Talk:Presbyterian Church in the United States of America

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Presbyterian Church in the United States of America/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JackTheVicar (talk · contribs) 21:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• I will start this review sometime within the next 48 hours, this coming weekend (17.10.2015 or 18.10.2015). I am obligated to finish reviewing another article, but seeing this is an old nomination, and a topic I'm familiar with, I thought I'd jump in. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• I reached out to Ltwin on their talk page and am pinging them to this page now. It doesn't appear that Ltwin has been active the past several weeks (a half dozen edits in two months), so I will await their response and ask their ability to respond to a review before I prepare an in-depth review. If the user is not active (and not active within the next 14 days), I will post a more general review providing suggestions for when the user does return and then request advice on how to proceed from users on the GA project discussion page. If you do show up, Ltwin, ping me, I generally respond within a day if not sooner. JackTheVicar (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This review by User:JackTheVicar has been withdrawn per Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Blocked sock with open nominations and reviews. Prhartcom (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Presbyterian Church in the United States of America/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jfhutson (talk · contribs) 14:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

This is my first time reviewing, so here goes. I have made a few very minor contributions to this article in the past, but nothing I think can be called "significant". Here is my first pass of the first few sections. So far I think the prose is good and the article is understandable with a few additional explanations of terms that come up.

• There is something broke with the infobox where it says "{{{congregations_type}}}"

 Fixed --JFH (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• "The church's doctrines and practices were more ecumenical and less committed to traditional Calvinism" more than what? less than what?
• Need a little background on what Presbyterianism is, what's a presbytery, etc.
• "Presbyterian congregations were disorganized" maybe "unorganized"?
• "Drawing from a Scotch-Irish revivalist tradition" -> "the" instead of "a"
• "Revivalists objected to this restriction noting that..." need a comma before "that"
• Society in Scotland for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge looks like a bad redirect
• "The Old Side Synod had one minister located in the South." need to make it clear you're talking about expansion, sounds kind of like a random statement
• The membership table gets too close to the text.
• So far I think we've spent too much text on the pre-history of the denomination. The article is not short, so I think you could move some of the pre-history out to American Presbyterianism. If that article gets too unfocused we can create History of American Presbyterianism (1706–1789). This is a suggestion about which I could be convinced otherwise.
• "postmillenialism" misspelled
• "Thousand year golden age" sounds like it implies a literal thousand years, is that really correct for postmils in this period?
• Several captions just have names of the pictured person. See WP:Caption#Establishing relevance to the article
• "Furthermore, both Presbyterian Churches boldly proclaimed" I don't think "Churches" should be capitalized here. It might be better anyway to say "both schools" anyway.
• Broad church is about Anglicanism. Even if this is the correct term to use here (do your sources use this term? does ecumenical work?) I would not wikilink and I would include a brief explanation of the term, as well as modernist theology (does liberal theology work?)
• Saying the Confession teaches inerrancy is going to be contested by RSes because of the loaded nature of that term even if it says the Bible doesn't contain errors (sorry, I know too much here). I would just say Briggs and the Confession disagree on the Bible containing errors.
• We're getting a little busy with images. See WP:IMGLOC
• Explain what the social gospel is as soon as you use the term.
• If you must use a quotation (I don't think it's necessary here), you need to attribute it in-text. See MOS:QUOTE#Attribution.
• Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions wikilink
• "There were conservative reservations over the PCUSA's decision to ordain women..." It's takes to time to figure out that this sentence is talking about the conservatives in the UPCNA. Make that clear upfront.
• The beliefs section is mostly a rehash of the history. I wonder if you could write about important beliefs that did not cause controversies, and so were not talked about in the history.

@Ltwin: let me know if you are going to address the issues above. If so, I will put the review on hold. Otherwise, I don't believe the article is quite up to GA criteria yet, mostly clarity reasons. --JFH (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of November 23, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Clarity is impaired by terms which are not defined for a general audience.

2. Verifiable?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?: Captions need to establish relevance. Some images sandwich text.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. --JFH (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I've finally addressed all of the issues brought out in this nomination, so I will go ahead and renominate it. Ltwin (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150120012922/http://www.gale.cengage.com/pdf/scguides/presbyterian/bfmintro.pdf to http://www.gale.cengage.com/pdf/scguides/presbyterian/bfmintro.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Presbyterian Church in the United States of America/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bradv (talk · contribs) 15:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This is my first GA review in a few years, but this is a topic I'm a little familiar with, so here goes. I'll be going through the following checklist. Bradv 15:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Well-written article, with a clear and thorough understanding of the topic.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Y There may still be some technical terms, but I'm not sure that can be avoided with this topic.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

   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:

   Y Almost every paragraph contains a reference to a reliable source.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Y While there is a lot of detail in the article, it is all relevant to the topic.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Y No concerns with neutrality. Full coverage is given to both sides of every debate in the history of this denomination, as far as I can tell.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Y Excellent job with the pictures.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Y Well done. I've looked over the concerns with previous reviews, and they all appear to be addressed.