Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/GA3

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 14:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Nominator: Aunva6

Looking over this article, I can see that it's thorough and well-written... but nonetheless, it will take a good deal of work to get it up to GA status. There are a number of minor issues which can probably be resolved fairly quickly, but there are also three major issues which will take quite a bit of work.

I haven't worked with you before, Aunva6, so I'm not sure how much work you want to put into this. I'll just leave these three major points open. If you get them taken care of in the next 7 days or so, then I'll go through and do the rest of the review. And if not, that's fine too. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Firstly, the main reason this article was delisted was the lack of inline citations. There are many paragraphs without inline citations, and even some controversial statements and direct quotes without citations. This will need to be fixed in order for the article to be promoted as a GA. For instance, there is only one citation in the "Archbishop of Munich and Freising", and it does not support most the statements in the section (date of appointment, motto, his autobiography, remaining cardinals from Paul VI, etc.) There is only one citation in "Ecumenical efforts", and it covers very little of the material in that section. There are no citations at all in the "Tone of papacy" section. The direct quote in the "Global economy" section is unsourced. In order for this article to meet GA criteria, you will have to go through each section and make sure that all major facts are adequately cited.
 * 2) Secondly, WP:MOSLEAD tells us that the lead section should summarize the body of the article. But because of that, it is usually unnecessary to cite material in the lead; instead, the facts should be cited where they appear in the article body. This lead gives a lot of information that is not present in the article body. Instead, all information in the lead should be reiterated (and expanded on) in the body, and should be sourced there. The only citations needed in the lead are direct quotes (e.g. "the pope of aesthetics") and particularly controversial statements that are likely to be challenged (e.g. "an unusual promotion for someone with little pastoral experience").
 * 3) And thirdly, this article begins with an "Overview" section. But the lead section is supposed to be the overview. The lead and overview sections should be merged, and any additional information that doesn't fit should be moved down into an appropriate section in the body. (For instance, the fact "The last pope named Benedict was Benedict XV..." could be moved into the "Choice of name" section.) This will require a substantial rewrite of the lead section, with the "Overview" section omitted, and lots of information moved to other parts of the article.
 * thanks, this is my first GA nom. I'll see what I can do. hopefully some other regular editors can help. I don't have a ton of time available. strangely enough, the FAC process was faster (at least to get started) than the GAN process. i'll see what I can come up with for this article though. I'm not that great at re-writing, etc, but I'll give it a go... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 21:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to close this nomination as "not passing". If, in the future, the organization and citations are improved, feel free to resubmit the article as a GA nominee. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * yeah... I kinda expected this. I just don't have the time anymore to do alot of the rewrites and stuff. 146.57.93.119 (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * that was me above.... i didn't realize that it logged me out...-- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)