Talk:Eucharist in Lutheranism/GA1

GA Review

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

First Pass

This article does not appear to me to rate GA status.

wiki tag -- for pete's sake, how can a GA have a tag like this right at the start?
Weasel words tags. For pete's sake...in a GA nominee?
Last Supper image. OK, this is sort of vaguely relevant, but really...
Lead: Is a complete mess. Please revise based on MOS.
Citations: Hardly any, and certainly not enough. How can you say Although there is agreement among most Lutheran branches on the core meaning of the Eucharist, there is also a significant divide between conservative and liberal beliefs. and not have any references? I've added a few ^{[citation needed]} tags for starters.
Text says "at the front of the church with a rail (as seen in the picture below)" but no rail is shown.
Spelling. Please run a spell check. Some words are commenly misspelled.
Stability: changes are not numerous, but they are significant and substantial. It's not clear that this article has achieved a consensus view.

Here's what the automated peer reviewer says:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Nemonoman (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will give this a few days for Major Repairs, but I would fail it today if I were hard-hearted. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made various edits to this article due to its inadequate expression and information. There is no way that it is anywhere near a "good" article at present. It is, in fact, a very inadequate article for a number of reasons. It needs a major overhaul. Afterwriting (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Findings

Since no editors have made any positive comments or made any attempts to fix even the most glaring problems, I reluctantly FAIL this article's Good Article Nomination. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]