# Talk:William J. Seymour

It might be a little cleaner if the  {{reflist}} section was called Notes. The References section would only have full citations those that use the author and page citation style such as Borlase, AF, Robeck 2006, Espinosa, Robins 2010, and Synan. Regular cites would remain in article and appear under notes along with the the author and page citations. As it is, one has to scan the section to find Espinosa as they are out of order. It would be a challenge to make sure the full reference is the first mention. By the way, column sizes are automatic so (em=250) is no longer needed.
I haven't had time to carefully read the article fully but I am a little confused by the following reference:

Bartleman, Azusa Street, 47, 54. Is this the same as AF?
Regards, Fettlemap (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I left that in from the previous editor, but I check it out this weekend. Thanks for the help! DEvans (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Here's what I found concerning the Bartleman reference: There are a number of books with the title Azusa Street by Frank Bartleman. They are compilations of the same thing, but the pages are different. I have three of those books and none of them match the reference. Since it would be a primary source anyway, I used the secondary source, Robeck. He makes the same point.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterniceguy (talk • contribs) 14:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Misterniceguy (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Generally, a Wikilink should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Roman Catholic is not linked till the third mention at the very end of the article. Fettlemap (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. I'll go through the article when I get the bulk of it finished and get the links in compliance with Wiki standards. I appreciate the help! Misterniceguy (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the following sentence.

The flames of revival at Azusa burned brightly until 1908.
I am not an expert but this is not an encyclopedic style. This would appear in an article or book but not on Wikipedia. After reading Words to watch, one could look for more instances of such language. Fettlemap (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll make the change. Thanks. Misterniceguy (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm about finished with the research portion of the rewrite. It'll need some proofing, formatting, suggested changes, etc. I'll start proofing next week sometime, but help from other editors is appreciated. Pictures are worth a thousand words if anyone can contribute. I hope to submit this as a good article. Misterniceguy (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

References are now formatted. I spent a lot of time, so I hope I preserved the reference information while formatting. Fact checking and copy edits would be appreciated. Misterniceguy (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@John Foxe Do you think it's ready for GA review? Here are the criteria: Wikipedia:Good article criteria Misterniceguy (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it meets the criteria pretty well except for the first, "well written." I'll keep at the copy editing as I have opportunity, and if other folks pop up as a result of the GA nomination, so much the better.--John Foxe (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I submitted the article for GA review. Misterniceguy (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Good.  I'll back off copyediting for a while and wait to see if anyone else out there is interested.--John Foxe (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:William J. Seymour/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ltwin (talk · contribs) 19:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. Ltwin (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ltwin. I appreciate your time and suggested changes. I'll get started revising. Most of my work will probably be done this weekend, but hopefully I can knock some of the little things off the list in the next couple days. Misterniceguy (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Your welcome. When you address an issue on the list, please strike through it. Ltwin (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


### GAN on hold
I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold until the following issues are addressed.
Well written

The lead section is only 1 sentence long. MOS:LEAD states that "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." A good lead section should probably be at least 2 paragraphs but no more than 4.
I'll wait to address the lead until I'm finished with everything else. I'll get back at it in a couple days. Misterniceguy (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I rewrote the lead to give a summary of his life and influence. The only concern I have is labeling Parham is a Pentecostal minister because there was no established "Pentecostal" faith back then. However, I think the text supports and explains the statement. I can change it if needed. Misterniceguy (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion: It might be better to remove the style "Rev." from the first sentence per MOS:HON, and it seems out of character for early Pentecostalism, in which participants rejected religious titles and called everyone brother and sister.
Good point. I found only one title "Rev." in the article, which I changed. Misterniceguy (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
You need to spell out that the "Baptist church that the family likely attended" was the New Providence one because the way it is written currently makes it seem as if there were two Baptist churches he attended.
I reworded the two sentences to clarify. Misterniceguy (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
The 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph under "Early career" has footnote and comma placement issues that need to be fixed.
I removed the reference to being ordained. Robeck and Espinosa disagree a bit, so I think it's better to removed it. Misterniceguy (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The parenthetical sentence in the 3rd paragraph—"He probably met both while in Jackson."—is odd and should be rewritten.
Agreed. I attempted to clarify, but I'll do a little more when I copy-edit the paragraph. Misterniceguy (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The 3rd paragraph needs to be copy edited. There is redundant information; for example, we are told twice that Seymour met Charles Price Jones. Misterniceguy (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The last sentence in paragraph 3 should be moved to the 4th paragraph, since it fits with that information better.
Done. I put it in the lead sentence to define Farrow. Misterniceguy (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding material on Parham, perhaps we should introduce him and his movement prior to discussing how Seymour and Farrow got involved.
Done. I added emphasis on tongues which is consistent with all the sources. Misterniceguy (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
When discussing Parham’s doctrine, you need to mention and link to baptism in the Holy Spirit because speaking in tongues was never the goal itself but only as a sign of Spirit baptism.
I defined this in my copy edit of that section Misterniceguy (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
"Houston was especially receptive to Parham's teaching, and in the summer of 1905, he made the city his base of operations." – This sentence is slightly confusing. On first reading, "Houston" sounds like a person who likes Parham’s teachings.
Another good point. The author was referring to the holiness community, so I clarified. Misterniceguy (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The 3rd sentence of the 5th paragraph under "Early career" suggests that Parham and Seymour were praying together for his Spirit baptism, but the sources cited don't say that. Robeck writes that Seymour sought the baptism but did not receive it during his time working with Parham.
I made a few changes. I brought the sentence more in line with Robeck. I also added that Parham only permitted Seymour to preach to blacks. This helps explain their rift later on. Misterniceguy (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 Throughout the "Azusa Street Revival" section the word "spirit" needs to begin with a capital letter because it refers to baptism in the Holy Spirit.
I went ahead and made this change since we cap "Holy Spirit" and "Spirit" is simply a shortened version. I think I got them all. Misterniceguy (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
"another African American's house owned by Richard Asberry" – Is Richard Asberry the African American who lived in the house or someone else? The sentence is unclear.
I struggled with this wording. Hopefully it is better now. The references indicate that Asberry lived there. Misterniceguy (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Is the paragraph-long quote from R. G. Robins necessary? Couldn't anything important in it be put in Wikipedia’s own words in a much more concise manner? Misterniceguy (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The last two paragraphs in "Decline of the Azusa Street Revival" should be combined. Misterniceguy (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Verifiable

These footnotes are too vague:
**Lake, "Origins of the Apostolic Faith Movement," 3.

Lake, "Origins of the Apostolic Faith Movement," 3; Irwin, "Charles Price Jones," 45. 
AF (December 1906): I; AF, "The Same Old Way," 3; AF, Bible Pentecost," I; Bartleman, Azusa Street, 47, 54.
If "AF" is The Apostolic Faith', keep in mind it and Bartleman’s book are not reliable secondary sources. You can include these in a "Further reading" section as primary sources, but they should not be used for purposes of verifying information in the article.
Agreed. I removed the references and replaced with more reliable sources. I also agree with the primary source, Bartleman. Misterniceguy (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
These need page numbers
Synan 2012
Espinosa 2014
Robins 2010.
Two of these were redundant references, so I removed those. I also removed an unneeded sentence to take care of Robins 2010. Misterniceguy (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The Synan 2012 notes are not linking to the Reference section.
Under "Early career", the "Robins 2010, p. 26" citation is duplicated twice after consecutive sentences. Combine them. Misterniceguy (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The last sentence under "Early life" has 3 citations. That might be over citing. If possible, you could do without the redundant citations.
I fixed a few of these throughout the article, and in doing so, it fixed some of my missing page numbers in citations. Misterniceguy (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
"while enduring racial discrimination—an experience that may later have encouraged him to emphasize racial equality at the Azusa mission." – I couldn't find support for this last statement in the citation given.
I clarified the citation and added a sentence for further explanation. Misterniceguy (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
The second paragraph under "Early career" needs to be checked against Robeck. Robeck does not say that Seymour was definitively a student of Knapp's (I also don't see where he says they were "close associates"). Robeck states that it was "likely" Seymour attended the Bible college.
You made a good point. I reread Robeck and added Synan to the reference. I also added "probably" and removed "close associate." I think he was, but I've exhausted my research on this point. Here are a couple quotes: "Three important factors must have attracted Seymour to study at 'God's Bible School'".(Robeck p=33) "Seymour may have briefly attended 'God's Bible School'"(Synan, p=32) "By the late 1890's, his (Seymour) closest association appears to have been with Knapp and Rees's International Holiness Union and Prayer League, whose God's Bible School he reportedly attended.(Robins, p=25) "Though precise details have yet to be documented about Knapp's direct direct impact on Seymour's theology, there appears to be general consensus among scholars that Knapp did have an effect on him."(Synan, p=32) "He sat at the feet of a number of Wesleyan holiness teachers over the years over the previous half dozen years - among them Martin Wells Knapp..."(Robeck, p=62) With these in mind, I think this warrants a "probably". :) Misterniceguy (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
On Parham, the article claims he was an "important figure" in the holiness movement. Is there a reliable source for this? The sources I'm aware of paint him and early Pentecostals in general as on the fringes of the holiness movement.
All the sources associate him in some way with the holiness movement because that is where most of his audience came from. However, I removed that statement in my copy edit because the new Parham material covers that statement. Misterniceguy (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Broad coverage

The sections on the revival and its decline are quite long. For ease of reading, you might want to consider dividing these sections further.
Done. I'm open to wording changes for the titles. Misterniceguy (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The first paragraph in the Legacy section is not encyclopedic. It needs to be removed. Misterniceguy (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Neutral

"There is no doubt that Seymour started the Azusa Street Revival that gave rise to all modern Pentecostal faiths." (Legacy and influence) – This sounds promotional. Also, the source used is from an online article that is a dead link. There are better sources available to establish the centrality of Azusa Street to Pentecostal origins. Perhaps you could replace this sentence with something like "All major Pentecostal denominations trace their origins to Azusa Street" or something similar.
Made some minor tweaks to the text to bring it in line. Misterniceguy (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


### Overall
This was an informative article that covered all the main aspects of Seymour's life. There were some issues with sourcing, verification and prose that need to be addressed before this article can be passed. Ltwin (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ltwin, thanks for the review and all the suggestions. Thanks also to John Foxe for his editing. I think I took care of all of the concerns. The article is much improved and ready for a final review. I'll be watching for any more suggestions. Misterniceguy (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Misterniceguy, thank you for your work on the article. Give me a day or two to look over the article, and I will let you know my decision. Ltwin (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing my concerns. Everything looks good to me, and I see no reason not to pass this article. Congratulations to Misterniceguy, John Foxe and all other editors who helped! Ltwin (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ltwin! I hope it is a blessing to many readers in the future. I appreciate your thorough review. Misterniceguy (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)