Talk:Christ the Lord Is Risen Today/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 16:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

All of my comments are open to discussion. I will add notes as I work my way through the article. If you're online, you do NOT need to wait for the notes to be finished to begin making changes. Once complete, I will claim this review for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
"Hymn for Easter Day" is italicized here, but not in the body. I think non-italic is the better option to differentiate it from the various publications, but either way is fine if it's consistent.

History
Wesley should be identified by his full name in the first occurrence after the lead.

I think the prose would flow more smoothly if the second sentence of the first paragraph were combined with the first or third. I have no preference which.

I think the two sentences about John Wesley excluding it from his hymnal could be combined. Parts of them feel repetitive.

"It was not until 1831 when" - comma needed after 1831.

"speculated by analysts" - anyone in particular? This sentence is pretty weaselly.

"The hymn is characterised as leading to" - why not "The hymn led to"?

"considered by many Christian hymnologists" - weaselly. Does the print source specify any of them?

"It is cited as an example" by whom? Why not "It is an example"?

"Beyond Methodism and..." I suggest combining this sentence with the one following it.

The info about Wesley feels tacked on at the end. I suggest moving the bit about the 6500 hymns he wrote to the top of the section and losing the bit about being the 18th child and the weaselly opinion attributed to "a number of commentators".

Text
no concern

Tune
I suggest combining a sentence or two at the start of this section. The flow is very staccato.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Reference 5 provides a preview of the article, but several of the claims it's used to source are hidden behind a registration wall. This should be noted in the reference.

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
no concern
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
No concern

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
captions are suitable. No alt text needed.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

@Argento Surfer: I have fixed the one issue you mentioned. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notes are now complete. The article is in good shape, but there are a few minor concerns I'd like to see addressed before I can pass it. FYI, I will be offline until Monday. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer:, I have fixed the issues above. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]