Talk:Catholic social teaching/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 21, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
One dead link has been tagged; there is an outstanding citation needed tag which needs addressing; parenthetical references need turning into in-line cites to footnotes to maintain consistency; references to news sources, e.g. the Bono statement need attributing to the newspaper publisher, publication date, etc.; the statement that European Union law is directly influenced by Rerum novarum needs citing; the statement on Christian democracy appears to be original research; as mentioned below the artcile relies heavily on official documents (primary sources) there are few independent RS; ref #44 [1] doesn't support the statement.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The tag on the section on catholic social teaching the US needs addressing.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The article relies almost entirely on official church documents and there is no reflection of external non church points of view.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
No images have been used
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I think a fair bit of work needs to be done to turn this into an encyclopaedic article on the subject. Currently it appears to be a re-hash of the Catholic churches position without any inedependent commentary from reliable thrird party sources. On hold for seven days. Major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of the article is what the church itself teaches, so we can expect a lot of Catholic sources. An article on the ideals of John Carnegie would necessarily include a lot of quotes from his work. The major issue here seems to be one of getting a wider range of sources and comment. I don't think this would be too difficult to achieve. Xandar 23:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I do understand that there will be a lot of primary sources but there should be some balancing interpretation from independent 3rd party sources too. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it has been eight days, and although a few minor fixes have been made the major problems listed above remain. Consequently, I am de-listing this now. When the issues have been addressed it can be re-nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this assessment it may be challenged at WP:GAR. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]