Talk:William J. Seymour

Reference and notes
It might be a little cleaner if the reflist section was called Notes. The References section would only have full citations those that use the author and page citation style such as Borlase, AF, Robeck 2006, Espinosa, Robins 2010, and Synan. Regular cites would remain in article and appear under notes along with the the author and page citations. As it is, one has to scan the section to find Espinosa as they are out of order. It would be a challenge to make sure the full reference is the first mention. By the way, column sizes are automatic so (em=250) is no longer needed.

I haven't had time to carefully read the article fully but I am a little confused by the following reference: Regards, Fettlemap (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Bartleman, Azusa Street, 47, 54. Is this the same as AF?
 * I left that in from the previous editor, but I check it out this weekend. Thanks for the help! DEvans (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's what I found concerning the Bartleman reference: There are a number of books with the title Azusa Street by Frank Bartleman. They are compilations of the same thing, but the pages are different. I have three of those books and none of them match the reference. Since it would be a primary source anyway, I used the secondary source, Robeck. He makes the same point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterniceguy (talk • contribs) 14:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Misterniceguy (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikilinks Comment
Generally, a Wikilink should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Roman Catholic is not linked till the third mention at the very end of the article. Fettlemap (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. Thanks. I'll go through the article when I get the bulk of it finished and get the links in compliance with Wiki standards. I appreciate the help! Misterniceguy (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Style
I noticed the following sentence. I am not an expert but this is not an encyclopedic style. This would appear in an article or book but not on Wikipedia. After reading Words to watch, one could look for more instances of such language. Fettlemap (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The flames of revival at Azusa burned brightly until 1908.
 * Agreed. I'll make the change. Thanks. Misterniceguy (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Finishing up
I'm about finished with the research portion of the rewrite. It'll need some proofing, formatting, suggested changes, etc. I'll start proofing next week sometime, but help from other editors is appreciated. Pictures are worth a thousand words if anyone can contribute. I hope to submit this as a good article. Misterniceguy (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * References are now formatted. I spent a lot of time, so I hope I preserved the reference information while formatting. Fact checking and copy edits would be appreciated. Misterniceguy (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * @John Foxe Do you think it's ready for GA review? Here are the criteria: Good article criteria Misterniceguy (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it meets the criteria pretty well except for the first, "well written." I'll keep at the copy editing as I have opportunity, and if other folks pop up as a result of the GA nomination, so much the better.--John Foxe (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

GA nomination
I submitted the article for GA review. Misterniceguy (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good. I'll back off copyediting for a while and wait to see if anyone else out there is interested.--John Foxe (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)