# Talk:Christine Schenk

Hello Oh-Fortuna! As requested at the May 2025 Women in Green GA edit-a-thon, here is a short mini-review to help identify any major improvements needed by this article before a formal Good Article nomination is submitted. The article is looking fairly broad, stable, and neutral, with a properly-tagged photo for illustration -- I think it's nearly ready to undergo a full GA review, and I have just a few key suggestions for improvement related to prose and citations beforehand:

Schenk's date of birth should be cited with a clear source (there's a year listed in the lead paragraph, and a month/day in the infobox, but no source).
The lead section includes a book review quote from Brian McDermott, accompanied by inline citation -- I suggest moving this quote to where the main article discusses Schenk's book (reserve the lead section for summarizing key points of Schenk's biography, such as book titles and publication years; avoid introducing other voices).
I'm seeing a handful of un-cited sentences that should have inline citations:
--> "After much discernment she discovered her own call was not to foreign missions. She earned a second master's degree in theology, with distinction, at Saint Mary Seminary and Graduate School of Theology in 1993."
--> "In 1994, after twenty years as a nurse-midwife, she decided to change direction toward pastoral ministry and church reform."
--> "Schenk is a columnist for National Catholic Reporter and serves on its board. She contributes regularly to other publications."

Some of the paragraphs in this article are quite large (particularly the FutureChurch paragraph), and these would benefit from being split into two or more smaller paragraphs for better readability. I recommend looking for small areas of natural "transition" within the narrative of large paragraphs: the overarching topic may stay the same, but you may see a clear part one or part two (etc.) of the paragraph where readers can pause for a moment before carrying on to the next paragraph of information.
While I'm not aware of any hard rules around the length of section titles, I notice that the section titles in this article feel overly long and detailed -- it can be challenging to decide how much information to pack into a section title, but a short summary of general content is usually all that is needed. For easier readability, I suggest making these section titles simpler and more concise. For example: "Crispina and Her Sisters, two subsequent books, and two documentaries" could become something like "Books and media appearances".
While not strictly required to meet GA criteria, it's good practice to add alt text to all images (I'd recommend aiming for 1-2 concise lines of visual description for the photo of Schenk).
Good luck with this article! Let me know if you have any questions about my comments. All the best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this! I'll undertake edits today. I'm so grateful for your time. Oh-Fortuna! (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I finished the edits! They were very helpful, and I found another good source. Should I tag the talk page now for a regular GA assessment, or is there a different procedure? Oh-Fortuna! (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Never mind! I found the instructions and am nominating it now. Gratefully, Oh-Fortuna! (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)