Talk:Wasilla Assembly of God/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Try contacting a copyeditor, just to give a quick run through for typos/redundancies.The Ed Kalnins Controversy section is in particular need of rewording.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Some of the links use different date formats. (2008-09-08 compared to 8 September 2008)
 * ✅ Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article doesn't really give the reader a thorough understanding of the history of the church. Surely something other than Sarah Palin happened? I added a tag in the history section; the year this happened would be a minimum. More concerning is the undue weight given to recent events and controversies
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * There seems to be a lot of space given to the controversies of recent times, probably because it has the most resources. Try moving the controversies section below the Ministries information, having it as the first major section does appear a little biased. I am also a little concerned about the above mention of bias, but I haven't had sufficient time to investigate those claims further.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Unsure whether recent activity constitutes an edit war.
 * I believe it does not. It's been essentially stable for three weeks, after one user failed to return after being blocked for sockpuppetry. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was pretty certain it wasn't - that was the warring I was concerned about. \ / (⁂) 05:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * What is the likelihood that a picture of the church is found and usable?
 * I'm not in Alaska, nor are any of the editors who've contributed most to this article. I'll see if I can ask around, but we've had a photo request up for weeks with no success. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, the article is in a reasonable shape. I'm putting it on hold until the above issues are sorted out, particularly in regards to the history section. \ / (⁂) 04:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Failed due to reasons below \ / (⁂) 22:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I really doubt if this article is focused. IMO, There is WP:UNDUE to Palin.
 * If you'll look again WP:UNDUE applies to viewpoints, not to coverage. For good or ill, the vast majority of coverage of this congregation has happened since Palin's rise to prominence.  If the article deals more with Palin than anything else, that's a side effect of the focus of the RS coverage, that the editors of the article have tried to balance. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Main aspects like architecture, critical to an article relating to a building, is not covered.
 * The article focuses on the religious organization, which predated either of their buildings, rather than on the current physical structure. RS coverage of the church building itself appears nonexistent (see my above response) and thus we don't have any basis on which to discuss the structure. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * GA criteria do not need an article to have an image, so it's a pass there in my view. Though an image will be appreciated.
 * "It teaches a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible." is WP:OR (original research) ref 1 says nothing about it. Also for a such a claim, a more Neutral source (not official site) is needed.
 * I'll find a better way to put that--I think that was leftover from a POV editor who no longer edits the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In regards to the claim of WP:UNDUE, I was avoiding using that link because the majority of sources regarding the Wasilla Assembly of God are about Palin. As I said above in my comments, if the history was expanded enough, it would level it out to a reasonable ratio. In regards to the architecture, unless it was a particularly notable design, I can't see the need to describe the building. I guess a photo would cover it, but that is looking unlikely for the time being. I'm only keeping it as a 'nay' so if someone notices it, they can add an image: it won't affect the end result. Finally, in regards to the 'strict and literal interpretation', I would've thought that their own website would tell us what they do with the Bible better than another source could. \ / (⁂) 06:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

How is the progress coming along? Haven't seen much movement so far. \ / (⁂) 20:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't had time to sit down and redo the Kalnins stuff yet--was hoping someone else would step up, actually. More critically, I can't seem to find more detailed historical information than what's already in the article, which was listed as a critical deficit. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to keep the article on hold, but what would you think of simply rating this as a fail, allowing you to focus on the improvements needed without the time constraints. I'm sure once one or two editors get to work, you'll be able to renominate it before the month is out. \ / (⁂) 00:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's go ahead and give it the week, and then fail it if improvements aren't forthcoming. Just because none of the editors have stepped up doesn't mean they won't.  If they don't step up within the week, then I probably won't renominate it until and unless I get better historical info. Jclemens (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting done
I've gone through the article and tried to clean up things per the review. Can you look things over again and provide any new comments as appropriate? I've still not been able to find an RS to augment the history section. If that's a dealbreaker, I'm afraid I don't see a way around it. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice work with the copyediting. In regards to the history, I don't feel that without an expanded history section that it passes 3a, maybe even 4 too. I'm going to fail the nomination, for the reasons above. The only thing I can think of to find a RS, is to either go to Wasilla and visit the church physically (too inconvenient, and could for most :) ), or to wait until everyone forgets about Sarah Palin, and get new materials from the church one they feel the world isn't watching them. \ / (⁂) 22:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. Can you go through and give the article an assessment?  It's still "start" and "unassessed", I believe. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Assessed as B-class. \ / (⁂) 00:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)