![]() | Azusa Street Revival has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() Updated 2007-08-07
|
removed the following as extraneous:
I tagged the main article with all the citation tags. I'm going to try and clean up this article some and cite sources, and hopefully add images and expand things a bit. Here are some of the sources that I plan on using:
Please contact me on my talk page if you have any comments or suggestions. Nswinton\ talk 17:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is currently undergoing a re-write. If you come in and find it jumbled and unintelligible at points, please be patient with me. Nswinton\ talk 22:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Update: I've got 9 images on the article now. I need to go back and properly source them next, then I'll be doing some library work in the next few days to get some more good sources to back up some of the weaker online ones. I started the "worship" section, but it's currently only a stub. I realized that the article has very little description of the actual revival events that went on, so I plan to make that section give a more complete picture of what it would have been like in 312 Azusa Street during the fall of 1906. Nswinton\ talk 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I have taken on Azusa Street Revival for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by User:Wikihermit. You'll be pleased to hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria, so I will shortly be conducting an in-depth review and will post the results below.
Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around a week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Regards, EyeSerene TALK 16:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:
1 Well written FAIL
1.1 Prose
This is generally good, and flows in a logical, readable way. The only minor points I noticed were:
1.2
Manual of Style
Again this is generally good. Citations are appropriately formatted, the section order seems logical, the article is well wikilinked, the lead is a fair summary of the article, and headings mostly follow the MoS. However, there are a few issues:
2 Factual accuracy PASS
The article is well cited, and refs are provided for most statements that could be challenged. One or two that could do with a direct ref are given below, but this is more in the nature of suggestions for further improvement than part of this GA review.
3 Coverage WEAK FAIL
The article covers the subject in appropriate depth. However, it occasionally teeters on losing focus:
4 Neutrality PASS
The article is neutral and unbiased, giving a fair and factual coverage of the events discussed (other than those few minor POV issues mentioned above).
5 Stability PASS
There is no evidence of instability in the edit history.
6 Images PASS
All images used are appropriately captioned and have a suitable copyright status.
The outcome of this review is that I have placed GA status on hold, pending the above points being addressed. Editors now have up to a week to make the required improvements, although in rare cases the hold period can be briefly extended.
To help with tracking, editors may like to paste the following template after each recommendation as it is dealt with: {{done}}. Once editing is complete you can let me know on my talk page, and I will re-review the article. In any case I will check back here next Monday (6th August). All the best EyeSerene TALK 09:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on an excellent copyedit on the suggestions provided. I have now passed the article as meeting the GA criteria, and have listed it as such on the Good Articles page. For the record, editing for GA status was undertaken by Nswinton (only editors with 5 or more major edits in the last 50 are recorded). Well done! EyeSerene TALK 09:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
For future improvement, the initial Background sections could do with further work. I think your edit has definitely improved them though - there is no longer so much of a disconnection between the Welsh Revival and the introduction of Seymour later on. I'd be happy to have a go at copyediting this bit if you like (it does really need trimming!).
I agree that it is extremely difficult to separate Seymour from the ASR, as the story of one seems to be largely the story of the other. This is always a problem where a person is notable for one major event, but I think you have probably got the balance about right.
One point I ought to check with you: whilst wikifying the headings (per
WP:HEAD), I decapitalised 'movement' in Birth of Pentecostal Movement. However, if this is a proper noun, this should be changed back ;) Also on this subject, I'm not sure if 'Street' should be capitalised in the section headings (I'll check on this). All the best,
EyeSerene
TALK
09:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
the Pentecostal Church of God was formed in 1919 at the Sharon Bible School (which later became a starting point of William Branham's ministry in the late 1940s).
The comment was removed because it is not factually correct. ("Let us Reason" is a dubious source for facts about other people and other beliefs because of its strong bias.) In 'The Healer Prophet' (Mercer University Press, 2000, p45-47) arguably the most academic - and negative - examination of WB's ministry, C D Weaver states that his evangelistic ministry began in earnest mid 1946. Branham visited Vancouver over 12 months later.
According to author Richard Riss, in an article entitled "The New Order of the Latter Rain," which appeared both in Pneuma magazine of Spring 1982 and later in A/G Heritage magazine in Fall 1987:
The Latter Rain Movement was catalyzed, in part, by the campaigns of healing evangelist William Branham in Vancouver, B.C., in the Fall of 1947. His demonstrations of the gift of healing accompanied by [the word of] knowledge of the illnesses of those present made a deep impression upon the teachers of Sharon Bible School in North Battleford, Saskatchewan, who precipitated a revival at their school after their return from the Branham meetings." As a spark, which ignites an explosion, what began as a sincere personal quest for deeper truth in the Spirit there at the Sharon school is even today regarded as a focal point of what came to be called the Latter Rain Movement.
George Hawtin
William Branham distanced himself from the Later Rain movement
Latter Rain
Rev107
10:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I have two questions; does anyone have any knowledge of persons from other revivals (such as the Wales revival,etc) that directly affected the revival at the Apostolic Faith Mission on Azusa Street? Secondly; I am a bit confused as to why there are so many sentences struck out in this discussion page. Would it not be easier to simply delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachida10z ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see section "Apparent conflict of fact" on discussion page of article Alexander_Boddy. Since this (Azusa Street Revival) article is referenced and that one isn't it seems likely that it is this article which is correct.
