Talk:James Garrard/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead could stand a bit of a trim. WP:Lead recommends a lead of around 2 paragraphs for an article of this length, three at the very longest. At the length it is now, the lead makes the article feel a bit top-heavy.

• I'll get to that ASAP – hopefully this afternoon or tonight. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Trimmed to two. Hope I didn't remove too much, but I think it's OK. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 01:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1. • Is "disfellowshipped" a word? It is used in the lead, but is not present in my dictionary. It is quite possible that it is just church jargon that Webster doesn't recognize, so I thought I'd ask before replacing!

• "Disfellowshipped" is the word used by one of the sources I consulted. It may be unique to the Baptist faith, but being a Baptist myself, let me try to explain. Baptist churches are autonomous at the local level. There is no hierarchy over them, as with, for instance, the Catholic Church. However, some Baptist churches choose to form "associations", which are entities to facilitate cooperation between churches of like faith. While the association has no power over the churches in it, its members can choose who is and is not allowed in the association. This is what happened here. Garrard was removed from the association for his doctrinal dissent (although it's more common, in my experience, to remove an entire church from an association than an individual.) In short, a person is removed from a church by excommunication; they are removed from an association by disfellowshipping. The sentence could be reworded to say "The local Baptist association withdrew fellowship from Garrard for adopting and promoting these doctrines, which they considered heretical." (Italics mine to emphasize the change.) Would that wording be clearer? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, the new wording would be clearer, if you don't mind changing it. Thanks for the explanation, as well. If you end up changing it in the lead, please make sure to also change it in the body, where "disfellowshipped" is used again. Dana boomer (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 01:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1. • In the lead it says that Toulmin convinced him to adopt some tenents of Unitarianism, but in the body it says it was actually Socinianism. Buried in the Socionianism article is the fact that it is "considered to be an antecedent or early form of Unitarianism", which you may want to add (with source, of course) to the article, as I don't believe this is really common knowledge, and it may confuse some readers.

• Yeah, I actually don't know much about either Unitarianism or Socinianism; I was borrowing from the terms used by the sources I consulted. I'll try to clean this up tonight as well. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• I've changed the language to be consistent without requiring additional doctrinal discourse. Look OK? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 01:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1. • In the "Political career" section, it says "Garrard helped pass the legislation that created Bourbon County in 1785.[16] The county court first convened in his house on May 15, 1786 and continued to meet there for many years." Maybe I'm being a ditz, but what does the first sentence have to do with the second sentence?

   • Actually, on second thought, I think I figured it out. I made a bit of a tweak to make things clearer; please check to make sure I didn't completely screw everything up!

• Yeah, I just wanted to emphasize that he was instrumental in the county's early history. Your change is accurate. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. 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):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, this is a very nice article. There are a few prose and MOS issues I'd like to see addressed before I pass the article to GA status, so I am placing this review on hold for the time being. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

   Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work, and thanks for the prompt response! Dana boomer (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)