Talk:Jeremy Pemberton (priest)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jeremy Pemberton (priest)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eviolite (talk · contribs) 17:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Will review this one today or tomorrow. eviolite (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Here's my review. The article definitely needs work to get it to GA standard, though I think it's not to the point of a quickfail.

General comments:

• Is there any more info available on his early/prior life? I know at the very least sources say he had been a priest for over 30 years, which should be mentioned.
• Sourcing is good.
• No images, fine as presumably none are available, but if a free one does become available please do add it.
• There are close paraphrasing issues. See Earwig. I recommend rewriting the entire "journey to priesthood" section, in addition to the specific phrases used in Buzzfeed, including:
  • exempts the church from performing same-sex ceremonies – and canon law, which defines marriage
  • after the wedding, Lowson sent Pemberton a written rebuke which arrived during the couple's honeymoon.
  • a registrar of the London diocese, a "top London solicitor who was there apparently to take notes for the Archbishop of Canterbury", a legal secretary from the General Synod, and a legal representative of the CofE Pensions Board, as well as barristers and solicitors from both sides. Pemberton was cross-examined for seven hours,
• Otherwise I cannot feel comfortable promoting this.

Specifics:

• Lead is a bit bare-bones and might want to go into a bit more detail. At the very least, link Church of England and combine the two sentences into one paragraph. Also, is there any reason for the long-winded construction "marriage with a person of the same gender in 2014."
• You use the abbreviation "CofE" in the infobox and prose - should be clarified to mean "Church of England" at least on the first occurrence.
• Was there some context removed in the Marriage section? Cunnington is first mentioned without a forename which should definitely be fixed - maybe move it into the Background section, with the prose mention of the marriage.
• What does canon law being "protected" mean in this context? Please reword/clarify.
• Why is "sang" used? As someone who is not really familiar with religious topics I would expect something such as "preached" instead, but there is probably a better verb.
• "and he no initial objections;" - you missed a word here.
• Link Richard Inwood and Diocese of Southwell and Nottingham.
• Note the abbreviation for NHS at first mention (in the lede)
• What does "the Lincolnshire trust" refer to?
• Link Registrar (Church of England) and Diocese of London (though, again, this part should be completely rewritten due to copyright concerns.)
• Link Queen's Counsel
• I do not believe the massive quote from Tatchell is necessary, see WP:OQ.

@AFreshStart: See above comments. Placing on standard 7 day hold. eviolite (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review! I have tried to fix up a lot of the copyvio/close paraphrasing from the BuzzFeed source (my apologies). Added that he had been a priest for over 30 years beforehand into the lead and the prose (was not sure what else to add to the lead), but unfortunately I couldn't find any more information on this that wasn't already included in the article. Also decided to remove the "CofE" acronym from the article as it seems a little unencyclopaedic and done the rest of your edits as requested; hopefully this is an improvement! —AFreshStart (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: sorry for the confusion/delay but are you done making changes after my initial comments? If so I will take a second pass tomorrow; I hadn't realized since I'm more used to editors addressing comments inline when they are ready (though of course that isn't at all necessary.) eviolite (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Eviolite: Ah sorry, I'm still getting my head around the norms of GA reviews! I've done making changes, thank you. –AFreshStart (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Second-round comments:

• I made some minor copyedits (mostly minor grammar/formatting things, combining tiny paragraphs.)
• Apologies, looking it again, I think the MOS:LEADSENTENCE is a bit weird as "was" implies he has died. I suggest "Jeremy Pemberton is a former Church of England priest who became the first to enter into a same-sex marriage in 2014."
• Why is "gay people" mentioned as a "characteristic", with sexual orientation only being in a parenthetical? I'd rewrite this as "The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics in the Act, including sexual orientation."
• There are a ton of duplinks, though not big of a deal (and not relevant for GA) and can be fixed with scripts later.

@AFreshStart: that's all, just a few wording changes this time as the article has improved significantly. eviolite (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I have made those edits now. —AFreshStart (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy to promote now, great work! eviolite (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)