Talk:White Horse Prophecy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ItsZippy (talk · contribs · count) 18:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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.	The article is written well - the article is clear and concise.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section does quite fulfil WP:LEAD; each part of the article needs to be mentioned in the lead - there is nothing about the theological basis in the lead.
	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.	Sources are cited well and have enough information and all quotations are cited.
	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).	The problem is the reliability of some of the sources. More reliable sources than LDS Newsroom or ULM, for example, can probably be found.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not a problem.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Mostly broad in coverage. It's nice to see interpretations, though I think it could do with interpretations or responses from people outside of the Mormon Church (perhaps American politicians or senior religious figure from other denominations), if such interpretations exist.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problems with bias. It seems to cover all of the facts and interpretations without inserting POV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem.
	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.	No problems with copyright.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are used to good effect and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Really good article, I think it's very close to GA status. The lead needs some expansions to comply with WP:LEAD. The sources could do with some improvement - perhaps find some reliable sources to replace the less reliable ones used - and, if possible, there could be a little expansion in terms of its coverage. I would suggest you address these issues, then renominate. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)