Talk:Roman Catholicism in Azerbaijan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roman Catholicism in Azerbaijan is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page. To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.) Date: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA nominee|insert date here|page=1|status=|subtopic=}}

	This article is part of WikiProject Azerbaijan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

To-do list for Roman Catholicism in Azerbaijan:	edit · history · watch · refresh
pictures 3 paragraph intro expand with references http://www.crs.org/our_work/where_we_work/overseas/eastern_europe_&_the_caucasus/the_caucasus/index.cfm http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=19309&sec=59&con=38 http://www.hrwf.net/html/azerbaijan2002.HTM#ChurchThreatenedwithDemolition http://www.cardinalrating.com/cardinal_102__article_2075.htm

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The big problem with this article is its sparse and shallow coverage of the subject. Aside from being too short, it also happens to read like a timeline--short, one-line sentence that give a year and an event. For GA, this article would have to go into more detail on certain key aspects, such key figures, actions, events, churches, etc. For articles on religion (which involve fancy churches and people), images are a must as well.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   one result of brief subject coverage is short, often one-line sentences and paragraphs. This article and its sections need more development--background, explanation, analysis, etc. External link sections usually come after references.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Sources are present, but draw heavily from "Catholic World News", and about half of the sources focus on either the building of a new church of Pope JP2's visit. Both content and names of sources need to diversify.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This is the biggest problem; the first sentence of the article's body talks about the first century AD, yet the 20th and 21st centuries each get their own sections. Why is coverage of the 18 centuries in between so sparse? Again, the article is right now little more than a historical timeline. To qualify as "broad coverage", it will need to do more than mention dates and events.

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):

   if/when the article gets longer, more images will be able to fit within it.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good job on the work so far, and good luck in improving the article.

Malachirality (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)