Talk:Richard Enraght

GA review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments:
 * 1) All one-two sentence paragraphs need to be either expanded or merged with surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
 * 2) The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it should cover every major point in the article (for example, right now, there's nothing about his early life, which could use at least a sentence of summary). Also, direct quotes are highly discouraged in the lead.
 * 3) That ginormous quote in the middle of "Brighton and "the South Coast Religion"" needs to be removed and, at most, briefly summarized. If people want to read his exact wording, they can pick up the literature or a copy of it somewhere else. Another example is the big quote under "Prosecution" and the ones under "Imprisonment" and "Released from Warwick Prison." Even the poster would be better off summarized/linked than placed directly in the article.
 * 4) Overall too, there are far too many direct quotes in this article. Direct quotes should be used sparingly and, when used, should be as small as possible unless there's a very direct and obvious reason to be quoting the whole thing.
 * 5) Under the same section, the part that reads "Fr. Enraght's fearless writings of confronting the architects of the forthcoming Public Worship Regulation Act by using the 1662 Book of Common Prayer to prove that the Church of England has an unbroken Catholic tradition no doubt marked him out as a future target for the attentions of the Church Association and its lawyers." is POVish ("fearless writings") and possibly ORish as well, since it lacks a citation (without out one, it's speculative).
 * 6) I know it's obvious, but it wouldn't hurt to state the obvious and flat out say what "pew-rents" are in the section "Priest in charge of Portslade by Sea."
 * 7) Some statements require citations:
 * As noted above, the last paragraph under "Brighton and "the South Coast Religion""
 * The second and third paragraphs of "Priest in charge of Portslade by Sea," especially since they contain direct quotations.
 * Everything after "Another example of the Gazette's biased reporting..." under "Priest in chrage of Portslade by Sea" because, even though you state where it originated from, direct quotes and potentially POV/OR statements such as those that follow always require a proper citation.
 * "He was convicted on August 9, 1879 in his absence under the Public Worship Regulation Act by Judge Lord Penzance at the Arches Court on 16 counts of breaking the Law." (Prosecuted)
 * The third paragraph of "Released from Warwick Prison"
 * "A modern day commentary on the events that surrounded the Public Worship Regulations Act of 1874 comes from the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, “This attempt at suppressing Ritualism so discredited the Act (in fact it created Anglo-Catholic martyrs) led to it being regarded as virtually obsolete”." (Later life and legacy) &mdash; direct quotes require direct citations
 * The last two paragraphs of "Later life and legacy."
 * 1) Try to avoid referencing the fact that the reader is reading an article (example: "The situation in Bordesley, West Midlands in 1865 was as follow") I know this sounds stupid when you read the comment, but hopefully the example from "Bordesley, Birmingham and London" gives you an idea of what I mean. The way that the article itself is written should not be mentioned in the article itself.
 * 2) The article itself suffers from some POV issues I think. There's nothing wrong with making positive comments about him, but statements such as "No one could say that Fr. Enraght did not do his utmost; there were no aggrieved parishioners, not one of these parishioners complained of the services or wished them altered" is intentionally POV-driven for a statement that could be easily reworded to be more objective and self-evident. A statement such as that (along with other statements in the article) would be appropriate for an essay, rather than an encyclopedia.

Normally when a review encounters a small number of problems, it is put on hold to allow the editor to make those changes. In this case, however, I feel that the article would benefit from time spent reviewing concerns and getting some fresh eyes to review the prose. The biggest problem is that the article hinges too much on direct quotes and it needs to be rewritten in such a manner that these quotes can be used sparingly or in the footnotes. The POVish nature of those sections, too, might be cleared up a bit with less reliance on direct quotes. For these reasons, I am failing the article. Once these concerns are addressed, it may be renominated. If you feel that this decision is in error, you may take it to WP:GAR. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 02:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV disputed
The section "Bordesley, Birmingham and London" contains several obvious NPOV violations, such as ''He added to the life and beauty of the services, and demonstrated a hearty loving kindness that made the vicarage and its residents most deeply loved. There were no aggrieved parishioners, not one of these parishioners complained of the services or wished them altered.'' Grover cleveland (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)