Talk:Saint Thomas Anglicans/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: StraussInTheHouse (talk · contribs) 12:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Starting review, reading and making notes now. SITH (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Criteria
[edit]Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Review
[edit]- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | 14:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC): well-written. | Pass |
(b) (MoS) | 14:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC): personally, I think the sidebars stretch a bit too far down, especially considering the length of the article. It also causes formatting issues for floating images. However, as there isn't a footer version of the sidebars and they're all relevant, I don't see much that can be done about it other than creating the footer templates as an alternative. Although not required per MOS:ORDER, a {{shortdesc}} would be beneficial. MOS:SO and MOS:BODY might be better satisfied with the amalgamation of sections 1 to 4 in a "History" section with subsections, but that is more subjective. 16:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC): compelling reasoning given for current structure, not all articles are the same. With regards to sidebar layouts, it is a personal preference and I'd be more than happy to assist future {{navbar}} development for the sidebars if considered approriate. Passing 1b. |
Pass |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (references) | 14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC): WP:INCITE more than adequately satisfied with accepted referencing system. | Pass |
(b) (citations to reliable sources) | 14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC): some of the sources after number 39 could do with a bit more independence but because of the numerous inline citations it doesn't cause a verifiability problem. | Pass |
(c) (original research) | 14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC): no issues. | Pass |
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | 14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC): not enough to be a copyvio but the last paragraph of "British Period" is a bit too close to existing material. 16:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC): addressed and re-worded, passing 2d. |
Pass |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC): no issues. | Pass |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
12:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC): no maintenance tags or RMs since August. | Pass |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | 12:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC): the two non-gallery images as items already in the public domain should be tagged with {{PD-old}} as opposed to {{PD-self}}. 16:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC): per update, all tags present and correct here and on Commons. Passing 6a. |
Pass |
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | 12:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC): I think the gallery adds to the article, so no WP:IG concerns. After all Help:Pictures#Galleries exists for a reason. | Pass |
Result
[edit]Discussion
[edit]- Hi Tharian7, thank you for your nomination, I've reviewed it and as per the above placed it on hold. Please feel free to ping me back to this page when any outstanding aspects have been addressed or if you have any queries. Thanks, SITH (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi User:StraussInTheHouse, thanks for taking up this task. I shall address the outstanding points, one after the other and ping you, upon completion. Best, Tharian7 (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- @StraussInTheHouse:, could you please review the article? I have added shortdesc, converted ref 39 to sfn-harvid style as it was re-used, and also replaced subsequent sources to ensure independence. I re-wrote the last paragraph of the British Period, to address any apparent similarity to existing material. I believe the non-gallery images are appropriately tagged now.
- With respect to the subjective feedback on item 1(b): As this is a short article with only 5 body sections, I personally feel it is best presented in it's current form, if that is permissible. If we amalgamate the first 4 sections, the article will be reduced to just 2 sections, on the whole. Even so, I shall integrate, if we don't have the leeway to retain the current Section Organization. Please let me know.
- The only action item that is posing a challenge is 3(a). I couldn't find any acceptable sources, online or in print, that significantly covers the philosophical beliefs and cultural values of this specific minority group, so as to make any meaningful additions. So it seems to me, that the only reasonable plan of action, is to develop this article to include those aspects, when sources are at hand. Or I can look again closely into the sources already referenced in the article, and incorporate whatever bits and pieces of relevant information I might find in this regard, to the appropriate existing sections in the article. Do you have any recommendations? Tharian7 (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Tharian7, thank you for the amendments you've made and responses above. I have completed the review process and, in accordance with its findings, I am in process of listing the article as a good article. Congratulations! With regard to my suggestions on the philosophical or theological differences, see the above: if reliable sources don't cover them, then all of the major verifiable aspects have been covered. My reasoning for enquiring was because as a philosophy and theology article, this nomination was one of particular interest to me as it is an area in which I am reasonably well-versed, so should any reliable sources come up regarding such uniquenesses in this congregation and you'd like a second opinion on the sources, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'd be more than happy to take a look. Again, thank you for your nomination and congratulations on its success. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.