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

I'd be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is ok, could use some work.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Several issues with MoS compliance.

2. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The article needs more information.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

   A photo would help as well.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• The lead is incredibly short. It does not talk about what the course covers or even the intent of the course. This should be included in summary form.
• Per WP:LEAD the lead is supposed to summarize the primary points of the article, the lead here does not do that and should summarize the primary concepts addressed in the article. H1nkles (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a very stripped down section. Is there anything more that can be added? What does the youth version cover? How do the various versions differ? To really expand it you could do a very brief summary of each chapter. H1nkles (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Section is fine though again very minimal. Are there any controversies with its use? Does it work in conjunction with Alpha or in competition?
• What about sales? Has it been popular among evangelical circles? What about in North America? H1nkles (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your wikilink on Scripture links to an unspecific article on relgious texts. I'm assuming by the context that scripture here refers to the Bible. Please make the link more specific.
• The critiques of the course are all favorable, are there any dissenting remarks? This is in order to maintain NPOV.
• Alpha has been around a long time, I would be surprised if there was no reaction to this new curriculum that is unfavorable since it appears to be an answer to Alpha's perceived weaknesses. H1nkles (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't like to see red links in the See Also section, that kind of defeats the purpose. Emmaus is red linked in the article, it doesn't need to be here. H1nkles (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• When using webpages make sure to include at least the publisher of the page. That should be somewhere on the page. References 2-5, 8-10 and 12 do not have the publisher listed.
• Reference 7 appears to be a dead link, please address this.
• Reference 6 links only to a wikipedia article. It detracts of the credibility of the article when you use wikipedia to cite your assertions. We should always use outside sources rather than wikipedia itself to support what we're saying. Otherwise we as a community are falling into original research. H1nkles (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is very short and should be expanded to meet GA criteria especially 1 and 2.
• Questions to answer to help expand it would be:

• What were the motives for the course to be created?
• What does it address that other courses don't address?
• What are some of its weaknesses citing outside reviews.
• When was it created?
• How popular is it?
• Is there a way to measure its impact?

• There are significant issues with the references, this will have to be fixed.
• This article will require quite a bit of work to get it to GA standards. I can hold it for a week if you need more time please let me know and I can extend the hold but not indefinitely. Keep working at it. H1nkles (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any further work being done on this article? I've seen one edit in the last 3 weeks. If nothing is done this weekend I will fail the article. H1nkles (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point nothing further has been done on the suggested fixes to make this article GA. I will therefore fail the article. Please renominate once the fixes are done and you feel as though it is comprehensive enough to be considered a Good Article. H1nkles (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]