Talk:Mount St. Peter Church/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * There are problems with the quality of the writing.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Too many references from a single document that cannot be verified.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * There is only one image used (besides the infobox) and it is not tagged for fair use.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There is only one image used (besides the infobox) and it is not tagged for fair use.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

General Comments There are just too many prose issues for me to list them all here. GAN is not an exercise to correct these issues.
 * There are problems with the quality of the writing. For example, The congregation was founded by Italian immigrants in the early 1900s and the building that now stands as Mt. St. Peter Church was built by members the members of the congregation and was dedicated on July 4, 1944. ...built by members the members? And that is just in the lead. In addition, the lead must be found it other sections. In other words, there must not be anything in the lead that did not come from the body of the article. However, I can see some parts (like the number 100 and the congregation number of 5,209) that are not mentioned elsewhere (see: WP:LEAD). I suggest some help from the Guild of Copy Editors.
 * It is a member of the Diocese of Greensburg. - Are parishes members of a diocese or are they "part of" a diocese?
 * Of the seventeen Italian parishes that resulted from his help, St. Peter was the first. - WP:MoS compliance. Number greater than nine are written in numerical form.
 * St. Peter Church was named after St. Peter, who was the first pope... - This sentence should be recast to avoid the repetition of St. Peter, and also so it is not stating the obvious. The church was named after St. Peter, the first pope, ... would read a lot better.
 * A large amount of references come from one publication, Centennial Committee, and it is not possible to verify this.
 * Another priest was threatened that if he did not leave New Kensington he would be killed. Consequently, he fled. - The referenced newspaper does not say that he fled. He probably did leave but the word "fled" is not in the original article.
 * It's a shame that there are so few images, and the only one there of the church is so small, and has copyright tagging issues.

Summary I'm afraid that there are too many issues here to be fixed, and currently the article falls way short of what a Good Article should be. I will give you seven days to fix these issues. If they can't be fixed in that time then I'm afraid that this article cannot pass GA at this time.

Final comments: Seven days have gone by and a number of issues which I have raised have not been addressed. In addition, since my assessment, there are now additional issues tagged by other editors. Tags on an article for GA provides for a quick fail. This article has the potential to become a Good Article. However, it requires a lot more work before it can fulfill all the GA criteria. As a result, I am afraid that I have to fail this article this time. Once all these issues have been resolved, you can try again. -- S Masters (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)