-nomination when these issues have been addressed.--LT910001 (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

It has been a week and no changes have been made to the article or response from the nominee. I would encourage renomination when the above items are addressed. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)