Talk:Jesus for President/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 03:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This looks really interesting so I'm going to snag it while I can. Will review in a couple hours. Wugapodes (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Checklist
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. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused (see summary style):
 * 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:

Comments

 * 1) The Irresistible Revolution, Jesus for President Try to rephrase the sentence so the two titles aren't next to each other.
 * 2) The images in the "Content" section are probably more of a hindrance than a help to the article. Namely, the images are not from the book which is confusing in an article about the book. They seem to be more decoration than useful encyclopedic material.
 * 3) "the book tour was suggestive of a third party candidate campaign for Jesus." This is not cited and should be.
 * "It also employs a non-standard typesetting." This may be useful to expand upon but isn't required.
 * 1) "the book tour was suggestive of a third party candidate campaign for Jesus." This is not cited and should be.
 * "It also employs a non-standard typesetting." This may be useful to expand upon but isn't required.
 * "It also employs a non-standard typesetting." This may be useful to expand upon but isn't required.

Results
On Hold for 7 days. A very well done article on its way to FA status. Those few changes and it will easily pass this review. Wugapodes (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the review, Wugapodes! I have made all four of the changes you recommended. To replace the images in the "Content" section, I added an image of Dietrich Bonhoeffer along with a relevant quotation from the book. I hope you find this image more encyclopedic; I can understand the potential for confusion with regards to the former images. Neelix (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Listed As always, I recommend a peer review before trying for FA just to help tighten prose. I would also warn against WP:OVERCITE as some sentences have three citations between them or citations after almost every item in a series. Still, a well done article on an interesting-sounding book. Keep up the good work! Wugapodes (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement! It is good to see the article attain good status. I would be glad for advice about what to do about the citations; I don't want to push them all to the ends of sentences because that prevents readers from understanding which portions of the text are being sourced by which citations. I will be sure to contact you if I nominate this article for featured status. Neelix (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Bundling has a good recommendation for large amounts of citations at the end. Footnotes may also be of use as you can expand on the points and even quote the sources. Though, unless the entry is particularly contentious, I'm not sure it's necessary to have them in the middle of the text. If they aren't controversial, and you're worried about proper attribution, I would recommend the footnote option. Wugapodes (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)