Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2008: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
GimmeBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
75,273 edits
m GimmeBot updating FAC archive links
archive 2
Line 1: Line 1:
== June 2008 ==
== June 2008 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iloilo International Airport}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Greencards}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1947 Sydney hailstorm/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1947 Sydney hailstorm/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo (series)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo (series)/archive1}}

Revision as of 02:17, 18 June 2008

June 2008

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iloilo International Airport

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:32, 5 October 2008 [1].

The Greencards

Nominator: Rootology (talk)
previous FAC (00:12, 18 July 2008)


Hi, I would like to try to renominating this. It has been up in July 2008 at the above link, and before that in June 2008. In the interim it became a Good Article. I want to try again, almost 100 edits later. Cla68 and Andreasegde have helped out on copyediting, and I think it's much better now. As far as I can tell, every criticism has been addressed. It's been physically restructured as well to have similar structures and layouts as other FAs for various bands. I was thinking of trimming back the historical information on the band members seen under The Greencards#Formation as I've replicated the material (and cut some already!) to the various subarticles for the band members and also a bit for the album articles. The history of the formation of the Greencards is a core part of the majority of the sources on the band, and a major aspect of the subject itself--three highly trained foreigners basically forming a niche supergroup that has redefined an extremely American musical style. What else does it need, from where it stands now? Thanks!! rootology (C)(T) 05:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was going to post this on the talk page, but saw it's at FAC so came here instead. A note on the images; if you have an image taken in (say) 2004, don't use it in the section on 2000 (the first year I saw in the Formation section). And if this means you have more images than you can fit into one section, it's OK, you still have your Commons gallery. Also, the infobox image needs a caption. Giggy (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rotated the images around to fix this, and pulled the extraneous images. I captioned the image, too. Thanks Giggy. rootology (C)(T) 06:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a stack of edits to the article (copyediting, MOSing, other stuff), so please check over them! I'm popping out now but I'll take another look tomorrow. Giggy (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I'll be mostly offline except spurts till Friday evening US time, myself, but will pick this up with any changes or suggestions then. Thanks again! rootology (C)(T) 06:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference [2] is dead. The wayback machine found [3]. Is that the right source? LegoKontribsTalkM 07:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, that is the source, thank you--I updated it on the article with the archival url. rootology (C)(T) 04:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources addressed last FAC. I too note the dead link showing up with the link checker tool, otherwise looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Like I mentioned above, I fixed the issue of the dead link. rootology (C)(T) 23:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Great to see some good music at FAC for a change! :)
  • Often labeled as part of, and said to be representative of the "newgrass" movement, they draw from Irish traditional, European gypsy, rock 'n' roll, folk balladry, and Latin American musical sources. Links please. What is "European gypsy"?
  • Raised in South London, McLoughlin began to perform country music shows with his family on weekends, influenced by George Jones, George Strait and Ricky Skaggs. Link Ricky Skaggs, and the others if they have articles.
  • Young and Warner knew each other previously and, according to Warner, had been drawn to bluegrass and American roots music through an appreciation of George Jones and Merle Haggard. Would read more smoothly if the comma was before the "and".
  • The third paragraph of the first section needs a copyedit. Seems as if every sentence starts or contains a "Before..." or an "After...".
  • They named themselves The Greencards, for the fact that all three band members carried United States green cards. I don't quite like "for the fact" in this context.
  • Given a noon to 3 pm time slot, they surprisingly began to fill the pub with patrons week after week, with fans there calling them the "Bluegrass Bunch". Which time zone? Also, "with" is a poor connecting word.
  • Some more information in the "Movin' On (2003–2004)" section would be nice. Right now, it's the same block of text that's in the album's article.
  • During the summer segment of the 2005 tour with Nelson and Dylan, Kym Warner wanted to have the opportunity to pick Dylan's brain, but never had the chance. What?
  • Eamon McLoughlin is a regular blogger for Country Music Television.[2] After the Grammy Awards, he wrote about the band's experience at the event. Somewhat of a cliffhanger. What did he write?
  • In the See also section, Bill Monroe, despite being the "inventor" of bluegrass, doesn't seem very relevant.

