Talk:Richard Enraght/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Richard Enraght. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This article needs a great deal of clean-up. Please stop removing the template so other editors can be allerted to the need for assistance. Please also see the manual on style. --Evb-wiki 15:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources. This article is nowhere near free from the need for references and clean-up. Do not remove the tags without receiving a consensus. --Evb-wiki 19:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of the linked text jumps to a broken link. They are not formatted correctly, and Dave keeps adding more broken links faster than they can be corrected. --Evb-wiki 19:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice job cleaning up this article, Dave. Feel free to do more and to work on other articles as well. Cheers. --Evb-wiki 18:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dave, do you think you can provide a brief summary statement concerning the Ritualist controversies to add a bit of context to the intro? That way a reader will have some idea of why Fr. Enraght was pursecuted. --Evb-wiki 18:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I will start putting something together daveportslade 20:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is one of the best Anglicanism-related articles in Wikipedia. It needs just a bit of guidence to make it to GA and possibly FA. Is there much more work to be done? -- SECisek 22:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is very good. On Secisek's talk page there is mention that ...after his death his son became an Anglo-Catholic priest in his Fathers tradition, and his daughter married the Vicar of Walsingham. I can't find marriage,wife, son or daughter mentioned in the article Was he like Cranmer and we weren't supposed to know? By the way, glad to find another constructive Anglican editor. And also I've learned something...knew nothing about Enraght at all. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia style guide, the 'See also' section comes right after the text and the 'External links' are last. This isn't meant to be a criticism but trying to make the "See Also" section conform to WP policy: see Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#The "See also". I don't think you have any duplicate wiki links but the "See Also" section should have links that can not possibly be fit into the text of the article but that may cause a reader confusion. The relevant bits of text are:

The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article or link to pages that do not exist. Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links.

and

There may be a "See also" section which can include:

• Terms which can be confused with Title, for example New Market and Newmarket
• Likely misspellings of Title, for example Belmont, Belmonte and Bellmont

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for undoing your hard work but the 'see also' wiki links wouldn't last a GA review. There is no requirement to have a 'See also' list. Actually, it is best if there isn't as the wiki links should be in the text. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 18:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]

Article is currently at 7, 339 words, 36,625 characters (no spaces), and 43, 818 characters with spaces.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.

*This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?] *There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.

• • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?] *Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), honour (B) (American: honor), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), defence (B) (American: defense), pretence (B) (American: pretense), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), grey (B) (American: gray).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)

**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?] *Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

Grammar: Fragment of a sentence only. Consdier revising:

re-wrote opening with refs dave-portslade 11:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Grammar: Is this quotation correctly quoted?

Grammar would have the word be change to been.

(now corrected typing error, 'been for be' dave-portslade 17:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SriMesh | talk 05:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you must prune, I am unsure how much the 1880 protest poster or the time line add to the article. -- SECisek 21:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

started pruning like to keep poster, how much should be deleted ? dave-portslade 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you need to do much. Usually the complaint with GA and FA nominations is unbalanced articles: lots of text in one section of the article and very little in another. Of course, somethings are more important than other things. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't take out too much, maybe a seperate article on his writings could absorb some of the material? -- SECisek 18:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fix the final points above and see what the reviewer says. I think it fine. -- SECisek 16:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Richard Enraght. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.