Talk:Assemblies of God USA/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have finished my review. This article is very close to meeting the GA criteria, and has only a few issues that should be easy to fix. I will hold this article for up to a week to give the editors time to work on the article. Aaron north (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Y Looks good now. Aaron north (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   only minor citation issues. Overall, the use of primary sources seem to be used carefully where appropriate (facts and statements of official positions), the analysis in the article is referenced using journals and secondary scholarly work.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Looks good to me. This article looks very neutral, explaining both the good and the bad with nothing whitewashed.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• I am confused about the caption under the Assemblies of God logo. What is the relevance of that phrase? I'm not sure that a caption is necessary at all for the logo in the infobox at the top.

• It's the AG's motto. I'm fine removing it if you think it doesn't belong. Ltwin (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you can cite that and make it clear that it is the AG motto that should be fine. As it is, it looks like a random phrase placed under the picture with no explanation. Aaron north (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. My source is Poloma. She Mentions it in Crossroads, but I don't see it anywhere on the AG's website. It's on the Pentecostal Evangels website though. I think it looks better without the caption anyway. Ltwin (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• internet references need both a link and an accessed date. Most of them do, but some dont.

• I'll work on this. Ltwin (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Ltwin (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• This sentence is a little awkward (and too informal) and should be improved. ("Around the same time African Americans were officially being barred from ordination, women were being given greater opportunities for leadership.")

• Any suggestions on how I should rephrase it? Ltwin (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

hmmm... if I was editing it, I think I'd just simplify it. The sentence is a bit cumbersome. Maybe just "During the time when African Americans were barred from ordination, women began to receive greater opportunities for leadership". There's many other ways to rephrase it, its just that "were being barred" and "were being given" are both awkward. Aaron north (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Ltwin (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• I notice you cite a couple books extensively. That is fine, but it may look better if referenced books are listed in a seperate section. One example is to use "references" to list all the details of the books used, and use a "notes" section for all the page numbers and other newspaper, web, etc citations. WP:CITESHORT includes this example. I don't think this is a requirement for the GA criteria, but it would make the references more concise and clear.

• Yes I had thought about doing this many times, but never got to it. Will definitely do this eventually. Ltwin (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• More free or fair use images might be useful. Specifically, one interesting (to me) aspect of the article is the apparently significant differences between the style of local services. We basically have one image of a mega-church, perhaps it could be contrasted with a picture of a smaller more intimate service, and/or singing?

• Yes I will try to find what I can. In general all AG churches would be considered low church, but the style can differ. Some churches go the ultra contemporary route - lights, very contemporary music. Others go the more traditional route - standard church architecture and may blend praise and worship music with hymns. Some churches give a lot of freedom for the congregation to exercise spiritual gifts and exuberant or enthusiastic praise, while others have chosen to place a lot less emphasis on public display of spiritual gifts and enthusiasm structuring their church services where this is discouraged. I will try to find a picture that is representative of a more "average sized" AG congregation.

Thanks for reviewing this. I will work on getting what's needed done. Thanks again. Ltwin (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Post-review comments

I found some very nice images from Wikimedia Commons, mostly of building exteriors. I didn't find any pictures inside more modest churches. However, I found a picture of an AG Hispanic church and day school which makes a great addition to the History section on women and minorities. Also, I found a great picture of the national headquarters which I added to the Structure section. Ltwin (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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.