Talk:Live Prayer/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Failedwizard (talk · contribs) 19:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Looks generally very well written, nice rhymn to the sentences, generaly pleasent and easy to read. I'd like drop the "Live Prayer interactive CD-ROM" section as very adverty.... I would also say that the website section is overley sectioned - would you like to try it one section of prose?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	As a quick development point - the lead does not current summarise anything about the Controversy section, and also includes "Gold for souls" information that is not included in the rest of the article.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Formatting of sources is generally quite nice, but there are some overrefrenced parts - does "Bill Keller later clarified his statements saying he was speaking on a spiritual topic, not a political one.[31][32][33][34][35]" need all those references?
	2b. 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).	There are a *lot* of liveprayer sources... certainly they all need a link (most have, some don't) but also I think we should probably have a search to see if they can be replaced with more NPOV sources...
	2c. it contains no original research.	Currently fine with this, not sure if something will pop out though...
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Some development points maybe the issues around Jamie_Hubley should be addressed... I also need to do a bit of a google...
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Occasionally has a bit of a wander, but fine generally.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Really pleasantly surprised at how NPOV this was.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Again, thought this would be a vandalism magnet but it's fine.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Hmm, I'm not really happy with the fair use rational on either of the images - but I sympathise with the struggle... I'd lose the website screenshot - but happy to go for a second opinion if you would like?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine...
	7. Overall assessment.	I was very pleasantly surprised by this article, there's a list of things to change but not as many as I thought - chiefly I'd like to see some improvement in the references (less liveprayer), the images, and there's still some promotional aspects to the article. But it certainly could satisfy the standard with a bit of work...

Hmm, embarrassingly - I did not say how long I put this on hold for - should have been a week in the first place, but as I forgot to mention that I think it's probably fairest if the week starts nowFailedwizard (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but there has been no response...:(