Talk:Saint Thomas Anglicans/GA1

GA Review

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

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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

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)	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

2. Verifiable with no original research:

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

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC): four of the five body sections are essentially dedicated to the development of the congregation over time (see 1b). Have the philosophical beliefs unique to this particular congregation been fully explored? 16:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC): as no reliable sources suggest the congregation has significant philosophical or theological differences from other congregations, its inclusion as a major aspect isn't warranted and therefore all major aspects of coverage are met. Passing 3a.	Pass
(b) (focused)	14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC): nothing out of scope.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC): no issues.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
12:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC): no maintenance tags or RMs since August.	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)	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

Result	Notes
Pass	14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC): promising start, slight room for improvement, after which promotion is warranted. 16:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC): all queries and issues answered and addressed. Promoting to GA.

Discussion

• 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)