Jump to content

Talk:Towson United Methodist Church/GA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA review 1[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Parts of the article read like something someone would find in a Sunday bulletin. Is a listing of the current worship times really appropriate?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    All history before the split during the Civil War is ignored. When was the congregation founded? Was it founded as a result of the split? If so, what about the congregation it split from?
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    This article is still relatively new and so I’m not certain if that really lends itself to promotion to GA status.
  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:

jackturner3 (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have addressed these suggestions for renom of the article as a GA candidate JGHowes talk - 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review, Part 2[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    I think there are still several significant problems to the prose. Is there anything else that can/should be said about the Methodist Episcopal church and it’s history while it was a separate congregation? What was the catalyst for the two congregations to merge together again? What are the goals of the expansion project? Can anything more be said about the outreach programs?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  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:
  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:
    It's almost there, but I think that the problems mentioned with the prose are significant enough to not simply put it on hold at this time. jackturner3 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review 3[edit]

I've read through the article, and everything looks pretty good. I think all of the suggestions brought up by the previous reviewer have been addressed in the article. I only have a few more suggestions:

  • Renovation and expansion project might be better as a subheader under Current building and facilities...they are based on the same overall subject: the building itself.  Done
  • Is it possible to get authors for the articles from The Baltimore Sun?
Red XN Not provided, regrettably the Sun publishes most articles without reporter bylines; those cites lacking authors had no byline giving this information.
  • The lead is supposed to summarize all the main points of the article, so adding some information about the current pastor, building, and outreach would be good.
 Done, an excellent point; I've expanded it to be more of an article summary per WP:LEAD.

That's about all. I'll put the article on hold for seven days for improvements. Nikki311 23:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review, Nikki. Responses above (inline) JGHowes talk - 00:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. It is not a big deal about the authors; I was just curious. Looks like the third time's the charm...congratulations on a Good Article! Nikki311 01:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Towson_United_Methodist_Church/GA&oldid=1143900234"