Talk:Come, Thou Long Expected Jesus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jfhutson (talk · contribs) 17:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 9, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: ❌Lead problems, contains copyvio material
 * 2. Verifiable?: ❌Several non-reliable sources, some references do not support statements
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: ❌Very little on content and interpretation
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Symbol support vote.svg Pass
 * 5. Stable?: Symbol support vote.svg Pass
 * 6. Images?: ❌Surely we could have an image of Wesley, Christmas and/or the Second Coming, or even an early hymnal page

Optional comments:
 * The lead contains some information on usage in hymnals which is not in the article. I would move it to the body, perhaps a "Publication in hymnals" section, and summarize with a statement about the great number of hymnals you can find it in. The middle two verses are also mentioned here and then not in the body.
 * Italicize hymnals.
 * There are several Presbyterian Hymnals so give me a year. Probably should be redlinked.
 * "In 1744, Charles Wesley considered Haggai 2:7 and looked at the situation of orphans in the areas around him and the class divide in Great Britain." You've got a list of three things Wesley did connected with "and"s but no commas. I would probably break up the sentence.
 * "Through this, he wrote" unclear what "through" means here.
 * "a prayer at the time" Wesley's prayer? A published prayer?
 * "Come, Thou Long Expected Jesus" was the first of a number of Wesley's hymns that became known as the "Festival hymns" which were published" Break up this sentence.
 * "Wesleyan Hymn Book" Get rid of the quotation marks since it's italicized. Redlink?
 * "As a result of growing popularity" Unclear what is growing in popularity
 * "was because" was that
 * "has not been as a well known Christmas Carol" Get rid of the "a"
 * "as others written around the same time such as "Joy to the World" but is still used" add a comma before the "but"
 * Quoting two stanzas of copyrighted lyrics is a copyright violation in my opinion. Including some commentary would help, but quoting an entire work would still be too much. See WP:F.
 * The lyrics aren't copyrighted, they were published in the 1700's.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the Sources section is and it's a deadlink.
 * The Ray Jerry and Bay William references are just pages of music; they don't support the cited statement. Dubious that these would be reliable sources anyway.
 * Ace Collins is a popular storyteller, not a reliable source on hymnody.
 * David Baker source is a "reflection", and the website is not reliable.
 * Robert J. Morgan does not appear to be a reliable source.
 * X-libris is a self-publisher.
 * This hymn is probably not "performed" as often as it is sung.
 * Redlink Stuttgart
 * wikilink Hymns Ancient and Modern
 * The last paragraph of "History" is mostly about the meaning of the hymn. This should be in a separate section and should be expanded upon. I would prefer more on interpretation of the hymn if there is anything out there, but I don't think this is a GA issue.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— JFH (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Though don't you think it might be better to tell me what the problems are and give me a chance to fix them instead of just shutting down the nom?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 18:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If the article were close to GA criteria, I would have certainly put it on hold, and I was considering doing so until I starting looking at sourcing. Good article nominations/Instructions recommends doing this when there are only a few issues, and I think I've shown that that is not the case here. Regarding the copyright, the article stated that stanzas two and three were copyrighted. If I misunderstood this issue, I don't think it would change the outcome.--JFH (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you mean the Christian Today source, it does list Baker as a journalist and it does appear the source does have editorial oversight which would make it an RS in my view.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The main problem with that one is it's a "reflection", and clearly written with a devotional rather than informative purpose. The author being a "former daily newspaper journalist" doesn't make him a reliable source on hymnody, either. My comment on the website is just based on my impression, but I think the other issues are more significant. --JFH (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)