Talk:Antoinism/GA1
GA Review[edit]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Tentative review[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- othing big, complies with manual of style, but the WP:LEAD needs to summarize the article not simply introduce the topic. WP:WTW cautions us about the word "cult." This my primary field of interest so I recognize the context here when you refer to the movement's rituals. I would advise rephrase those instances to synonym with out the negative connotation some might take from it as Wikipedia is not Wikipedia:NOTACADEMIA
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Sourcing is above par from what I expected coming into this.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- I am unsure because I have no access to the source at the moment. What exactly does footnote for "Books published by French anti-cult associations and activists sometimes included Antoinism in their lists of cults, but often contain only neutral descriptions of the religion" refer to? Are basing that on comment in the book or as example of book that had a neutral description?
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- I am very concerned with this aspect while it covers substantial frame work of a Good article. I see some flaws in the history that are concerning. Why is there so little in the history section about the last 70 years of its history?
- B. Focused:
- The location and times of worship is rather overly focused and could probably needs to be removed
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Very well done with the Neutrality here.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Needs some work and I have asked some question. You now address the issues I have indicated and then I will make a second review and either pass it or fail it.
- Pass or Fail:
Nominator's replies:
- 1A: Spelling and grammar probably need to be checked, as I added some content, and my English is not very good...
- 1B: I removed all the "cult" mentions and replaced them by "services" or "worship". I also extended the lead section per WP:LEAD.
- 2C: The book does not say that Antoinism is frequently described with neutral words in books about cults. I must admit that this wording was only my feeling when I added this sentence in the article. So yes, I agree this needed to be reworded to avoid an original research. I added the following phrase, which is probably more factual: "Books published by Belgian and French anti-cult organizations and activists sometimes included Antoinism in their lists of cults, such as [I cite two books here]".
- 3A: The most extensive study of the history of Antoinism is Dericquebourg's 1993 book Les Antoinistes. I checked the pages which cover the last 70 years (only five pages), and the author says: "La suite de l'histoire de l'antoinisme belge est relativement calme" (p. 25), then "En France, l'histoire du mouvement fut plus calme" (p. 26). The only details provided on this period is the differences between the French and the Belgian temples. As I understand, there was no "key figure" (I don't know if I use the good word...) in Antoinism after Catherine Antoine's death and the direction of the movement has been anonymous until today. So I can't expand more the "1940-present: Continuity of the worship" section, as it appears to me that there is nothing special to add...
- 3B: I drastically reduced the size of the table of locations and times of worship and removed/merged superfluous details, but I kept it, as these differences seem to be one of the major changes between French and Belgian branches. I hope this is no longer overly focused now.
Your comments are welcomed, and I remain ready to fix any potential issues, as far as I can resolve them. Regards, --Europe22 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- PS: Antoinist or antoinist when the word is used as adjective ? --Europe22 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Antoinist I do believe The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Final Review[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Excellent Work Improving from Last Review. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.