# Talk:May God have mercy upon your soul

This review is transcluded from Talk:May God have mercy upon your soul/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 07:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there I will be taking a look at completing the review for this article, I expect that my review will be up later today. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I will be using the above table to complete the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The C of E, I have completed my initial review of the article you have nominated. I will note that my, and another editor's, main concern is with reference to WP:OR. It appears that you have drawn certain conclusions that your sources have not, these conclusions may be correct but Wikipedia doesn't allow for an editor to draw those conclusions. I haven't reviewed 3a and b as I cannot drawn any definitive conclusions about it yet. I commend the work you have done thus far, and, I feel it is possible to bring this article to GA standard within a week. If you need any assistance feel free to ping me. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
With regard to the photo, it was published in the Daily Mirror in 1912 so it is ineligible for copyright according to the above.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: I have amended the article in accordance with your suggestions. Could you give it another look please?  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: I have added a few more sourced and reworded some of the areas that you were concerned about.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The C of E, practically all but the last issue have been addressed. Can you find a source that states that the usage of the phrase is meant as a prayer on the soul of the condemned. I don't think that it would be too difficult to find, I'll take a look myself. An example of it won't pass as a conclusion, GA will require a source to draw the conclusion and not the reader or any editor. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: Oops, oversight on my part. I had found that Christian Register source that specifically says its a prayer, but just forgot to copy it into that sentence.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The C of E, I am now satisfied to pass this article for GA. Thanks for your efforts. Turns out, phrases, even common ones, are not generally the subject of in-depth analysis (there are of course exceptions). Good work. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comments:

Some sources are missing page numbers, please add them.
If the lead repeats information that's already cited elsewhere in the article with a source, you don't need to include a reference in the lead (there is some variation currently: e.g. the lead mentions beth din but the section it's supposed to summarize does not).
I've spotted some original research problems. Namely, the article claims  "The phrase is treated as a prayer and would often be followed by 'amen'", but only cites a single court case. You can't say it's often this or often that, unless your sources do. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I think both our concerns regarding these points have been addressed. A couple of the sources don't have page numbers because they don't have pages (the others have been included), beth din has been included in the body and only the last point is actually cited in the lede. Actually, The C of E, you can remove citation 1 from the lede, since it's been covered in the body. Just a thought. No preclusion to GA. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)