Talk:William S. Sadler/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ItsZippy (talk · contribs) 22:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC) I shall review this nomination. I'll have a look and should give my final assessment in the next few days. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	This is mostly fine. In the views section, it refers to "Age of the Earth" and "Age of the universe"; in both cases, the a should be lower-case. Aside from that, no major problems. There are some clunky bits of prose, especially the last paragraph of the lead and the first of the section on Urantia revelation, but not enough to fail the GAN. The grammar has been fixed. Still some stylistic issues, but not enough to fail at GAN.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This all seems fine.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No issues here.
	2b. 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).	This seems fine.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not a problem.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Seems to cover the important details of his life. The only thing I am wondering is whether there have been any significant reactions or criticisms to him or his work; if so, they should probably be documented here, too. If there is nothing, that's fine (just let me know). This has been addressed with the addition of a reception section.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Certainly.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Everything is presented with a NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit-warring, etc.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The one image is correctly tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image of Sadler is certainly relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	This should pass soon. I'm holding on for an answer to my question on reactions and criticisms. I am happy to pass this now, following the changes made.

Thanks for the review and comments. I agree that more reaction/criticism probably would be a good thing, I'll take a look through the sources--I should be able to dig some up without too much trouble. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I started a section on his posthumous reception, not sure how well it came out. Hope it comes across as balanced, but as is often true of religious leaders, it's easy to find hagiography and polemics, but not much it between. I'll see if I can find someone to take a run over the prose, I've been looking at it so much lately I have no strategic distance at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reception section looks good and does come across as balanced; I am happy to pass the nomination now. The prose still needs to be looked at though; I'd suggest (as you have said) getting someone else to give it a copyedit at some point. Still, that's not enough to affect the nomination at GAN. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]