Wikipedia:Peer review/Old Time Missionary Baptist/archive1
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
the editor that has been helping me rebuild the article, John Carter, told me that the next step in perfecting the article is to request a peer review. My eventual goal is to get it nominated for Featured Article, but I know that won't happen anytime soon, so my immediate goal is to improve it's letter grade from C to A. Any comments or contributions would be helpful.
Thanks, Joshua Ingram 16:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Brianboulton
An interesting article, but not as yet conforming to the requirements of an encyclopedia entry.
- The article should be a neutrally-phrased account of this organization, covering its history, its doctrines, its present activities and its relationships with the outside world. The accent is on neutrally-phrased. At present the article reads more like promotional literature, a justification for the church. I recognise that efforts have been made to remove or modify POV content, but much more needs to be done.
- All cited material seem to be internal to the organisation, and cannot by its nature present a neutral standpoint. Is there no material from outside the church that can be drawn on, to give an external perspective?
- A number of "sources" are listed which are not cited, so there is no indication as to how these have been used in the text. Unless specific material from them has been used, and can be cited, these works should be listed as "Further reading".
- The citations which you have given are too imprecise; they need to be to specific references within books, e.g. page numbers, not to the whole book. You should look at WP:CITE to see how citations should be made, and how the list of sources should be formatted.
- There are several citations to the King James Version of the Bible. Citing the Bible as a source of quotations, giving book, chapter and verse, is OK, but you cannot cite the whole bible as confirming statements in the article.
- I imagine that the list in the "Fundamental doctrines" section sets out the basic beliefs of the church, and that the wording is taken from Carroll's book. If this is so, the list should be introduced by a neutral statement, making it clear where these statements have cpome from. You should not state that these are "according to the bible", as this is pure POV.
- Apart from questions of POV and internal perspective, the article is somewhat untidily presented, as a mixture of text and lists. Lists should be used sparingly, and where possible converted to prose. If the list of doctrines is thus presnted in Carroll's book it can be retained in that form, but it should be made clear that it is a quotation. The three-point list in the Characteristics section should be converted to prose, while the list of Associations should be at the end of the article.
I see no reason why this shouldn't develop into a quality article, but there is a way to go yet, I'm afraid. I'll be interested to see how you go about it.