Wikipedia:Peer review/General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America/archive1

General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would eventually like to see this article listed as a featured article. I would like comments on the quality of the prose, the comprehensiveness of the article, the reliability of the sources, whether or not there are neutral point of view problems, the style of the article, and the overall quality of the article and its readiness for FA status. Another important type of comment I am looking for is feedback on the article's clarity. Any advice for improving the article is welcome, and please point out anything that needs to be corrected that would prevent promotion to FA.

Thanks, Ltwin (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I think it would be a quick fail at WP:FAC for multiple reasons, so here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several FAs that may be useful models: Bahá'í Faith (though it is fairly old as FAs go and mya not follow all current standards), also First Roumanian-American congregation - see here for all Religion FAs
 * Several disambiguation (dab) links page=General_Council_of_the_Assemblies_of_God_in_the_United_States_of_America here (from the dab checker in the tool box on this PR page)
 * Same toolbox's external links checker finds two dead ELs here. If the dissertation is a WP:RS, it does not need a link (as it is a print resource)
 * The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD. It should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such it does not need references (except for direct quotes and extraordinary claims) as the refs and facts should all be in the bosy of the article. It is OK to have refs in the lead, but they are not required
 * Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However at least this it was ranked the ninth largest denomination in the United States in 2011.[6]  is only in the lead as far as I can tell.
 * Looking for ways to expand the lead - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but much of the History does not seem to be in the lead.
 * The lead should have an image - when this does become a FA and appears on the Main Page, it will need a free image.
 * While the article is generally well-references, there are a number of places that still need refs. Often these are sentences towards the end of a paragraph that are after a ref, but that do not have their own ref (yet need one). Examples just from the Origins section include: They were forced to seek their own places of worship, and soon there were hundreds of distinctly Pentecostal congregations. and They were later joined by Eudorus N. Bell, previously a Southern Baptist minister. The AFM had its strength in the rural areas of Kansas, Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. and Durham was the lead promoter of the Finished Work doctrine which, in time, the AFM would adopt and in doing so discard the Wesleyan view of sanctification as a second work of grace. and late in New issues and doctrinal clarity Other influential leaders, such as G. T. Haywood, adopted the Oneness doctrine as well.
 * Some of the references are lacking required information - for example current ref 125 is just a link. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed.
 * Other refs are inconsistent in how that information is presented - is it "Accessed date" or "accressed date" or "Retrieved date"? cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Prose is OK, but not perfect. For most articles the most difficult criterion to meet at WP:FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. See WP:WIAFA
 * There are several numbered and bullet point lists in the article - many FA reviewers dislike such lists and I would try to convert as many as possible into regular prose (not all need to be converted to prose)
 * The wording of some things sounds like it might be a too close paraphrase and, if it is not, is stilted. One example ''On the consumption of alcohol, the AG calls on its members and adherents to live life-styles of total abstinence.
 * Another example is the use of the word disciple as a verb in the lead It defines for itself a fourfold mission to evangelize, worship God, disciple believers, and show compassion.[9] - This just sounds odd to my ear
 * Avoid vague time terms like "recent" as they can quickly become dated
 * Or here the term "last two decades" is poorly defined - Even so, churches within the Assemblies of God have experienced revivals in the last two decades which featured worship and practices reminiscent of early Pentecostalism. The ref is from 2010, so in less than three months it will be 2 years old and the time referred to will be 22 years in the past, not 20 years...
 * Four of the images are of the outsides of buildings. Could there be more action shots of AG members doing stuff? The photo inside a church service is a step in the right direction, but that photo is dark and hard to see, especially in the smaller size used in the article.
 * The use of bold text in position statements does not seem to follow WP:ITALIC
 * This is not a complete list of issues, just the ones that come to mind on a quick read through
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)