Well done article overall. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Julian, take a look now? I've fixed everything you mentioned, except expanding further (yet) the Movin' On section. That material actually was in the The Greencards first, and I'll start digging up more sources on that first album (it got the least press of all of them). And yep, their music was a wonderful find--my wife and I completely accidentally stumbled upon them attending a Paperboys show. We were very early, paid admission, and thought The Greencards were opening. Turns out, it was a totally separate show with their own openers on earlier! Pure dumb luck find. :) rootology (C)(T) 23:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I'd like to see a little bit of more information for that one section, and then I'll happily support. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got that section expanded out about as far as I might be able to get it for now without starting to dip into random blogs and sources that would be borderline RS for a featured article. They unfortunately didn't get a ton of widespread press until the second release of Movin' On, which came right before Weather and Water, when they sort of exploded all over. rootology (C)(T) 00:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. Maybe next time I'll see this at FAC? :-) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That is really tempting, since them and Bill Monroe should be FAs... after this and this... :) rootology (C)(T) 06:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Greencards are a progressive bluegrass band that formed in Austin, Texas, and is currently based in Nashville, Tennessee." - need a consistent "is" or "are" throughout the article. Giggy (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC) A full review and a support soon, I promise.[reply]
  • I got that (and I think) there aren't any others. Thanks for the help... rootology (C)(T) 15:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've left comments on the musical style section here. Giggy (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to expand that section by hopefully a good 1-2 paragraphs the next couple of days. rootology (C)(T) 06:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I replied on my talk to Giggy about the copyediting points he left there (I fixed them all) and have been expanding out the section further as requested. rootology (C)(T) 05:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I helped copyedit the article and put the external links section in the web citation format. I think the article meets the FA criteria. Cla68 (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for all your help, Cla. rootology (C)(T) 06:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I originally read this: "...were invited to tour with Bob Dylan and Willie Nelson in the same year"" to mean that the band was invited by BD and WN separately in the same year; later saw otherwise... can move "in the same year" to an earlier position in the sentence?
  • I also know what you mean by "is not as unlikely as it may seem", but I just can't find it in my heart to let that go.. it appears too WP:POV-ish, even if its idea is kinda self-evident. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a direct take from the wording of Mario Tarradell, the author of the source I quoted McLoughlin's "it's ironic" bit from, here. Tarradell calls the idea outrageous, I used the wording unlikely. The idea of them being "foreigners" playing such an American form of music is such a major bit of all the stories about them, I didn't want to leave that off--it's like the perfect exclamation point to it all. Is that still too ORy since Tarradel basically says the same thing I did? How about this wording? It's built entirely from the literal quoting, wording, and attribution in the WFAA source, so I think that would nuke even any shade of OR. rootology (C)(T) 13:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but - 1. "Movin' On (2003–2004)" section, put the sample music under the main box per MoS. 2. "Weather and Water (2005–2006)" The left music sample may seem a little odd (this is aesthetic, and not an actual problem). 3. "Viridian (from 2007)" Image should be under the main template. 4. "See also" should be integrated into the text so people can see why they should look over at the other pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done 1 and 3. Left 2 and the other 3 (should that be 4?) for Rootology to decide. Giggy (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haha, yes, it should be a 4. :) 2 isn't important (I just wanted to mention it), but 4 might be. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Giggy (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks very good, leaning support. Some things:
    • "The band was founded in 2003 by Kym Warner and Carol Young from Australia, and Eamon McLoughlin from England, who met in Texas." - it's very awkward with all the commas, but I understand what you're trying to say. Maybe break up the nationalities into another following sentence with some extra info so it doesn't feel so tacked on?
    • "early- to mid-2009" - check WP:DASH to see if that space should be there or not.
    • "with a worldly feel" - that tells me nothing. Do you mean with a style reminiscent of world music? 'Cause I could get behind that.
    • There are places where there are little introductions and flair language which doesn't enchance the prose, ex. "Early on..." - go through and remove these redundant elements
    • "is not as outrageous as it may seem" POV language - if this is what the talking head actually said, quote it. Otherwise rephrase.
    • fix instances of passive voice, ex. "Their first performance together as a band" to "The band's first performance"
  • My overall suggestion is just get another editor not acquainted with the subject to give it a rundown. It's only some minor prose issues keeping it from being brilliant, IMO.

