Talk:God's Choice/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Should have this one to you within a day or two ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 19:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

 * The lead could be safely split into the minimum two paragraphs in order to comply per WP:LEAD and the GA criteria. This would call for improved re-organisation
 * The reception part in the lead could be expanded better to summarize. There are also confusing sentences such as "Reviewers wrote that the account was fair" - what is the account referring to?
 * "Christian fundamentalist Baptist K–12 day school in Illinois" - quite a overlink here. If this is just referring to a Christian school, could the links be merged? Feel free to ignore as I know either way would work
 * (Summary section) "God's Choice: The Total World of a Fundamentalist Christian School is a 1986 book written by Alan Peshkin and published by the University of Chicago Press" - this is an exact copy of the opening of the lead?
 * "They believe in one Truth" - why is this capitalised? Is this a biblical reference? Same goes for "Word" later on. However "truth" is not capitalised later on in this section
 * "Peshkin studied their 350-student K–12 Christian day school, Bethany Baptist Academy" - ah I was wondering what the name of the school in focus was. Would this be better off mentioned in the lead too? That is if this is the school itself that the book centres around
 * "The school opened six years prior with 88 students" - 1972?
 * "While God's Choice has an "engaging, sometimes riveting narrative" with vivid characters but little outside information apart from statistics, Keeping Them Out of the Hands of Satan includes extra detail on how fundamentalist groups interact and share a larger societal milieu" - I'm quite worried this comparison sounds like original research. Is the comparison between Rose's study and God's Choice in the source given here?
 * "And while Julian McAllister Groves (Journal of Contemporary Ethnography) described the text as "beautifully written" and "poetic"," - not great to start a opening sentence with a conjunction. I would safely lose 'and'

On hold
Sorry for the delay in reviewing this. I remember seeing several copies of this book in my college library, although only the physical covers just remain encoded into my memory! I think this is a great article and enjoyed reading it. I'm interested in stuff like this. It reminds me of one of those similar documentaries! Overall I managed to find some prose/organisational issues but I look forward to hearing your reply. ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 15:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * the bot missed you again! ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 15:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the review! I don't think the bot likes my signature. I think I got everything—want to take a look? I'm unfamiliar with the LEAD rule that requires at least two ¶s. (It wasn't super long and WP:LEADLENGTH says one to two is fine for the prose length.) I split it anyway. The reception in the lead should cover the recurring points made by reviewers without cherrypicking specific reviewers to spotlight. "one Truth" was a direct quote (same as "Word")—author's choice of making the concept into a proper noun. The school's name is a pseudonym, to preserve the privacy of the participants in the study. I clarified, though. It must have opened around 1972 according to that info, but I felt it was more effective to express the years relationally. The comparison with Susan Rose was part of the book review—you can download it with a free JSTOR account, but I can also send it to you, if you're curious. It took me over a decade, but I found that it's all right to start a sentence with "and", though it tends to be sloppy. I prefer having the connecting word to transition to the final sentence, but if you insist, I can remove it. Thanks again for the review—I appreciate it. czar  ⨹   22:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing them, . It might be interesting to give that document a read; I don't have a JSTOR account but I'll see if I can get one sometime soon as it might be useful for other stuff too. Is it free? I'll have a look. There is no genuine lead rule concerning a minimum of two paragraphs but it's an unwritten law I tend to follow during GANs and FACs - I think it gives the reader a better access for an "overview" of an article. If I recall correctly I think Bath or another city FA only had one paragraph in the lead when it passed its FAC, so it's acceptable for everything I guess. I also never knew that it's alright to start a sentence with "and"!! Seems to neglect all my happy memories in English Literature at college. Was I rambling on a bit? Sorry! Promoted ☯  Jag  uar  ☯ 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, JSTOR signup is free, but more like a paywall—there are limitations on the number of articles you can view but as far as I understand it's otherwise open. It's a real treasure trove. czar ⨹   20:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)