This review is transcluded from Talk:Cathedral of Christ the King (Atlanta)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: JJonahJackalope (talk · contribs) 19:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Riley1012 (talk · contribs) 20:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will take on this review. I will put up comments within one week. Thanks, Riley1012 (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

1. Well-written
The article complies with the Manual of Style guidelines. There are a couple of sentences that could use clarification:

• Christ the King School, an affiliated K–8 school, had a membership of over 500 students. As of when?
  • In the section on Christ the King School, the last two sentences specify that this information is from 2003. I have added this information to the lead. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The firm was based in Philadelphia, where Bishop O'Hara had prior to his relocation to Savannah,... Bishop O'Hara had what?
  • Added "stationed" between "been" and "prior". -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ...and since then, Christ the King has served as the site of installation for all of subsequent archbishops. Remove the word "of".
  • Done. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• By the mid-2000s, the cathedral had a reported membership of roughly 5,300 families, Should be a period instead of a comma.
  • Done. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. Verifiable
There are no issues with the reference layout, and the sources used are reliable. Earwig's shows no initial copyright violations. I conducted a spot check of the sources I have access to. This included citations 4, 13, 19, 36, 41, 53, 54, and 67, which were all fine.

• 50: By the end of the decade, as part of Catholic–Lutheran dialogues stemming from the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, joint Catholic–Lutheran services were conducted at the cathedral in November 1967. My read of this source is that there was only one service, not multiple. And was this 1968 or 1967?
  • After re-reading the source, I was incorrect in saying "services" instead of the singular "service", so I have fixed that in the article. Additionally, the article says that the event took place one month after the 450th anniversary of Reformation Day (or at least that's how I believe the article is meant to be interpreted), which would place the event in November 1967. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, got it. I wasn't sure because the paragraph before was talking about 1968. -Riley1012 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad
The article addressed the main aspects of the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

4. Neutral
The article is neutral in its tone and content.

5. Stable
I have looked through the talk page and edit history to verify there are no ongoing content disputes.

6. Illustrated
The images used are tagged with their copyright statuses. They are relevant and have suitable captions.

@JJonahJackalope: I am done with my review, and I only have a couple of comments (see the bullet points above). -Riley1012 (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Riley1012:, I just wanted to reach out to let you know that I have made some edits to the article to address some of the points you made in this review. Thank you for initiating this, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please reach out. Regards, -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your edits. I will pass this article now. -Riley1012 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]