Talk:Martin Luther/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Starting first read-through today. Will report back soonest. Meanwhile, you might wish to disambiguate the links to Agricola, Mark Edwards and Robert Michael. Tim riley (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is full of good things, but will need a fair bit of work before it is fit for promotion to GA.

First, it is dreadfully overlinked. See WP:OVERLINK. In the lead alone, there are wholly unecessary links to German, pope (second mention within three lines), divinely, German language, and hymns. You need to go through the whole article delinking any commonplace words – in the Birth and education section "reason", "lightning", in the next, "prayer", and so on. You also need to remove over-frequent repetitions of links – for instance Tetzel is linked twice in the same sub-section. (By contrast, I was surprised not to see links to books of the Bible at the start of the Justification by faith section. You are inconsistent in this throughout the article: I suggest you link each book at first mention and not thereafter.)

Secondly, you veer between UK English and American English spellings. Some of the latter, I can see, are in quotations, but as Luther was speaking in German you are at liberty to standardise on how you spell his words in translation

If you make a start on these, I will put the review on hold in the meanwhile. Tim riley (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I think, and I chose American English. TGilmour (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitic section

Since there is a separate article on the anti-semitism, shouldn't this section in the article be reduced to two paragraphs or so? The guideline states that a short summary should be left on the split information. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the article is still big in size in comparison with that section. TGilmour (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the guideline says. If I remember right, the tradition was to try to keep a summary of the split section to two paragraphs, otherwise too much material is duplicated between the two articles. Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall take this into account when continuing my review. Tim riley (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section says "...rejected the use of them to incite hatred against Lutherans." Surely it should be "...rejected the use of them to incite hatred against Jews" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.73.229.134 (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming review

As my earlier comments have been addressed, I'll resume the review in the next day or two. Tim riley (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rather agree with Cla68 about the length of that one section: all the other sub-sections are of appropriate length, in my view, and it would be as well to trim the anti-semitism one a little. However, that is not, in my judgment, a grave enough objection to prevent promoting this article to GA.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

In my opinion this article could be a worthy candidate for WP:FAC with some further polishing of the prose. I found it stimulating and instructive to review. It gives me great pleasure to affirm its GA-status. I have a few minor suggestions about layout etc which I shall put on the article talk page rather than here. Tim riley (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]