Talk:May God have mercy upon your soul

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:May God have mercy upon your soul/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 07:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there I will be taking a look at completing the review for this article, I expect that my review will be up later today. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. All of my concerns regarding this criterion have been addressed.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The issue doesn't belong to this criterion, there are no other issues with this criterion. The words to watch issue has been rectified, the issues with the lede have also been rectified, there were no issues with the layout.


2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. I have removed the issues that were placed here as they have been rectified.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). I have no qualms with the reliability of any of the sources barring the inaccessible one (I obviously cannot verify it). They come from a combination of published literary sources, reliable secondary academic sources and news sources and to a small extent from primary sources as well (Deuteronomy and also a Trial).
2c. it contains no original research. The issues that have been resolved have been removed.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig's copyvio detector rates it unlikely that there are any copyio's and is fairly confident of this at around 20%. I will myself check a couple of the sources, that I can get my hands on, to confirm that this is indeed the case. I haven't found any issues with original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. I abstained from making a decision on this criterion until the other criterion had been cleared. The phrase is often found in literature, filmography and news reports, however, I did indeed struggle to find sources that discuss the meaning of this phrase and what I did find was either of no consequence (trivial mentions) or in some form or another present in the article. As such, I find that this article does meet the criteria for coverage.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). It's neatly focused on the topic, that said, I'm going to abstain from marking this criterion until my other concerns are addressed. With only a single concern left, I see no reason to abstain from passing this criterion.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The issue with weasel words has been addressed and the sources are now balanced.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. The article is in a stable condition, the below non-reviewer comments are in relation to this review and thus do not impact on this criterion.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. The image has in fact been published prior to 1923, per the comment by "the C of E" below.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The image caption is suitable.
7. Overall assessment. The article has gone from what could be construed as a B-class article to a GA-class article very quickly (a few days). The issues of WP:OR have been addressed as well as those I had with weasel words. The article now meets all of the criteria for a GA article. Pass.

I will be using the above table to complete the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The C of E, I have completed my initial review of the article you have nominated. I will note that my, and another editor's, main concern is with reference to WP:OR. It appears that you have drawn certain conclusions that your sources have not, these conclusions may be correct but Wikipedia doesn't allow for an editor to draw those conclusions. I haven't reviewed 3a and b as I cannot drawn any definitive conclusions about it yet. I commend the work you have done thus far, and, I feel it is possible to bring this article to GA standard within a week. If you need any assistance feel free to ping me. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the photo, it was published in the Daily Mirror in 1912 so it is ineligible for copyright according to the above. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: I have amended the article in accordance with your suggestions. Could you give it another look please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: I have added a few more sourced and reworded some of the areas that you were concerned about. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The C of E, practically all but the last issue have been addressed. Can you find a source that states that the usage of the phrase is meant as a prayer on the soul of the condemned. I don't think that it would be too difficult to find, I'll take a look myself. An example of it won't pass as a conclusion, GA will require a source to draw the conclusion and not the reader or any editor. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: Oops, oversight on my part. I had found that Christian Register source that specifically says its a prayer, but just forgot to copy it into that sentence. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The C of E, I am now satisfied to pass this article for GA. Thanks for your efforts. Turns out, phrases, even common ones, are not generally the subject of in-depth analysis (there are of course exceptions). Good work. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Non-reviewer comments:

  • Some sources are missing page numbers, please add them.
  • If the lead repeats information that's already cited elsewhere in the article with a source, you don't need to include a reference in the lead (there is some variation currently: e.g. the lead mentions beth din but the section it's supposed to summarize does not).
  • I've spotted some original research problems. Namely, the article claims "The phrase is treated as a prayer and would often be followed by 'amen'", but only cites a single court case. You can't say it's often this or often that, unless your sources do. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think both our concerns regarding these points have been addressed. A couple of the sources don't have page numbers because they don't have pages (the others have been included), beth din has been included in the body and only the last point is actually cited in the lede. Actually, The C of E, you can remove citation 1 from the lede, since it's been covered in the body. Just a thought. No preclusion to GA. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:May_God_have_mercy_upon_your_soul&oldid=1208886934"