Talk:When God Writes Your Love Story/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 02:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 19, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. NOTE: Please respond, below the entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Overall, writing quality is pretty good, but there are some relatively easy things to address, primarily with respect to NPOV concerns.
3. Lede/intro sect = 3rd paragraph is a bit long. Perhaps consider splitting it into two paragraphs. Per WP:LEAD, it's okay to have a 4 paragraph lede.
4. Six (6) uses of "also", perhaps some of these can be removed?
5. Eight (8) uses of "but", maybe some of these could be trimmed out?
6. Background - background sect might flow a bit better if it were broken up into 2 paragraphs.
7. Contents - this sect might read a little easier if it were split down into 4 paragraphs.
8. Critical response - long paragraphs in this sect, might consider splitting each one in half to have breaks for smaller paragraphs.

2. Factually accurate?:

1. Critical response - "this book inspired me to want only the best. In fact, God's best, for me. Because then it will be the most beautiful love story in the world." - Needs cite directly after this quote.
2. Last paragraph of Critical response sect = Needs inline cites directly after each sentence that has a quote, not just end of paragraph.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?:

1. Concerns about NPOV issues.
2. The article apparently cites one (1) source that is critical of the book's thesis. This seems to suggest there may be more sources out there with a similar viewpoint, and yet none are cited. Perhaps further research is needed to find other critical viewpoints from secondary sources?
3. Might consider trimming some more of those quotes from the Critical response sect and paraphrasing them, that would make it a bit more NPOV.

5. Article stability?

1. Article is stable upon inspection of talk page history and article edit history going back over one month.
2. However, perhaps GA nominator could please explain a bit about the discussion on the talk page relating to images?

6. Images?:

1. File:When God Writes Your Love Story.jpg - expanded the fair use rationale for this.
2. File:Ulysses and the Sirens by H.J. Draper.jpg - image checks out okay.
3. File:Leslie Ludy.jpg - suggest adding "personality rights" tag for this, and OTRS couldn't hurt for extra confirmation.
4. File:Anne Curtis (2009).jpg - image checks out alright.

NOTE: Please respond, below the entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have split the paragraphs according to recommendations, reduced the number of instances of "also" and "but", added citations directly following quotations, reduced the number of quotations by way of paraphrasing, and added the personality rights tag to the image of Leslie Ludy.

How do I go about OTRS with respect to the image of Leslie Ludy?

There are a few sources cited in the article that are critical of the book; "God Does Not Want to Write Your Love Story" is the most directly combative, Singled Out: Why Celibacy Must Be Reinvented in Today's Church provides a negative review, and Rick Holland's review is ambivalent. By far, the reviews I have drawn on the most are the negative ones; approximately a third of the "Critical response" section is taken up by "God Does Not Want to Write Your Love Story" and Singled Out. I have not omitted any sources I have been able to find; whether positive or negative, I have used all the reviews I have come across. I have searched for sources using Google Books and Google News in addition to academic journal databases. I do not know of any more reviews of the book, nor do I know where I might find additional reviews. Please let me know if there is some way that I might reword the section to avoid bias. I am also willing to search for additional sources in any ways you might suggest.

With respect to the above discussion of the images, I believe that American Eagle believes two of the images (that of the Sirens and that of Anne Curtis) are insufficiently related to the subject of the article to warrant inclusion. I disagree, as I believe these images to be just as relevant to the subject of the article as many images on featured articles are to the subjects of those articles. Considering that American Eagle has not responded to my arguments in more than a month, I assume that he/she has conceded the point. Neelix (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, will take another look soon. — Cirt (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I looked over the Critical response section, again, and after the explanation above by Neelix (talk · contribs) I know think it is actually quite neutral in tone and NPOV, I'm impressed. — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

GA passed

GA passed. Thanks so much for such responsiveness to the review, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)