Hedles ( talk) 10:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Azusa Street Revival. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
„The revival was characterized by spiritual experiences accompanied with testimonies of physical healing miracles“
I want to check the seriousness of the reports in the book "True Stories of the Miracles of Azusa Street and Beyond" by Michelle Griffith and Tommy Weel - and you use this book as a source. -- 149.172.108.9 ( talk) 22:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Azusa Street Revival has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() Updated 2007-08-07
|
removed the following as extraneous:
I tagged the main article with all the citation tags. I'm going to try and clean up this article some and cite sources, and hopefully add images and expand things a bit. Here are some of the sources that I plan on using:
Please contact me on my talk page if you have any comments or suggestions. Nswinton\ talk 17:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is currently undergoing a re-write. If you come in and find it jumbled and unintelligible at points, please be patient with me. Nswinton\ talk 22:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Update: I've got 9 images on the article now. I need to go back and properly source them next, then I'll be doing some library work in the next few days to get some more good sources to back up some of the weaker online ones. I started the "worship" section, but it's currently only a stub. I realized that the article has very little description of the actual revival events that went on, so I plan to make that section give a more complete picture of what it would have been like in 312 Azusa Street during the fall of 1906. Nswinton\ talk 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I have taken on Azusa Street Revival for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by User:Wikihermit. You'll be pleased to hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria, so I will shortly be conducting an in-depth review and will post the results below.
Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around a week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Regards, EyeSerene TALK 16:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:
1 Well written FAIL
1.1 Prose
This is generally good, and flows in a logical, readable way. The only minor points I noticed were:
1.2
Manual of Style
Again this is generally good. Citations are appropriately formatted, the section order seems logical, the article is well wikilinked, the lead is a fair summary of the article, and headings mostly follow the MoS. However, there are a few issues:
2 Factual accuracy PASS
The article is well cited, and refs are provided for most statements that could be challenged. One or two that could do with a direct ref are given below, but this is more in the nature of suggestions for further improvement than part of this GA review.
3 Coverage WEAK FAIL
The article covers the subject in appropriate depth. However, it occasionally teeters on losing focus:
4 Neutrality PASS
The article is neutral and unbiased, giving a fair and factual coverage of the events discussed (other than those few minor POV issues mentioned above).
5 Stability PASS
There is no evidence of instability in the edit history.
6 Images PASS
All images used are appropriately captioned and have a suitable copyright status.
The outcome of this review is that I have placed GA status on hold, pending the above points being addressed. Editors now have up to a week to make the required improvements, although in rare cases the hold period can be briefly extended.
To help with tracking, editors may like to paste the following template after each recommendation as it is dealt with: {{done}}. Once editing is complete you can let me know on my talk page, and I will re-review the article. In any case I will check back here next Monday (6th August). All the best EyeSerene TALK 09:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on an excellent copyedit on the suggestions provided. I have now passed the article as meeting the GA criteria, and have listed it as such on the Good Articles page. For the record, editing for GA status was undertaken by Nswinton (only editors with 5 or more major edits in the last 50 are recorded). Well done! EyeSerene TALK 09:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
For future improvement, the initial Background sections could do with further work. I think your edit has definitely improved them though - there is no longer so much of a disconnection between the Welsh Revival and the introduction of Seymour later on. I'd be happy to have a go at copyediting this bit if you like (it does really need trimming!).
I agree that it is extremely difficult to separate Seymour from the ASR, as the story of one seems to be largely the story of the other. This is always a problem where a person is notable for one major event, but I think you have probably got the balance about right.
One point I ought to check with you: whilst wikifying the headings (per
WP:HEAD), I decapitalised 'movement' in Birth of Pentecostal Movement. However, if this is a proper noun, this should be changed back ;) Also on this subject, I'm not sure if 'Street' should be capitalised in the section headings (I'll check on this). All the best,
EyeSerene
TALK
09:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
the Pentecostal Church of God was formed in 1919 at the Sharon Bible School (which later became a starting point of William Branham's ministry in the late 1940s).
The comment was removed because it is not factually correct. ("Let us Reason" is a dubious source for facts about other people and other beliefs because of its strong bias.) In 'The Healer Prophet' (Mercer University Press, 2000, p45-47) arguably the most academic - and negative - examination of WB's ministry, C D Weaver states that his evangelistic ministry began in earnest mid 1946. Branham visited Vancouver over 12 months later.
According to author Richard Riss, in an article entitled "The New Order of the Latter Rain," which appeared both in Pneuma magazine of Spring 1982 and later in A/G Heritage magazine in Fall 1987:
The Latter Rain Movement was catalyzed, in part, by the campaigns of healing evangelist William Branham in Vancouver, B.C., in the Fall of 1947. His demonstrations of the gift of healing accompanied by [the word of] knowledge of the illnesses of those present made a deep impression upon the teachers of Sharon Bible School in North Battleford, Saskatchewan, who precipitated a revival at their school after their return from the Branham meetings." As a spark, which ignites an explosion, what began as a sincere personal quest for deeper truth in the Spirit there at the Sharon school is even today regarded as a focal point of what came to be called the Latter Rain Movement.
George Hawtin
William Branham distanced himself from the Later Rain movement
Latter Rain
Rev107
10:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I have two questions; does anyone have any knowledge of persons from other revivals (such as the Wales revival,etc) that directly affected the revival at the Apostolic Faith Mission on Azusa Street? Secondly; I am a bit confused as to why there are so many sentences struck out in this discussion page. Would it not be easier to simply delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachida10z ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see section "Apparent conflict of fact" on discussion page of article Alexander_Boddy. Since this (Azusa Street Revival) article is referenced and that one isn't it seems likely that it is this article which is correct.
Hedles ( talk) 10:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Azusa Street Revival. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
„The revival was characterized by spiritual experiences accompanied with testimonies of physical healing miracles“
I want to check the seriousness of the reports in the book "True Stories of the Miracles of Azusa Street and Beyond" by Michelle Griffith and Tommy Weel - and you use this book as a source. -- 149.172.108.9 ( talk) 22:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)