Talk:Affective piety/GA1

GA Review

GA Nomination failed for outstanding issues that could not be corrected at this time. No prejudice to future re-nominations if/when there is motivation to correct the issues raised. Hasteur (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Hasteur (talk · contribs) 12:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Clear, copyright good, spelling and grammar good. Concise on the other hand is really pushing it. If it were me, I'd look at spinning the "Revising the consensus" section off into a subpage as it takes up a very large chunk of the overall content which is contesting the "current scholarly consensus".
	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.	Just by eyeballing the reference section I can see at least a couple references that could be unified by naming the reference (ex: Southern. The Making of the Middle Ages. p. 232.) Could we get a reference combining tool ran over this to try and condense the list of references?
	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.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Again, same issue Identified in 1A. If some of the sections could be condensed, that would be superb.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The "Challange to the current consensus" gives a good balance IMO
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No active edit wars, and I see that other users (such as Altenmaeren have been contributing positively to this.
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.	All Images come from Wikimedia Commons and have appropriate justifications for why Copyright has expired or is not applicable.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Dead links tagged in this rev need to be addressed. Hasteur (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Mm2cat is the article's primary author - I nominated the page on his behalf. I will be helping out fixing things as desired (I'll go ahead and take care of the dead URLs), but want to give him opportunity to chime in. He is not a regular Wikipedia, so some patience on the promptness of his replies would be desirable. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several factors weighing heavily in favor of this GA candidate in my book. The current list of issues that are holding this up from being a GA are the 1A and 3B categories. While 2A is a personal pain point, it's not enough to sink this GA attempt. Putting back in the court of ThaddeusB and Mm2cat to address the issues. Hasteur (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just randomly remembered this and will be taking a look at fixing up the problems this week. Sorry for the delay. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 1A--scholars in my field really like this piece as it is. Would you want me to document this approbation? Re: 2A--I'm fine with some rationalization/abbreviation of references. Re: 3B:--Same as 1A MAE (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mm2cat scholars in your field can request that it be written in iambic pentameter. I'm saying that as an editor on Wikipedia (and a reader as well) the idea is to have potentially 1 paragraph explaining how the subject has changed with a WP:SPINOUT style page. Rememeber this is considering the average wikipedia user not the scholars in the field. Hasteur (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, it's been over a month and a half since the above, and the article has not been edited that I can see to address any of your issues. I think it is probably time to close the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Life has militated against me getting anything done. If the nomination needs to be closed...so be it. Would I be able to request a new nomination once I get the work done? MAE (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.