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to try to fix some of these up real quick. For the worldly bit/comment, it's from this source. The world music would be accurate, I'd think, but I'm wondering if that would be OR to say if the source didn't? Dash there sorted by just eliminating it, and take a look at the "outrageous" passage now. I reworded it again. Going back for more... rootology (C)(T) 03:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All thats really left is the passive voice concerns you had, and the question of OR in linking worldly to world music, from that cited quote. Let me know what you think. I got some of the frilly language you mentioned, but I can't see anymore. I'll try to clean up the passive voice tomorrow if I can, but that sort of fine tuning isn't my strong suit... rootology (C)(T) 05:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What makes americanahomeplace.com a reliable source? Otherwise, the sourcing for the article looks okay. --Aude (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Aude, that came up on the first FAC (but it's buried, so super easy to miss--I had to look again myself). So... "Its one of the larger radio shows for that niche genre of music (Bluegrass, and specifically the forms that this band plays, aren't big market--the fact this band got a Grammy and the press it is has is monstrous). It looks like a smaller site, but thats like comparing a smaller-town newspaper to CNN, if you're comparing this scale of the music industry to MTV News." Sorry for the copypasta from there. :) rootology (C)(T) 05:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It makes sense that a radio show for this genre might not have as much high-traffic/audience. I'm satisfied that the sourcing is okay, with a variety of news media and other such sources. It's also good that you were able to find several good quality images for the article, with proper licensing. I also believe the article is well-written. Nice work with this article. --Aude (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was withdrawn by nominator and closed by User:SandyGeorgia 04:17, 16 June 2008 [4].

1947 Sydney hailstorm

I appreciate that, on the face of it, this may look too brief to be a featured article and therefore considered 'Wikipedia's best work'. However, as I said in the GA review here, the fact that this storm occured over half a century ago has meant that finding information on it has been very difficult, which I found surprising given how serious it was.

Given this, I believe the article is comprehensive as I am of the opinion I have included all encyclopedic-worthy material on the subject at my disposal, and hence I believe it is not ineligable for FA on length grounds. That doesn't necessary mean that there isn't other problems with it, and I would like to thank all those who offer constructive and actionable suggestions to help improve this article, hopefully up to FA standard.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "£750,000" → "GB£750,000" per WP:CURRENCY since several countries use Pound
  • "A$45 million" → "AU$45 million" per WP:CURRENCY (it's even used as an example there)
    • It was used as an example not to show to use two-letter acronyms, and I must confess I have never seen any objection to using "A$" before (especially in an Australian article). I've changed it, but I can't say I think it needed to be changed.
      • Alright, it was just a suggestion. Personally, I think that it's best to always use two-letter abbreviations of country names for currencies, although you can change it back if you want. Gary King (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nah, it looks OK. Plus, it's also now consistent with GP and US by being two letters. Thanks for bringing it up, 04:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Subsequent mentions of currency don't have to be linked
    • Well, mentions in the lead and then in the last section are far enough apart to merit repetative linking. Plus, infoboxes are sometimes omitted, so the linking in there does not constitute an initial link. I did, however, remove a link from Australian dollar which occured twice in the one section (the last section).

Gary King (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I realise this was discussed above, but I'm not sure about the use of three two letter currency abbreviations in one sentence. Might it not be better to write one of them out, for example "...equal to 45 million Australian dollars in modern figures." I know, it's not proper style, so you probably want to ignore this.
  • In Conditions and Climatology, the second paragraph should probably begin "Hailstones have a history..." or "Hailstones have had a history...", right?
    • Indeed fixed. Thanks for that. Daniel (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The storms that appear on the 'top ten list of most insured damages' - are these lists just for Australia, or worldwide? If specific to Australia, suggest adding "...in the country." or similar to the end of the sentence.
  • The figure for number of people requiring hospitalisation or other medical attention is only in the lead, it's not mentioned in the "Aftermath" section, which seems strange to me.
    • Indeed it was - I mentioned the 1000 injuries but forgot the 200-350 hospitalisations. Fixed. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed a few phrases and passages I thought were a little clunky, the article could maybe do with a more thorough copyedit, I may look at this later, but no significant improvements spring to mind immediately. Adacore (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm trying to slap some people I know into running their eyes over it, which will hopefully result in a copyedit or two over the weekend period. Cheers, and thanks for your suggestions, Daniel (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Good work overall, but I have a few comments.
  • Maybe change the first sentence to specify what kind of natural disaster it was?
    • I considered doing this initially, but saying "The 1947 Sydney hailstorm was a hailstorm which struck..." just seemed, well, a tad odd :) Does the bolded "hailstorm" do the job sufficiently? Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut down on the references in the lead.
    • Any reason for this? I was under the impression that the lead can either be referenced not at all or to the same standard as the rest of the article, and the current version falls into the second category. Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add non-breaking spaces.
    • I think I got everything that needed this; if I missed anything, please let me know. Thanks for bringing this up. Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The day was hot and humid, with the top temperature recorded during the day being 32.7 °C (90.9 °F) and humidity reaching 73%. "the top temperature" would be better as "the high temperature".
  • Is "Sydneysiders" a word? Maybe give a Wikitionary link?
  • The conditions and climatology section could use a copyedit to improve prose flow.
    • Hopefully will come with the copyedits (see above) :) Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kelly hi! 14:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The quote in the first para of "Progression of the storm" contains some meteorological terms that could do with explanation and/or linking - for example, "curtained" and "mammilated".
  • As a drawing, Image:1947 Baro Map.JPG should be in SVG format per WP:IUP#Format.
  • Image:Pitt St Tram cropped.jpg has no details on authorship or date of creation/publication, aside from a statement that it came from the National Archives of Australia. The same is true of the image this was derived from, Image:Pitt St Tram.jpg.

