Wikipedia:Peer review/New Testament Christian Churches of America/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article recently underwent a review for GA status, but failed. I corrected all the points which the GA reviewer brought up. I'd like a peer review to correct any faults which still remain so we can get this article to GA status. Please note that the reliable sources upon which the article is based turned up largely negative information on this church and if the article reflected the tone and majority content of the reliable sources, it would sound much more critical, and have much more critical information. It is already toned down the the bare facts to make it encyclopedic.
Thanks, BE——Critical__Talk 21:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: The neutrality dispute must be resolved for the article to have any chance for promotion. I don't think it can be resolved by debating individual sentences. The basic problem is that the piece, which includes many claims that are apt to be questioned, relies almost completely on a single source. I see two ways to improve the article. One would be to find other reliable sources of information about the church. If that is not possible, the existing article could be greatly reduced to a "who, what, when, where" stub or start-class piece providing basic information that is not apt to be questioned. I elaborate a little on these ideas below.
Lead
- I need go no further than the lede to see why WP:NPOV might come to mind. The first two sentences are neutral. The third sentence appears neutral. The last two sentences of the lead say negative things about the church, and the cited sources appear to support the claims. The problem is that while negative claims are included, no positive ones are included. Yet Bruce Smith, the oft-cited Dispatch reporter, referring to "the Born Again Experience", says here, "Most church members describe this event as the most profound and beautiful moment of their lives. They feel that they have been touched or spoken to by God directly, even while coming at times of absolute despair." It seems to me that a neutral article about the church would not ignore the members of the congregation who have something positive to say about it.
History
- This section seems to me to meet the neutrality guidelines.
Proselytizing
- Bruce Smith and the church web site are the only two sources for this section. Smith works for a very small newspaper in a very small town. Although the newspaper meets the guidelines at WP:RS, it is still only a single source. If I were writing the article, I would try to find other reliable sources in addition to the Smith series. If I couldn't find any, I would conclude that at least parts of the article were not notable per WP:NOTABLE.
- "The NTCC is an evangelical church which believes the Bible... " - A church doesn't believe anything; the members believe. Suggestion: "The NTCC is an evangelical church, the members of which believe the Bible... ".
Constituency and facilities
- Again, Smith and the church are the only two sources cited. If Smith's story is important, why haven't other newspapers picked it up?
Criticism
- Smith is the only source for a series of extraordinary claims. What if he is wrong?
Beliefs and practices
- Ditto. All of these claims depend only on Smith for support.
Financial distribution
- Ditto. Essentially all dependent on Smith.
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)