Talk:Saint Thomas Anglicans/GA1

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

Reviewer: StraussInTheHouse (talk · contribs) 12:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Starting review, reading and making notes now.   SITH   (talk)   12:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Criteria
Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ;
 * (c) ; and
 * (d).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 :</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion

 * Hi, thank you for your nomination, I've reviewed it and as per the above placed it on hold. Please feel free to ping me back to this page when any outstanding aspects have been addressed or if you have any queries.  Thanks,   SITH   (talk)   14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi User:StraussInTheHouse, thanks for taking up this task. I shall address the outstanding points, one after the other and ping you, upon completion. Best, Tharian7 (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , could you please review the article? I have added shortdesc, converted ref 39 to sfn-harvid style as it was re-used, and also replaced subsequent sources to ensure independence. I re-wrote the last paragraph of the British Period, to address any apparent similarity to existing material. I believe the non-gallery images are appropriately tagged now.
 * With respect to the subjective feedback on item 1(b): As this is a short article with only 5 body sections, I personally feel it is best presented in it's current form, if that is permissible. If we amalgamate the first 4 sections, the article will be reduced to just 2 sections, on the whole. Even so, I shall integrate, if we don't have the leeway to retain the current Section Organization. Please let me know.
 * The only action item that is posing a challenge is 3(a). I couldn't find any acceptable sources, online or in print, that significantly covers the philosophical beliefs and cultural values of this specific minority group, so as to make any meaningful additions. So it seems to me, that the only reasonable plan of action, is to develop this article to include those aspects, when sources are at hand. Or I can look again closely into the sources already referenced in the article, and incorporate whatever bits and pieces of relevant information I might find in this regard, to the appropriate existing sections in the article. Do you have any recommendations? Tharian7 (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the amendments you've made and responses above. I have completed the review process and, in accordance with its findings, I am in process of listing the article as a good article.  Congratulations!  With regard to my suggestions on the philosophical or theological differences, see the above: if reliable sources don't cover them, then all of the major verifiable aspects have been covered.  My reasoning for enquiring was because as a philosophy and theology article, this nomination was one of particular interest to me as it is an area in which I am reasonably well-versed, so should any reliable sources come up regarding such uniquenesses in this congregation and you'd like a second opinion on the sources, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'd be more than happy to take a look.  Again, thank you for your nomination and congratulations on its success.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   16:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)