Talk:Toronto Blessing/GA1

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

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 14:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Introduction and limitations
Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I am not Christian, but I do think the topic is very interesting. Perhaps you remember me from the previous time we worked together.

There will be many negatives coming here, but I like to introduce this by saying that the more a topic deals with the miraculous and with phenomena which are difficult to define rationally, the harder it is to fit in with Wikipedia's rules and regulations. So if you succeed at GA, it will be certainly rewarding and demanding of respect. Please note that the main issue in the article is that the sources are technically speaking not reliable: the other issues will probably be resolved if you solve this issue.

Overview

 * 1. Prose:
 * According to this Earwig scan, no copyright has been violated; there is just a YouTube channel that copied from this article, so the article appears to be popular.
 * Although the subject is fascinating, the article reads a bit rough, some sentences such as in Toronto Blessing are lengthy and need to be split off.
 * In the section Reaction and criticism arguments pro and con are not well organized, and the line of thought is sometimes hard to follow.
 * The organization of the sections is curious. The article would be easier to understand if the section Toronto Blessing was the first or second section.


 * 2. MOS: Generally the article agrees with MOS, but there is a video directly linked at Toronto Blessing, which is not allowed. Also, the section Toronto Blessing needs to be rewritten into prose as shown at WP:USEPROSE.
 * 3. References layout: there are no dead links, and sources can be identified.
 * 4. Reliable sources:
 * Sources like, , though valuable sources of information in their own right, have little to no editorial oversight and should not be used in a GA wiki article.
 * Primary sources like Hanegraaff's Counterfeit Revival and Macarthur's Strange Fire should always be used in combination with secondary sources that examine arguments on both sides with academic distance. Preferably all primary source content not quoted from a secondary sources should be removed from the article. Academic sources from the movement itself may be used with caution, provided they have been cited by mainstream scholars.
 * I realize that the majority of the sources used in the article is therefore problematic. You may have to rewrite some sections, based on scholars or reliable news reports. The number of scholarly works used may not be sufficient, e.g. on the first page of a Google Scholar search there is only one work which is cited in this article.
 * 5. Original research: Some information like Toronto Blessing seems to have original elements or cherry-picking.
 * 6. Broadness: I think the article is reasonably broad.
 * 7. Focus:
 * In sections Toronto Blessing and Toronto Blessing, there are interpolations like In December, 1994, Toronto Life Magazine declared TAV as Toronto's most notable tourist attraction for the year that distract from the main trend of thought in the section.
 * Furthermore, section Toronto Blessing is written in a quasi-scientific way, apparently as a defense that miracles did really happen. Descriptions of the phenomenon should instead focus more on the nature of this form of religiosity, what needs are met through it, how it connects with Christian doctrine, who is attracted to it, etc. It might be useful to merge this section with the section Toronto Blessing, though the latter section contains some critical responses that should be moved to the section on reactions.


 * 8. Neutral:
 * On the positive side, proponents and opponents are both mentioned in the article, extensively covered. Some sections such as Toronto Blessing have been written with much caution and an encyclopedic tone.


 * Several sections, including the lead and section Toronto Blessing could be improved on in terms of encyclopedic tone: words like records supernatural events, manifestations and testified of being miraculously healed need to be quoted rather than written in the voice of Wikipedia—or simply rephrased. This also includes since the ... resurrection of Christ took place: although Jesus' existence is widely accepted by historians, the resurrection can only be described as a religious belief, not as a fact, even if is a fact for a huge number of devotees.
 * The same holds for neutrality: Negative impacts came in the form of criticism... should be rewritten. As a rule, in controversial religious subjects WP:WTW should be strictly followed, and words like claim should be avoided, as they imply disagreement on the part of the editor.
 * The section Toronto Blessing should be renamed Toronto Blessing or otherwise given a neutral header. On a similar note, the section on Impact on Christian culture should not distinguish between positive and negative impact, but rather describe events with an analytical distance.


 * 9. Stable: article is stable.
 * 10-11. Pics: Pictures are relevant and correctly tagged. But picture File:AFM_on_azusa_street.jpg needs one more detail to be filled out.

20 February
I will continue with a detailed review per section later on. I will first wait for your first response.

6 March
Nominator has not responded in time, despite having emailed him. Failing.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 08:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)