Talk:Laie Hawaii Temple/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Lāʻie section, "In 1915", it would be best if there was a comma placed after 1915. Same section, this sentence ---> "The December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor gave rise to another popular tale about the Laie Hawaii Temple in Mormon folklore", the start of the sentence might have to be re-written.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Architecture section, shouldn't "Book of Mormon" and "Second Book of Nephi", be italicized?
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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):
Does Reference 19 cover all this ---> "Temples like the Laie Hawaii Temple are not used for regular Sunday worship, and there are specific entrance requirements. Unlike a Latter-day Saint chapel or meetinghouse, where anyone of any religion may enter, temples are considered sacred, holy places where the highest sacraments of the church take place. Only church members in good standing are allowed to enter a temple. Temples are considered "houses of the Lord" where church members participate in sacred ceremonies such as baptism for the dead and eternal marriage, a ritual in which couples and families are "sealed" for eternity"?
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the following statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try and have this done in a few hours when I return. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. Too tired. It will have to wait another day. Viriditas (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a crack at addressing the issues ThinkBlue highlighted. --MPerel 04:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to MPerel who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thank you ThinkBlue! Viriditas deserves major credit for doing 99% of the work to bring this article up to par, my little part came in at the tail end of the review process. Thanks to all involved! --MPerel 05:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and both you guys did a great job with bringing the article to GA status. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]