Talk:Baby Jesus theft/GA1

GA Review

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

Interesting article subject. My initial suggestion would be to get rid of local news sources, and stick to national and international media which address the phenomenon generally. That will help us better determine what points are important. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article! I have done as recommended. ItsLassieTime (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the changes to the article! I've created the "Perspectives" section as suggested. Good idea! ItsLassieTime (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Bryant source belongs in the lead. I would suggest either integrating it into the Perspectives section or making it an external link. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I wondered about that half a dozen times. I was going to delete it entirely. I've moved it to exlinks. ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the statement "Some Babies Jesus have been defaced with profanity or Satanic symbols" needs a better context. Currently it appears to have just been thrown in. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a local news story from Arkansas on this. Would that suffice? ItsLassieTime (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it works now. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the first sentence of the "Perspectives" section: "Baby Jesus thefts are often viewed as teenage pranks bordering on sin and blasphemy." Can we restate this in a less awkward manner? PSWG1920 (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• "While many Baby Jesus thefts are regarded as pranks, they are sometimes considered slightly more serious than most because they involve a religious icon." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we need more details about security measures. I merged that section with "Incidents" as the former was only one paragraph, but it could still be lengthened a bit. I think I just confused two incidents reported by the same article, so I'll try to fix that. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The underlying problem with the paragraph as I see it is that it doesn't differentiate between physical security measures (i.e. fastening down or locking) and surveillance (i.e. camera or GPS). The example of the man saying "it would be like putting Jesus in jail" is in reference to a suggestion regarding the former, but that quote currently follows a discussion of surveillance measures. Maybe we could have one paragraph discussing physical security, and one discussing surveillance? PSWG1920 (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's taken care of. I think the section still needs to be ironed out a bit. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll soon go through the article once more and check it against each GA criteria, but I think it is likely there. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Final review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I'm no expert on the Wikipedia Manual of Style, but from what I know I don't see any problems in this regard.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

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

   Fair use rationale seems legitimate, since it would be hard to find a free image illustrating this concept.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Well done, ItsLassieTime, ReverendLogos, and the others who contributed. This now appears to me to meet the GA criteria. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)