Talk:Inauguration of a Torah scroll/GA1

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Katolophyromai in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 05:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I will review this article. I have nominated the articles Inanna, Enlil, Anunnaki, Athena, Jonah, and Pythagoras in this category and they are all currently awaiting review. I also have several more articles I am still working on that I plan to nominate in the relatively near future. I have read this article over a few times and, right now, it looks like a promising candidate for GA. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I found one sentence that is uncited. I must remind you that all statements in the article must be cited to a reliable source for verifiability. Aside from that, I think that the article is fine and I am prepared to pass it as soon as a citation is provided. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your review. If you are asking for a cite for the various locations which might have a Jewish chapel in them, I will have to do more research. However, I added a follow-up sentence to this paragraph which explains when the Torah is read during prayer services. Does this work? Yoninah (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Yes. I think the citation you added works. While it would be ideal to have a citation to support the locations that might have a Jewish chapel, I do not think that this is necessary. I was mainly expecting you to provide a source to support the statement that the scroll would be designated for use during prayer services in a synagogue or sanctuary. I think that citation you have provided does that perfectly. (Once again, even the most obvious of statements such as this one still require a citation.) I am now prepared to pass the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):  
    b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. 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):  

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·  

Comments:

  1. The article is very well-written and I did not notice any spelling or grammar errors when I was reading through (though I have been known to miss them before).
  2. The references were easy to check since most of them were linked in the citations.
  3. The article adequately covers its subject, explaining all aspects of it, including the customs and traditions associated with it as well as the ceremony's background and history.
  4. I could not find any neutrality issues. (I do not think that this subject would be particularly prone to a great deal of controversy anyway.)
  5. The article is extremely stable; nearly all recent changes to the article are extremely minor tweaks conducted by the primary author.
  6. The article uses a large number of helpful images, showing numerous examples of Torah inauguration ceremonies from the past fifty years.

Based on my understanding of the criteria, I believe that this article passes all of them. If you think I have made a mistake or the article has not really passed, please contact me and inform me of my mistake. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Katolophyromai: Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Yoninah: Remember that it is recommended that you should try to review two articles for every one you nominate. Right now, I seem to be the only one reviewing articles in the "Philosophy and religion" category and there is quite a bit of a backlog. It would be nice to have some help working that backlog down. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Katolophyromai: Actually, I am very familiar with the rules of DYK, where I am a regular participant, and not at all familiar with the rules of GA. But if you like, I'll give it a try. There's a help desk for newbies? Yoninah (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Katolophyromai: I do not know if there is a "help desk," but you can find detailed instructions on the process at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Reviewing. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply