# Talk:Mike Pilavachi

This is a very poor article and needs serious cleanup. It's badly written, un-informative and has too few sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.13.186 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC) 

Well, why not lend a hand and help improve it? — Matt Crypto 20:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As he was ordained Deacon in 2012, he must have been priested by now, check for date.  Also, a year needs putting to the addition of a fifth week to Soul Survivor as the latest year mentioned in the section is 2011.Cloptonson (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Having read the article on Soul Survivor I have been able to date the development to last year.Cloptonson (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mike Pilavachi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 00:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Dclemens1971 (talk · contribs) 14:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Per WP:POSTNOM, his MBE should not be in the lead sentence. Titles of works (e.g. The Telegraph) are inconsistently italicized. The three redlinks are only linked to by this page, which means that it is unlikely another editor will in the reasonably near future create those pages. Small point but mildly out of compliance with the spirit of WP:REDLINK.
I removed the redlinks, the post nominal letters and fixed the inconsistently italicized titles of works. IAWW (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 
The statement However, by September 2024, he had been fully laicised is sourced here, which reads: "Mike Pilavachi has resigned from his role at Soul Survivor and surrendered his licence, preventing him from ministering in the Church of England. A separate clergy disciplinary process is ongoing, and statutory authorities have been informed." This source does not validate that he was "laicised," a term that is fairly specific to Roman Catholicism; according to our article on Defrocking, CofE clergy subject to discipline have their licenses revoked but there is not necessarily a loss of the priestly state, and the source offered makes no such statement, and this needs to be corrected before the article can be passed. (It is rather unfortunate that our clergy infobox uses only the term "laicised", but we need not repeat it in the text if the source doesn't support it.) A spot-check of several other references reveals everything else is fully sourced.
Ah, very good spot. I wasn't aware the term "liacised" had such specific denotations. I changed it to "he no longer had a license to minister". IAWW (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
This article is supposed to be a biography of Pilavachi, but it is entirely blank between 1958 and 1993. After the lead section, we pick up in 1993 with Pilavachi starting a ministry based on the success of New Wine... but who is he? And what is New Wine? And what has he done in ministry or elsewhere up to that point? I get that most of the article will be about Soul Survivor and the scandal for which he is most notable, but a biography cannot be sufficiently broad if it entirely neglects half of the subject's life to date. Some information on Pilavachi's first 35 years is necessary if this biography is to be a GA.
Yes, I agree. I struggled to find sourcing for this but I found some now, so I added an "Early life" section which integrates everything I could find on these years. Let me know what you think. IAWW (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world Looking much better! Can you flesh out a bit more about his start in ministry? New Wine and St. Andrew's Chorleywood are not really introduced and it seems like from this interview you cite elsewhere that he was at Chorleywood for some years before Soul Survivor began. Between that and the Reform interview, is there enough for another paragraph that bridges the gap? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Nice source! I added relevant information from that to give a better introduction to St. Andrew's Chorleywood and gave a very brief description of New Wine. Let me know what you think! IAWW (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
The material on the scandal is reliably sourced in secondary sources. It presents the unpleasant subject matter of the scandal in an encyclopedic, non-lurid way. Given the volume of coverage in major media, the treatment here is not WP:UNDUE provided we get more information on Pilavachi's earlier life and career.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
No concerns on neutrality.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
One significant defect that I hope the page creator will be able to fix, one smaller sourcing problem, and a handful of MOS fixes. With the improvements by the page creator, this article now meets the GA criteria. Good work and thanks for improving the biography! Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)