Talk:Holy Leaven/GA1

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

Reviewer: TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) 23:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I'll have a crack at it this week. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * You currently use Eucharist quite frequently in the article without a definite article. This is okay in some circumstances, but most of the time makes for awkward English. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The use of brackets in your quotes is distracting and I don't think is helpful to the reader (the names of the apostles and defining what the Holy Qurbana is.) It also takes away from the integrity of the primary source quote, which is important to our readers in this circumstance. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * . I've simply removed the brackets for now. I might find a way of introducing the people under the names they are commonly known in English before the actual quote. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ now. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Chaldean Catholics (in full communion with Rome) the WikiLink might work, but if you want to define that they are in communion with Rome, I would do it through apposition or work it more into the sentence rather than have it in parenthesis. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The anaphora (Eucharistic prayer) same as above. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 *  two rites associated with the Holy Leaven it might be better to use a word other than rite her given the multiple meanings it can have in English. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. A good observation. I've opted to use "ritual" here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Currently the lead is too long (see MOS:LEADLENGTH. For a ~9,000 character article, the suggestion is 2 paragraphs. Even if you were to combine some of the current ones, it would still be pretty long for an article this size. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Agreed. I've combined the paragraphs and made them shorter, focusing on the essentials. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Historically, Holy Leaven could have functioned much the same way as the Catholic fermentum – particles of Eucharistic bread carried from one diocese to another in Roman Rite to unite Eucharistic services with the one presided over by the Pope. I think this would need a direct citation. Our article on the fermentum doesn't go into much detail of the use of it in the Latin Church, and when it does, it discusses it in the 8th century. The way it reads now, it reads as if this is a current practice of the Latin Church, and that would be controversial given the history of the Western Church and the schisms that have occurred over Eucharistic theology and praxis. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The source cited mentions some controversy, and I need put this into the proper historical perspective. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. I've elaborated this further. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * All Earwig sees is quotes
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * is a powder added to the sacramental bread used in the Eucharist. As this is only used within one Christian tradition for the Eucharist, it is likely best to combine it with the next sentence to make it clear. You do it fine, but it would be clearer and more neutral in my mind if it was in one sentence.
 * ✅ – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 *  it is necessarily either the case that the apostles disagreed in their view of the Eucharist, or that either the Assyrian Church of the East or the Western Christians have abandoned the practice promoted by all of the apostles it needs to be made more clear that is the view of the person being cited, not the opinion of Wikipedia. The way the paragraph is currently structured, it is difficult to tell where Wikipedia's voice begin and the primary source ends. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As proof of the fact that Western Christians have altered tradition the Church presents that some Western Churches celebrate Eucharist with leavened bread while some use unleavened bread (azymites) I can't tell if this is Wikipedia's voice of the view of the Church. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Rephrased. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In general, the History section could use more transitions and explanations to help explain who view it in what way. I think the issue here is that the paragraphs are very long, so the initial introductions saying who believes what get lost as the text gets longer. I don't think its an intentional NPOV violation, but it makes the tone unintentionally sound like it is supporting the views of those it is summarizing, and like it is presenting these views as fact in Wikipedia's voice. A few more "in this view" or "in this version"s would help. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Added some, but please let me know if there should be more of it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * ✅. I actually found an image in one of the older sources I am using. I've added it in the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Overall, this needs some work on the tone and with the presentation of primary sourcing. The copyedits/style stuff needs to be addressed as well, but thats relatively easy to do. I'm putting this on hold for now, but I think you can get it up to GA standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * ✅. I actually found an image in one of the older sources I am using. I've added it in the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Overall, this needs some work on the tone and with the presentation of primary sourcing. The copyedits/style stuff needs to be addressed as well, but thats relatively easy to do. I'm putting this on hold for now, but I think you can get it up to GA standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Overall, this needs some work on the tone and with the presentation of primary sourcing. The copyedits/style stuff needs to be addressed as well, but thats relatively easy to do. I'm putting this on hold for now, but I think you can get it up to GA standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
Thank you,. I'm a bit busy with another review, but I will attend the concerns you have raised soon. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. Just ping me whenever you’ve dealt with them. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've addressed some of the problems above. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , I have now addressed those immediate concerns. Can you take a fresh look at the article? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Just confirming I've seen this. I'm a bit busy this weekend, but I'll try to take a look at it soon (read, hopefully this weekend, but by Monday or Tuesday at the latest). TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Take your time. I'm not in a hurry if you're not. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Read this over. All good. You use "according too" a lot at the beginning of paragraphs in response to my critique above, and you might be able to find a better transition to make it less repetitive, but it's not a major issue and it is better than the NPOV problems that not having it causes.
 * Thank you, ! I will continue to develop the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)