This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 4 February 2023 by reviewer I dream of horses (talk · contribs). Evangelical Christianity This article is within the scope of WikiProject Evangelical Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Evangelical Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Evangelical ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityEvangelical Christianity ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Christianity: Charismatic This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.

This review is transcluded from Talk:North American Youth Congress/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: JParksT2023 (talk · contribs) 18:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Dclemens1971 (talk · contribs) 18:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   With 71 words, the lead section is too short and non-compliant with MOS:LEAD.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The majority of sources are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and/or non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Of 51 footnotes, 76% are to sources affiliated with UPCI, the NAYC or other affiliated ministries. Moreover, many of the secondary local news sources appear to be based on UPCI/NAYC press releases and thus of questionable independence. The extensive use of primary sources results in a significant amount of WP:OR. There is some close paraphrasing of certain sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article reads as focused on the nitty-gritty details of each biennial event (location, target charities, etc.) and not as much content on the overarching conference.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Comments like Being the largest event hosted by the United Pentecostal Church International, NAYC is considered the "premier youth conference" of the UPCI, sourced to the UCPI, read like marketing copy. The article on the whole reads like promotional material for this event.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I am unconvinced that the logo for the 2023 conference, uploaded to Commons as a non-copyrighted text treatment, falls below the threshold of originality.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Unfortunately, this is a GA quickfail under provision 1 due to it being a long way from meeting four of the six GA criteria. I hope this feedback assists editors with improvements; good luck!

Dclemens1971, thank you for the comments! As I am this article's creator and main editor, this feedback is invaluable and essential to reveal the blind spots I have as its creator, my main motivation for even putting it up in the first place. I appreciate the time you spent reviewing this article, it certainly does not go unnoticed!

One quick note, I do think that the sources in this article that you reference fall underneath WP:ABOUTSELF. Additionally, citations 2, 4, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17 (and 42), 26, and 28 are all from secondary sources (arguably third-party sources) and I think it's difficult to point any reliance on UPCI/NAYC sources beyond what any reputable source would do under any typical circumstances. These are outside, unaffiliated sources, and WP:Independent states, "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." I think this applies to every citation above. If so, these sources independently verify:

• NAYC as one of the largest Christian youth events in the nation and other general event information (2, 4, 15)
• NAYC 2019 attendance, location, dates, theme, and SERVE project (2, 4, 8, 13, 14, 17)
• SERVE and Project 22:39 (4)
• NAYC 2015 attendance, location, dates, Project 22:39, and city impact (4, 10, 26, 28)
• NAYC 2017 attendance (4)
• NAYC 2023 attendance, location, and SERVE project (15)
• NAYC 2021 and its cancellation (17)

These sources alone back up a significant portion of the entire article's topic and additionally do not differ from any of the information in the UPCI/NAYC-affiliated sources that make up the rest of the article. If I'm incorrect about this, please let me know!

Once again, thank you for your help, it is much appreciated! JParksT2023 (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JParksT2023. Regarding WP:ABOUTSELF, I absolutely think they can be used to validate non-controversial facts about the organization. The problem is that the article is so reliant on them, and ABOUTSELF limits their use: The article is not based primarily on such sources. Moreover, GA is pretty clear that reliable sources are needed, and those are inherently going to be independent of the subject. On the one hand, if a subject simply doesn't have much coverage in reliable independent sources, it might not be GA material. However, if you can source facts currently cited by UPCI-related sources to non-affiliated sources, that would be an improvement. However, I would be careful about the local news sources that appear to be based on NAYC press releases as those would be non-independent, and a future GA reviewer will spot-check them. (For example, this St. Louis Post-Dispatch article appears to be a literal press release.) As I said above, good luck with the improvements! Thanks for being receptive to feedback and ping me in the future if I can be helpful. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is helpful! In regards to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch articles, they are 100% not independent, as the author for all of them is "UPCI-JM", so I'm right there with you on that point. Thank you once again! JParksT2023 (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]