Talk:Live Prayer/GA1

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

This is the review page. I am opening it now as the nominator has stated he will be around for the GA review and so I will add review comments later. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 03:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC) &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 03:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC) &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have fixed some of the inline references. However, the online sources all need publisher, access date, and author, if there is one.
 * All references must meet WP:RS. Some of them seem to fail. e.g. http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=43286 - this seems to be a reader comment page.
 * Writing is sloppy - I have removed some verbiage and duplication, here [] and here [], but there is plenty more - and here []. Not sure of the current usage in the USA but in British English "Evangelical" and "Evangelistic" have distinct and different meanings - see line 1 of the article.  Good article?  I would say not. Springnuts (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thank you for adding to the article and have to agree that this is not a GA. The nominator of the article is not working on it and does not seem available.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This article has potential, as there are many good references. However the writing is poor. Sorry!
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Article is poorly written with choppy, short sentences b (MoS): References are incorrectly formatted with missing publishers, dates etc.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Seems to be factually accurate b (citations to reliable sources): There are may good references c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Needs to fill out the content b (focused): yes
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: yes
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)