Oppose. This is an interesting contribution but there are many problems with the prose. Here are some examples:

  • The storm cell developed in the morning of New Years' Day, a public holiday in Australia, over the Blue Mountains before hitting Sydney and dissipating east of Bondi in the mid-afternoon. I think on the morning would be better, and we already know it was New Years' Day because we were told this in the first sentence. Before hitting is too colloquial this should be simply and hit.
  • The strength of the storm was put down to the high humidity - this is non-encyclopedic language.
  • Damages associated with the storm were estimated at the time to be approximately .. - Estimated and approximately have the same meaning here, this is tautology and it should be The cost of damages
  • many people had no cover or shelter. - more tautology here.
  • It moved directly over Liverpool at 2:25 pm, heading in a north-west direction before slowly bending its path to be travelling almost due west, - why to be and not simply and?
  • The vast majority of the approximately 1000 injuries were caused by the hailstones directly striking people or flying debris, - Did the hailstones cause injuries by directly striking flying debris or did the debris cause injuries outright? This is not clear. And, why the vast majority instead of plain English more?

The article needs tidying-up; the prose does not meet the required FA standard. GrahamColmTalk 18:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Sources look good. Links seem to work with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • First sentence could do with a wlink to hailstorm.
  • "A boat at Rose Bay in water which is being churned by the hailstones." - active voice?

giggy (:O) 14:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now

  • Lots of terms linked to multiple times. As an example, Blue Mountains is linked three times (not counting the infobox off to the side). (See WP:OVERLINK for guideline.)
  • Lots of unnecessary links for common words, like beach, car, cloud, roof, breeze, ambulance. (See WP:CONTEXT for guideline.)
  • World War II ended 16 (not 18) months prior.
  • For hailstones compared to sportsballs (a habit in the US, too, I'm afraid), some approximate measurements are appropriate. Being from the US, I have no feel for how big a cricket-ball-sized hailstone is, for example.
  • Needs a good copyedit to improve prose. A couple of representative examples:
    • Damages associated with the storm were estimated at the time to be approximately… Use either estimated or approximately to show that it is not exact; you don't need both.
    • The convertible cars, which were in fashion at the time of the storm, also sustained severe damage… Are these specific convertibles, or do you mean convertibles in general?
    • The vast majority of the approximately 1000 injuries were caused by the hailstones directly striking people or flying debris, with the latter mainly from shattered windows. Currently it could read that the hailstones struck "people" or "flying debris", which I don't think is the case.

