Talk:Presbyterian Church in the United States of America/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jfhutson (talk · contribs) 14:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time reviewing, so here goes. I have made a few very minor contributions to this article in the past, but nothing I think can be called "significant". Here is my first pass of the first few sections. So far I think the prose is good and the article is understandable with a few additional explanations of terms that come up.

There is something broke with the infobox where it says "{{{congregations_type}}}"

Fixed --JFH (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The church's doctrines and practices were more ecumenical and less committed to traditional Calvinism" more than what? less than what?
Need a little background on what Presbyterianism is, what's a presbytery, etc.
"Presbyterian congregations were disorganized" maybe "unorganized"?
"Drawing from a Scotch-Irish revivalist tradition" -> "the" instead of "a"
"Revivalists objected to this restriction noting that..." need a comma before "that"
Society in Scotland for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge looks like a bad redirect
"The Old Side Synod had one minister located in the South." need to make it clear you're talking about expansion, sounds kind of like a random statement
The membership table gets too close to the text.
So far I think we've spent too much text on the pre-history of the denomination. The article is not short, so I think you could move some of the pre-history out to American Presbyterianism. If that article gets too unfocused we can create History of American Presbyterianism (1706–1789). This is a suggestion about which I could be convinced otherwise.
"postmillenialism" misspelled
"Thousand year golden age" sounds like it implies a literal thousand years, is that really correct for postmils in this period?
Several captions just have names of the pictured person. See WP:Caption#Establishing relevance to the article
"Furthermore, both Presbyterian Churches boldly proclaimed" I don't think "Churches" should be capitalized here. It might be better anyway to say "both schools" anyway.
Broad church is about Anglicanism. Even if this is the correct term to use here (do your sources use this term? does ecumenical work?) I would not wikilink and I would include a brief explanation of the term, as well as modernist theology (does liberal theology work?)
Saying the Confession teaches inerrancy is going to be contested by RSes because of the loaded nature of that term even if it says the Bible doesn't contain errors (sorry, I know too much here). I would just say Briggs and the Confession disagree on the Bible containing errors.
We're getting a little busy with images. See WP:IMGLOC
Explain what the social gospel is as soon as you use the term.
If you must use a quotation (I don't think it's necessary here), you need to attribute it in-text. See MOS:QUOTE#Attribution.
Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions wikilink
"There were conservative reservations over the PCUSA's decision to ordain women..." It's takes to time to figure out that this sentence is talking about the conservatives in the UPCNA. Make that clear upfront.
The beliefs section is mostly a rehash of the history. I wonder if you could write about important beliefs that did not cause controversies, and so were not talked about in the history.

@Ltwin: let me know if you are going to address the issues above. If so, I will put the review on hold. Otherwise, I don't believe the article is quite up to GA criteria yet, mostly clarity reasons. --JFH (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of November 23, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Clarity is impaired by terms which are not defined for a general audience.

2. Verifiable?:

Pass

3. Broad in coverage?:

Pass

4. Neutral point of view?:

Pass

5. Stable?:

Pass

6. Images?: Captions need to establish relevance. Some images sandwich text.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. --JFH (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've finally addressed all of the issues brought out in this nomination, so I will go ahead and renominate it. Ltwin (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]