Talk:Order of the Holy Sepulchre/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

There are several unreferenced sections, and many many unreferenced paragraphs? This does not really seem close to passing GA, but I will still do a full review with suggestions for re-nomination, and of course I will allow the nominator an opportunity to work on it and add the needed references. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 15:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

1a:

• "Founded as Milites Sancti Sepulcri attached to the Augustinian Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, recognised in 1113 by Papal bull of Pope Paschal II and of Pope Calistus II in 1122" - reword
• "It traces its roots to circa 1099 under the Frankish Duke Godfrey of Bouillon, Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri, "Defender of the Holy Sepulchre", one of the leaders of the First Crusade and first ruler of the Kingdom of Jerusalem" - consider footnotes for his extended title, or even better break the sentence up. If you remove everything between the commas it should form a complete sentence, so my recommendation would be "who was one of the leaders"

...without going through it line by line I would recommend having a copy editor go over it, since there is so much dense language and Latin that it is making the article hard to follow.

1b: The prose seems to be arbitrarily interrupted with a list in the Kingdom of Jerusalem section. For the privileges of the order a footnote might be preferable to a list.

2a: Everything in the article should be cited, and every paragraph should end with a citation. You don't need a citation on every line, for example if you write multiple sentences all sourced to one source you can put one citation for all of them. But here there are entirely unreferenced sections and paragraphs, for example the Kingdom of Jerusalem section ends with a quote (which is cited) and then two more paragraphs without citations.

The review has been open for 10 days and no attempts have been made to resolve the referencing issue so I have failed this article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)