Talk:Georgian Orthodox Church/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JZCL (talk · contribs) 20:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. 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.

2. 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(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.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Seems OK - the Structure section lists seem appropriate here	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Fix the bare URLs to get a plus.	On hold

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Problems explained underneath	Fail
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	No problems.	Pass
(c) (original research)	Not knowledgable enough - sort of ties in with the references.	Neutral

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Neglects certain points - what worship practices do they carry out? Current minus.	Fail
(b) (focused)	Only problem is that the history section goes into a lot of detail. Remove some less important facts.	Neutral

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Some edit disputes get heated here, but just about alright to pass.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No problems.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Nice pictures.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Fine.	Pass

Comments

1. There are a lot of unsourced statements, especially in the history section. In fact there are entire paragraphs without references. A lot of references need to be added to get GA status.
2. Sort out the bare URLs at the bottom.
3. You probably need a section about prayer, worship and services. To which branches of Christianity is it similar?

These are initial comments. I'm putting the article on hold. JZCL 20:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for reviewing the article!! Let me try to give you first answers to your comments, before starting the real hard job of editing the article.

1. About the unsourced statements, I think a large part of them are based on the sources already given. I've usually neglected to add a footnote when using the same page of the same source for a few sentences, even when it's about distinct facts. I'll add more footnotes in those cases. In the first centuries, some statements need better sourcing and I'll also be looking for it. I haven't used footnotes in the lead, as most statements of fact there are sourced in the relevant sections, but maybe it would be better to have them there too. I'll do my sourcing homework in any case, but I would be most grateful if you could point to the specific paragraphs that most lack sourcing in your view!
2. Indeed, I missed those ugly URLs in the notes and shall remedy that.
3. About a section about liturgy, etc., it would certainly be welcome, although many Orthodox Churches articles don't have one, as they all share the same liturgy and theology. I based my efforts to get this to GA on the only other such article to have reached it, Orthodox Church in America, which only deals with history and organization. Still, I can sum up the main characteristics of the faith and the rituals in a dedicated section, to make all that clear, and maybe develop which beliefs get more prominence in the GOC compared to other churches.
4. And last, you suggested that the historical section goes into too much detail. That might be true, but having contributed to most of it, I'm afraid I cannot have anymore the necessary objectivity to ascertain what could be trimmed. Do you think the creation of a specific article is warranted to keep all the detail there while axing here, or are you only talking about minor stuff that could just go, or be relegated in a footnote? Thanks a lot if you can point to specifics...

Anyway, it's quite late here already, so I'll keep the article work for tomorrow, and would like to thank you again, and wish we can work together to pass this!--Susuman77 (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources - I'm sorry if they're elsewhere in the text but you need to cite them. If the same source is used for three sentences, that's fine; bits I'm talking about are where there's one source for every three paragraphs. See this section to get an idea of what I'm talking about. If there's one source for three sentences - that's fine, but for GA status, other than the lede and other obvious statements, every paragraph must have sources. There are several lengthy ones that don't. These are the ones I was talking about.

About the history section: the only reason I was suggesting to trim it was that there were a lot of unsourced statements. If you can find sources to verify your statements then please do - don't let me hinder you - but I thought it might be a bit difficult. After all, criteria 3b is only that it addresses the main points of the topic - the coverage of the histroy section is probably almost FA standard - it just needs sources to verify your statements.

Would it be benificial to have a small section on liturgy and worship with something like {{main|Eastern Orthodox Christian theology|Divine Liturgy}}? Up to you, but be honest.

A couple of other points that will need fixing some time of another:

1. The Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia subsection cites no sources. One of WP's policies is that if mentioning another article: i.e. {{Main|}} and {{Further|}} then you don't need to cite which is what has happened. However, there are no sources in the main article itself, so you do need to cite - while you're at it, add the citations to the main article.
2. There is a {{fact}} tag in the infobox - this also needs to be cited.

I hope this is clearer to you, Susu. Keep going! JZCL 16:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Susuman77 that I cannot contribute any edits at the moment (I am travelling and can only use internet cafes). Glancing at the article I think some of the section titles need small changes. I think the "long" in "The long path to autocephaly" could be seen to be pov. Why not just something like "The development of autocephaly". "Territorial expansion and birth of a national church" - Church should be capitalised, shouldn't it. "Relations with the Armenian and Byzantine churches": Again capital C, and was there such a thing as the Byzantine Church"? Bell-the-cat (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• The review seems to have been abandoned by the nominator, who hasn't edited on Wikipedia since July 4, and never returned here after commenting on that day. It is probably time to close it, as no progress has been made in well over a month. It can always be resubmitted if Susuman77 returns. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Failing per above. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)