Talk:Is God Dead?/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The prose is ok, a MoS pass.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
See comments for a, there are reliable sources (point b), no WP:OR.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
See comments, the article is focused.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
See comments.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable.
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):
The images have fair use rationales, point a ok..., see comments.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Fail. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole lead is unreferenced and there are 11 references in the article.
Most of the sections have one to three references, with an exception of 'Reaction'.
The captions provide half-relevance to the topic. Please make them provide more relevance to the topic.
Examples:
April 13, 2009, cover of Newsweek magazine.
How does that provide relevance to the topic?

April 8, 1966, cover of Time magazine
And how does this provide relevance to the topic???
The sub-section 'The problems' is fairly biased. It featured the problems ONLY from the anti-God personnel, not from the Catholics' viewpoint.
There should be more about the reaction after the 2009 edition, and themes represented by article (2009)

DEMOTE — I am demoting this article as there are too much things to do and there are no edits since 2010 on this article. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]