Talk:Scottish religion in the seventeenth century/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 19:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I'm not that familiar with British English at all, so some of the use of commas seemed odd to me. Could either the nominator or someone else familiar with British English make sure that all commas are used correctly?--¿3family6 _contribs 20:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
There were some minor issues regarding the public domain tags, but I resolved these myself.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Almost there, see my comments below.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pass/Fail:

Writing

Lead is too long and detailed. Try shortening it and re-writing it in a more summary style.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit puzzled by this one. WP:LEAD suggests three or four paragraphs for an article of this size. None of them seems particularly detailed to me. Could you give a bit more direction on what is overdone here please.--SabreBD (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I read it before, it seemed quite dense. Coming back to it, it doesn't seem to be as much so, though I am more familiar with the subject now. The trimming you did was helpful. I think the lead is fine now.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Restoration" seems a bit long as one section. Consider breaking it into two or three sections. You also might want split "Glorious Revolution" into two sections.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--SabreBD (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Religion and society" - since the article is about religion in Scotland, I would advise retitling this.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (See next point below)--SabreBD (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest making it clear that part of the article deals with history, and another part on rituals and practices. You could put all of the historical timeline under a main "History" sections, turning the current sections into subsections.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. They are both history of course, so I have opted for Events and Popular religion. Hope that solves the problem.--SabreBD (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Which source supports this sentence? - "There may also have been a growing scepticism and with relative peace and stability the economic and social tensions that contributed to accusation may have reduced."--¿3family6 _contribs 20:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its still B. P. Levack, "The decline and end of Scottish witch-hunting", which is the next reference.--SabreBD (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You probably should mention that Levack is the one who speculates on this. This is the only remaining issue that I see, and it is fairly minor.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--SabreBD (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Statutes passed in 1616, 1633, 1646 and 1696 established a parish school system, paid for by local heritors and administered by ministers and local presbyteries.[46]" - the citation provided supports the second statement, but not the date provided.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--SabreBD (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are offline, which means I am accepting them as accurate per WP:AGF. I am doing the same regarding the possibility of close paraphrasing and copyvios. I urge the nominator to make sure that there are no issues with accuracy, close paraphrasing, copyvios, or original research.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that there are any.--SabreBD (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I just want to make sure that was done.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to get to this a bit quicker but its the heaviest period of work for me. I might need the while weekend to get this done if that's OK.--SabreBD (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I see no reason to hurry.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting someone else to just check the commas, but it may take a while.--SabreBD (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Once the comma issue is resolved, the will be GTG.--¿3family6 _contribs 23:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6:@Sabrebd: Checking on the status of this review. It has been nearly a month since it was last touched. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing keeping this review on hold is that some of the punctuation in the article seemed non-standard to me. Sabrebd said that they would look into it. That's the last I heard.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately my proof reader has been incredibly busy. I will ask again. If that doesn't work I will come up with something else as quick as I can.--SabreBD (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrebd, I think you need to "come up with something else".--¿3family6 _contribs 17:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3family6 Yes. Sorry for the delay. I have been away. I will deal with it tomorrow.--SabreBD (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3family6, Sabrebd, it's been several weeks since the above, and Sabrebd's made over 240 edits in the interim, none of them to the article. I'd like to suggest that a hard deadline be set, no more than a week away, to close this nomination one way or the other. The remaining issue has been hanging fire since the end of June. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think a week will be a good, hard deadline. Sabrebd, this needs to be resolved by Sept. 19, or else I'll have to fail this review and you can resubmit once the issues are addressed.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK.--SabreBD (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and given it a quick edit. I won't guarantee that everything's perfect (my grammar's not perfect either!), but I'd argue that it is probably up to the GA standard now. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, Hchc2009. Sabrebd, I'm passing this now. Sorry for how long things took.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review 3family6 and the help Hchc2009. I hope to be back from largely just anti-vandalism in a few weeks.--SabreBD (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]