Talk:Christianity Explored

Christianity Explored was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 10, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed

Christianity: Anglicanism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Mid-importance).

The Significance of Christianity Explored[edit]

I notice the this page has previously been deleted as insignificant Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Christianity_Explored.

However, I think this course clearly is important. It is used by lots of churches, in several countries. As an indicator of the extent of the course's importance, note that a Google search for "Christianity Explored course" (exact phrase) finds over 900 sites mentioning the course. -- BenStevenson 14:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a look at the VfD archive, it seems that many people voted saying the article was "spam", an "advertisement", "a promo". I certainly didn't write this in order to promote Christianity Explored (I've heard of it before, but I have no involvement with it, nor have I attended a course); I hope it doesn't sound like an advert, either. I do think CE notable enough to merit an entry, and it appears that at least two people before me have independently started an entry (yourself and OneSalientOversight). If we're to delete it again, we should probably first hold a VfD based on notability, rather than the premise that this is an advert or prosletysing spam. It's featured in BBC news[1]. I don't know for sure, but having perused the top 100 hits, I would suspect that a large majority of the 50,000+ hits for "Christianity Explored" on Google would be about the course. — Matt Crypto 14:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The course pops up in a couple of third-party sources: [2]. — Matt Crypto 19:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this warrants more consideration than a speedy delete. — Matt Crypto 20:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why re-create this article?[edit]

I noticed that Christianity Explored had already been created and deleted twice - I think with two entirely separate articles - and I gather that the last to be deleted was a no-brainer deletion as a poor, spammy article with no assertion of notability. I didn't seen it of course, since it was deleted. It seemed odd that Wikipedia did not have an article on a significant course, so here this is. It is an entirely new article, aiming to be properly encyclopaedic: not OR; notable, and with multiple, independent and non-trivial sources. I am grateful to some of those who gave the earlier article the thumbs down for their comments on this article when it was in draft. Of course, all problems with style or content are mine. Springnuts 08:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better than previous efforts (including mine from a year or so ago), not least because the sources are better. — Matt Crypto 20:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Christianity Explored/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

GA Review Philosophy[edit]

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 Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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.
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:
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):
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:
A photo would help as well.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Regarding Lead[edit]

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]

Regarding Course outline and versions[edit]

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]

Regarding Reaction[edit]

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]

Regarding Comparison with other Evangelistic Courses[edit]

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]

Regarding See Also[edit]

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]

Regarding Refrences[edit]

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]

Overall review[edit]

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]

Furter editing?[edit]

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]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christianity Explored. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]