Talk:Ecclesia Athletic Association/GA1

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

Reviewer: The idiocy (talk · contribs) 00:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Current review of this article is pending by me. Review will finish within the next 7 days. The idiocy (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

1. Is the article Well Written?

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

The article seems to meet this requirement, as it gives the main facts about the Ecclesia Athletic Association, followed by Important information on its founding and events. Furthermore, it explains in detail important parts. The idiocy (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

2. Is the article Verifiable with no original research?

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

The article meets this requirement, as:

It contains a list of all references, presented in accordance with the layout style guidelines.

All citations are from reliable sources, such as the Los Angeles Times, OregonLive.com, and other trusted news outlets.

The article does not contain any original research.

It does not seem to contain copyright violations nor plagiarism.

Further checking of requirements will be made soon. The idiocy (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

3. Is the article Broad in its coverage?

it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

It addresses the main facts of the topic and the general information of what the article is about.

It follows the summary style by putting the general information first, followed by important sections detailing certain important events such as the move to oregon and the legal investigations and procedures, this complies with the summary style guideline.

4. Is the article neutral?

The article does not seem to have any editorial bias, in cases such as:

It does not count the Ecclesia Athletic Association as a cult, and only specifies that neighbors called it a “cult”.

5. Is the article stable?

The article is stable, as it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Is the article Illustrated, if possible?

The articles are illustrated with pictures, that have fair use rationales and their copyright statuses tagged. Furthermore, the article media is related & has suitable captions.

For these reasons, the article will be subjected to some further verification and promotion once these requirements are met:

Sentences 5-8 should have citations added to confirm its legitimacy. (I personally recommend Los Angeles Times article: (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-10-20-me-5471-story.html) for the flogging part or any other citation already in another part of the article. The idiocy (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * do you mean the sentences that begin ? If so I would suggest that nothing in there requires citation per WP:LEADCITE and that all the information found there is, per MOS:INTRO, found in the body where it does have in-line citation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Alright then, sorry, I will pass the article. Thanks for informing me. The idiocy (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The article has been promoted to GA status, this review has ended. The idiocy (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)