Talk:Philip the Arab and Christianity/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ThaddeusB (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it will be my pleasure to review this article for GA status. My initial, quick read of the article suggests it is likely to pass after some minor changes. I will have more comments after conducting a more careful examination of the article later today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review[edit]

After a through reading of the article, I think it has too main issues, which are really two sides of the same coin. That is, it is pretty long and it lacks focus at times. According to Wikipedia:Article size, readers are rarely willing to read more than 30-50K of prose. This article is at 54k of readable prose. More crucially, it spends a lot of time explaining background material that is only indirectly related. For example, I had a hard time figuring out what the "Christianity in the mid-third century" section added. Keep in mind this is an encyclopedia entry, not a stand alone work that needs to explain related concepts to the reader.

That said, the article is well written and well researched. It is in better shape than 95%+ of Wikipedia. Mostly it needs to reach GA status is some trimming.

Here is my suggestion: I have taken the four background sections and combined them into one "Background" section. Philip's generally biography is currently 3 long paragraphs. One long or two short paragraphs plus a link back to the main Phillip article would be sufficient. "Christianity in the mid-third century" is currently 4 long paragraphs. I'm note sure it adds anything at all, but if you want to stay it should be cut only the most general info plus the few lines specifically about Phillip. Material can be moved into Christianity in the 3rd century if it isn't already covered there. Finally, you currently have several paragraphs introducing the authors who wrote about Phillip. Two to three sentences would probably be sufficient - reader's wanting to learn more about Eusebius, for example, can look at the Eusebius article.

Again, I think the article is well written and close the GA status, so don't be discouraged. The length of my critique is intended to help guide you, and is not a reflection on the article's quality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not discouraged at all. I added the material because previous talk commentary has emphasized the obscurity of the topic and the need for background. That said, I'm entirely willing to trim where you think it a good idea. I've cut two paragraphs from "Christianity in...". I believe the remaining two paragraphs are useful, since they focus on the standard attitudes and policies of contemporary emperors and Philip's place in that sequence. I will see where else I can make cuts. G.W. (Talk) 02:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have cut back on the background of the authors, retaining a bare summary of their place of work and the items they authored. The more detailed biographical elements on Jerome establish the point Shahid makes in his book: that Jerome had a racial prejudice against Arabs. I believe the point is relevant to his writing on Philip the Arab. G.W. (Talk) 02:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been advised that this lengthy biography of Philip is helpful to readers. Most readers, I was told, will come to this page from the WP:GA list, with little to no knowledge of who Philip is. Quote:
[...] My concern was that once this is GA/FA, many if not most readers will be coming to it from category-lists rather than from the parent article, so it needs enough so someone reading the article with no prior knowledge can understand it; you have to assume that your reader's knowledge of Roman history will only extend to Gladiator and maybe the Bible. For a subject like this, I think the more information the better. – iride scent 13:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
That said, I am still open to cuts if you think it best. G.W. (Talk) 02:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at the changes suggests the cuts are sufficient to alleviate my concerns. I will do a more careful examination when I post my final review, but for now I think we are good. I agree that the background info on Jerome is useful. It was mostly the Phillip, 3rd century, and Eusebius material that I found distracting. I personally would say trim the Phllip bio, but if Iridescent says otherwise I will defer to his judgment. :)
My only other thought is that the article seems to spend more time talking about Shahîd's opinion than anyone else. This may well be justified, so I will just ask What is your rationale for using him so heavily? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale is: He's the guy who has written the most about this. The work in which his arguments were presented, Rome and the Arabs, was well-received; the multi-volume series to which that book belongs, Byzantium and the Arabs, is published by the esteemed specialist press at Dumbarton Oaks and is regarded as a monumental work in its field; Shahid himself is a professor of Arabic at Georgetown. The other literature I have consulted does not deal with the topic in as much depth. G.W. (Talk) 04:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. I'll post my full review later today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have carefully gone through the whole document and made a number of minor changes. Some of these are MOS driven ("that is" instead of "i.e."; "although" instead of "though") while others were just to try and improve the language (IMO). Please look your the changes to make sure that are acceptable.

Another requirement is that quotes have direct citations (i.e. not a couple lines later, as is normally acceptable). I have taken care of this. I was unsure if "more tolerant Christianity of the camp" was a direct quote or not; if it is, that will need a cite as well.

I also think the lead is slightly lacking. Specifically, it doesn't summarize the whole article because nothing is said about the "background" material. I have split the first paragraph into two. If you could summarize the most important part of the background material (that will enhance a reader's understanding of the topic) in 2-4 sentences and tack it onto the now super short 1st paragraph that would be great.

Once the above is taken care of, please reply here and I'll post my formal review of the article. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clean-up. I don't have any objections to your edits; I much appreciate them, actually. The "more tolerant..." was a quote, so I have given it an immediate citation. I haven't yet tackled the lede. Give me a moment. I will ping your talk page when I'm done. G.W. (Talk) 01:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the edits to the lede. G.W. (Talk) 01:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formal review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
MOS compliance is now complete and the lead accurately summarizes the main body. There are a few point in the prose that need some clarification (see below).
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The sources used are reliable. I will have to assume good faith here that the individual author's opinions are not being misrepresented. However, I have confirmed the general gist of information independently. The real world points of debate are accurately reflected by the article.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article is clearly broad and, after the recent edits, is sufficiently focused
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
My research indicates that real world opinions seems to be roughly split evenly between the 3 camps (was Christian, was not Christian at all, and was Christian friendly, but not necessarily Christian). The article reflects this balance - it does rely heavily on one particular pro-Christian author, Shahid, but the explanation that he has written more on the subject than anyone else is sufficient to make this reliance a non-issue.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

After two careful readings, a few passage remain unclear to me. Once these are cleared up, I am ready to pass the article...

