Talk:Point of Grace

Untitled
I really enjoyed reading “point of Grace”. This seems to have a lot of information and is clearly written. I would like to know what data was used to be able to state that this group band Is seen as one of the top contemporary Christian music. I enjoyed how you used sub heading in your article so it can have a easy flow as you read. This article is straight to the point but may have a bias undertones because it’s clear they are liked by the writer. With all this information I would try to cut it down and combine facts if you can. I would try to have a more neutral stand point but overall this seems to be very well done.

Article for an album deleted
Why was the article for the album 24 deleted? Thief12 12:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, it wasn't deleted, but it was edited out of the page. I just fixed that. Thief12 00:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus for which chart is the "default" in article
I notice the song "I'll Be Believing" is referred to as a "#1" chart hit. My copy of Hot Hits by Jeffrey Brothers shows the tune peaking at #7 on the Christian Hit Radio chart on 11/15/93. I am guessing they're using Christian AC to arrive at that #1 rank? GBrady (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

#1 Consecutive Singles
27 #1s? Huh how come in the singles they only have 19 and NONE of them peaked at Number 1? 74.67.126.125 (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure. Googling for "Greatest hits packages come and go, but when you can claim 24 consecutive No. 1 radio singles" or even just "24 consecutive No. 1 radio singles" gives a lot of results for people talking about it, and the album does apparently claim it on the cover, but nowhere can I find a listing that shows on which billboard these #1 hits were recorded.  —  Soap  —  15:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't see this until after I made the changes in the previous revision (I have amended it).
 * I'm guessing that it refers to the CCM Magazine adult contemporary radio-airplay charts (and evidently they don't have the archives online), and that the booklet that was originally sold with 24 explained that. –Musdan77 (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Writing Improvement
This article refers to "the girls" 46 times. Since they are really "the women," referring to them as the girls might be fine once or twice as an endearment, but not 46 times to the exclusion of anything else. In reality, whether girls, women, ladies, whatever, a little more creativity and less redundancy would be very helpful. Even the use of a simple "they" or "the group" would help vary things. This is not meant to be destructive criticism, but just to suggest improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.112.220 (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, along with a general copyedit for encyclopedic style. The article is still in dire need of more sourcing though. Jdcooper (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)