Talk:Is God Dead?/GA1

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

Unfortunately, I don't think this meets the GA criteria at the moment. I am going to place it on hold for one week to give you time to fix the problems below that are keeping me from promoting it.
 * I see from the list at WP:GAN that the GA reviewer is seeking a second opinion about this review. From reading the article and the discussion here it seems to me that the remaining issue is that of the apparent POV question, and that the GA reviewer would have consequent reservations about GA criterion 2c. However, in my view it's not due to missing citations (the source, by definition, being the Time issue) but just that the prose, in a few key places, needs to keep the reader clear that what's being presented is an article about that Time cover story, and not an article about that cover story's own subject per se. I will proceed to apply my suggested changes. PL290 (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have applied my suggested changes as above, and in my opinion the article now meets the GA criteria. As I have now contributed to the article I leave it in the hands of the original reviewer to complete the review.PL290 (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a fact tag to the third paragraph. You need to cite the things you say about the editors politics and career.
 * I tried to fit something in there.
 * ✅ OK, good. —  Jake   Wartenberg  15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some POV issues in the "Possible solutions" section. When you say things like "To focus on the life and teachings of Jesus, rather than on God, seemed like a good option" you need to make it clear who's opinion you are reiterating, and reference it.
 * All quotes in that section are summaries of the article, and in no way POV. let me know if anything stands out as POV, but it's all attempts at summarising the article.
 * I know they are summaries, but that is what you need to make clear. It is not obvious that the information is coming from the article.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  14:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to make this any clearer, short of citations after every sentence, which seems excessive to me. I follow WP:PLOTS here: "Where the plot is of one single piece of work, it is not necessary to add a citation, for example, if your article is on a stand-alone film, book, comic, television or radio programme, the citation would be the work itself." This seems to me similar to the summary of the plot of a movie, which is normally allowed to go on for several paragraphs without any citations.
 * That essay is for works of fiction only. —  Jake   Wartenberg  15:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I see this has been fixed. —  Jake   Wartenberg  15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the last paragraph you need to show how the 2009 Newsweek article is related to this one. As far as I can tell the only thing that relates them is the similar subject matter and the fact that the cover is "reminiscent" of the other.  This is not a very good reason to include that information, and that brings into question the validity of the fair use rationale for the Newsweek cover image.

No, there is actually a quote in the USA Today that makes the connection between the 1966 Time cover an the 2009 Newsweek cover: "One week later, in a mournful black-and-red cover reminiscent of Time magazine's 1966 "Is God Dead?" cover, Newsweek proclaimed "The Decline and Fall of Christian America."" Lampman (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I mentioned that in my review. But I am not sure that's enough for a fair use image of the cover. If the other issues are resolved, I would be happy to ask for a third opinion.— Jake   Wartenberg  14:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel this is quite important to prove the enduring cultural significance of the issue. If you disagree I respect your opinion, but then I think we'll have to put it to a third opinion. Lampman (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Resolved per the comments below by Majoreditor. —  Jake   Wartenberg  15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I enjoyed reviewing the article. You've done good work. I have assessed the article for the moment as " C B" class. — Jake   Wartenberg  21:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Passing. —  Jake   Wartenberg  15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion
It is appropriate to include the Newsweek piece in this article. The USA Today reference is a good example of how a reliable source noticed the obvious homage. Some editors may question whether the Newsweek cover may be used in this article when it's mentioned just in passing. Perhaps someone experienced with image use can weigh in with an opinion. Majoreditor (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)