— Bellhalla (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly there's only one case of overlinking that I could find - Australia was linked twice in the Conditions and Climatology section. The three Blue Mountains links are all in seperate sections which is technically acceptable per WP:OVERLINK, however I agree the latter two cases are close enough together that this is unnecessary (despite being in seperate sections they're in consecutive lines of prose), so I've removed the 3rd link. Adacore (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks fairly good, but I have some concerns. Not sure I can support this right now, but I will revisit later:

  • According to MOS:UNLINKYEARS, you should be careful with linking dates like 1990 to events 1990 Sydney hailstorm since it could break auto-formatting. It doesn't, but I suspect the reader may not be aware that these links point to anything buy dates. So spelling out these events (in some way that isn't damaging to the prose), will do a better job of connecting these together.
    • The other option (in addition to the status quo) which I believe is plausible is to delink them entirely. Any preference? (I'm not fussed either way.) Daniel (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider not having all of the images right-aligned. Maybe stagger them.
    • Unless they overlap, is there any reason for this? To be perfectly honest, I don't see how staggering them looks any better than having them all right-aligned, to be honest. Daniel (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You presume in the lead that most people know that the capital of New South Wales is Sydney, but that's not true. (We Americans barely know the capitals of our own states.) Yes, you can infer it from context, but it could be clearer.
  • "The strength of the storm was put down" - consider rewording
    • Done by Wackymacs (with thanks for the general copyedit). Daniel (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Damages associated with the storm were estimated at the time" - consider removing "at the time". This could use a bit of copyediting for unnecessary clauses.
    • Any suggestions on how to note that the figures were in 1947 currency values (ie. inflation-non-adjusted) without using that term? I couldn't think of any :( Daniel (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch your overlinking. Do you really need to link the units in the lead, for example?
    • The first occurace of units are normally linked for those not aware of imperial/metric values. Daniel (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most severe injuries were located on Sydney's beaches" - sounds like the beaches were injured, not the people.
  • "and humidity reaching 73%." - humidity reached?
  • "The general weather pattern for Sydney in summer is movement from the west to the east" - consider rephrasing.
  • "However, the Bureau of Meteorology reported that the formation of the storm was different to most others" - this sentence (and several earlier in this section) feel tangled and not well phrased.

Otherwise, the references look fine. You should consider getting a peer review, if you haven't already, since the largest remaining issues here are just prose. JRP (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—The prose is clearly not yet of FA standard. I suggest you withdraw it, search for word-nerd collaborators from Sydney members or the edit histories of similar articles, and maybe consider resubmitting when it sparkles.
  • The caption at the top: MOS breach in the full-stop.
    • The irony being that the Manual of Style guideline on the topic uses a caption in its very first image. Apparently, "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups (sentence fragments) that should not end with a period. If a complete sentence occurs in a caption, that sentence and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period", but the infobox caption is just as much a full sentence as the one in the guideline. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time, it was the most severe to strike the city since records began in 1792."—The most severe hailstorm? By what criteria? Perhaps it's justified in greater detail further down. The first three words are redundant, and the same phrase is also redundant in the next para.
    • This is the lead, not the body. It's a generalised summation, as you well know, so such statements are commonplace. I also believe the terms are not redundant because it explicitly clarifies that it is not the most severe storm now, but that it was back in 1947. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "approximately equal to"—bit ugly. "Equivalent to"? And it's the second "approximately" in five words.
    • I've removed one, but you should consult significant figures - something can only be as accurate as the numbers with which it was produced. Therefore, if A is "approximate" and B was derived from A, B is therefore also approximate. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of Sydney"—redundant.
  • Approximately again. Try "about" or nothing.
  • comma plus "with" twice in two sentences. It's B-grade grammar, anyway.
    • I fixed one, but I fail to see how it doesn't read well and is therefore considered "B-grade grammar". Daniel (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "broken glass shards" ... um ... hasn't a shard broken off from a larger piece of glass already? What about "flying shards of glass"? TONY (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could just be that the skylight in the roof has collapsed, which would result in the individually cut pieces of glass to fall out of their slots and have therefore become flying shards of non-broken glass. Has happened once at the Central railway station at the Southern end; the same place, coincidentally, where the "broken glass shards" fell. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:03, 16 June 2008 [5].