There is no evidence that Philip effected any changes to the Christians' legal status. The libelli issued under Decius demanding sacrifice in accordance with official practice were signed in Fayum in June and July 250, where Philip was recognized as emperor as late as September 249.[34] The pogroms against the Christians in Alexandria also took place while Philip was still emperor.[35] There is no evidence that Philip punished[36], participated in or assisted the pogrom.[37] If the Christians were believed to be Philip's friends (as Dionysius of Alexandria presents them), however, it helps to explain the motivations for Decius' edict on universal sacrifice.[38]

This passage talks about something Decius did and then says the pogroms also took place during Philip's reign. I am failing to understand the connection here.

The "also" was meant to connect 'the absence of legislation on the Christians' behalf' and 'the pogrom'. Since absences are not events, the phrasing does (as you read it) imply that Decius' edicts happened during Philip's reign. Which is not true! I've removed the also. G.W. (Talk) 09:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysostom and Leontius

This section goes straight from talking about Chrysostom's contribution to the general characteristics Chrysostom and Leontius shared. There needs to be some explanation of Leontius' contribution, or he should be left off entirely.

In the chapter on Origen in Vincent of Lérins' Commonitorium primum, Vincent writes: "quos ad Philippum imperatorem, qui primus romanorum principum Christianus fuit, Christiani magisterii acutoritate conscripsit."[126] Vincent thus unites the commentary on Origen's letters with Philip's Christianity, as Jerome had done.

A translation of the Latin is necessary here, otherwise the reader just has to taken your word that Vincent is uniting Origen with Philip. Similarly, the list of opinions at the end lists a lot of foreign language titles. You've translated the book titles through the rest of the article, so it might be best to do so here as well. However, there are a lot of titles so if you think it'll be distracting to have them all translated, I won't belabor the point.

Other than those three passages, everything looks great. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given a translation of Vincent. (I'd forgotten that I'd found a PD-translation of his Commonitorium.) A full translation of the modern titles would be a bit much, I'd think. (I also assume the audience has more familiarity with modern languages than ancient.) G.W. (Talk) 09:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review! I'll gather some material for Leontius right now. G.W. (Talk) 09:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a brief description of Leontius and what his contribution to the literature is. G.W. (Talk) 22:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Christianity in the mid-third century" still confuses me. I think my latest edit put everything in chronological order, which hopefully makes it more clear. Is the mid-December 249 "edict" the same thing as the "libelli" of 250? I assume they are closely related, with the later carrying more weight? Please check my re-arrangement to make sure it still makes sense. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edict is the act of legislation that asks for either (a) public demonstration of sacrifice, or (b) certified documentation proving sacrifice. The libelli is the certified documentation. It's the same relationship as that between tax legislation and your individual tax returns. G.W. (Talk) 01:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the relationship has been cleared up, all is clear. I will post my final comments w/i the hour. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits look good. What still confuses? G.W. (Talk) 01:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After the most recent changes, all my concerns have been addressed. As such I am passing this good article nominee. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final thoughts[edit]

First, I wanted to say this is an interesting subject and I enjoyed learning about it. These sorts of intellectual debate are always interesting; that this one related to early Christian history made it especially interesting to me. The article's greatest strength is that it is very informative & I appreciate that.

Second, I don't know what (if any) plans yu have for the article's future. However, if you were considering a featured article attempt, I think a few things will need to happen first: (and take this with a grain of salt since I've never been through a FA debate myself)

It'll need more pictures somehow... maybe a graphical chart or something. I can offer no concrete advice here, unfortunately.
The language, although very much improved over what it was, will need some more work. Try to keep in mind that this is a general interest encyclopedia and most readers will be unfamiliar with the "big words" you tend to use and be confused by the multiple comma/semi-colon/parentheses sentence. The sentence structure has mostly been cleared up, but there are still some "scholarly" terms lingering around (to be clear, I'm not talking about specific, necessary terminology but rather uncommon words with more general meanings). Regardless of FA ambition or not, in the future try to keep the language simpler (at a high school graduate's level).
The balance of the article is currently fair (=neutral to prevailing real-world opinions), but I'm sure people would object to the reliance on Shahid for the "pro-Christian" side of the argument. As such, some of the pro-argument would have to be sourced to other scholars.

I'll be keeping an eye on the article, so feel free to for ask my advice about it if needed at a later date.

Finally, I want to say congratulations. Your determination to improve in the face of some fairly hostile reviews (during GA1/GAR) is admirable. Wikipedia needs more writers like yourself you can take (unnecessarily harsh) criticism and continue to be productive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Thaddeus. I am thinking about FA at some time in the middle future, but I'm a bit tapped out at present. I'll wait. Good advice on all points. On the third point, I should really scare up the French authors mentioned in the concluding paragraphs to see what substantive comments/arguments are available. Again, thanks. G.W. (Talk) 03:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]