Halo (series)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...Nominator...The members of The Halo WikiProject have put a great deal of effort into it. I am nominating on their behalf as we all feel that the article passes the Featured Article Criteria. Thank you. Blackngold29 16:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Great start! I started out enthusiastic about this one because a lot of effort clearly went into the preparation. However, I got bogged down in issues quickly and stopped reading after "Common elements". Examples below illustrate problems with MoS, jargon, and organization. I also stumbled into some basic grammatical problems ("amount" vs. "number") that show a solid copy-edit is still needed. Get a non-gamer and kill the jargon issue at the same time.
    • Needs copy-editing by an MoS stickler. Lots of little problems (ex. "including the upcoming real time strategy game"; should be "real-time")
      • Done I fixed the ones that you addresed and all others that I could find. Blackngold29 05:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're dousing the reader in game jargon starting in the lead. Imagine you know nothing about video games but you're reading this because it's featured on the main page. "First-person shooter"? "Console game?"
      • Internal links do not suffice? Blackngold29 15:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I think Black is saying is that we do have internal links, and it kind of breaks up any flow to say "Halo is a first person shooter. First person shooters are games where stuff takes place through the eyes of a character and you blow stuff up." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why hyphenate "technologically-advanced" and not "cybernetically enhanced"?
    • "The strong sales of the game series have led to a massive Halo franchise." "Massive" sounds a bit POV; would help to have a citation or even a quote of an authoritative source calling it massive.
    • "The main trilogy featured first person shooter gameplay, along with third person vehicular gameplay." Why "featured" when a sentence before you wrote "features"? Also, "main trilogy" has no prior context. You write about Halo 1, 2, and 3 in the lead, but you don't ever call it a "trilogy". In fact, you haven't yet delineated what games comprise the series, which would seem to be required for the lead. I see further down you introduce the main trilogy..
    • "There is also the option to fight ..." Messy.
    • "Players can carry a certain number of grenades, which can disrupt masses of enemies or flush out entrenched foes; together, this "weapons-grenades-melee" format forms the "Golden Triangle of Halo" gameplay ..." Imagine your grandma reading this.

--Laser brain (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: As one of the more recent contributors to the article, I don't feel the article is ready for FAC and as Laser brain has pointed there are multiple MoS issues. David and I were working on it in April and had put it up for peer review, but we both got bogged down with other things. I know my time on Wikipedia lately has been sparse and erratic, and I don't really have the time for an FAC of an article that is not ready. Also, I'd hate to see excess strain on already strained reviewers. If David or one of the other major contributors has the time to address issues for FAC, I'll certainly make an effort to do the same. If not, then I'd like to ask for a withdrawal. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I've got my own FAC right now, but I'll try and help out as much as I can. I think we prolly shoulda done a copyedit before the FAC, but whatever, it's here now. I'll ask around for some outside editors to help, since they'll be able to note more jargon and stuff. Either way it'll wait until tomorrow for me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool. I'll make an effort to address issues as well. Thanks for helping out David. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Reply to Guyinblack25:

I have not worked on the article much, but I would be willing to help you address any issues raised. Perhaps some fresh blood will be good for the article. Blackngold29 18:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • tiedtheleader.com
Have to plead the "interview" card again... it's an audio interview with a voice actor which was conducted by the site, I can't talk about their reliability as they are a gamer's blog with no special credentials. I mean, unless they were got someone to fake the voice of a well-known disc jockey... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I'm not convinced, but it might pass muster with others. Leaving this one out for others to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also an interview; the site's about page is here, I've sent them an email like gamecritics below. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site's founder responded to my queries (since it's pretty much the same as below, I guess leave for others to check?) ..."Hi David, Kikizo has been active since 1998, formerly under the name GamerWeb and operating as Kikizo since 2003. [...] all information is fact-checked and mistakes are always corrected - major updates and/or corrections to stories/features will be posted as additional updates, rather than rewriting the original piece, and in such cases this is clearly stated." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely been doing this too long with David starts predicting my replies before I make them... Yep, leaving it out for others to decide. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are independent, but they appear reliable: I've sent them an email with queries regarding their content review and editing process, hopefully that will help clear up this one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From email correspondence with site owner Chi Kong Lui: "...For our reviews and feature articles, [we do fact-check]. We expected our writers to fact-check and content is reviewed by two [other] editors before publication. [...] absolutely, we would post corrections and retractions if errors are found." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave this out for other reviewers to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just note that interviews aren't always reliable. Who did the interview and where it is published has a bearing on how reliable it is. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's compromise and put up a quick explanation of that, so that folks have both sources? Something like what you just said above in a footnote would work, say "(first source) is a condensed version of the information contained on Niven's site in much longer form here: (Niven's site). THat work? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, someone else already did as you suggested. James086Talk | Email 03:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, just because it's an interview doesn't make it reliable. The fact that the company is owned by a reasonably large sized media company makes it more reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No arguments here, I simply replaced the ref with a more notable publication (The Inquirer). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 10 "Dawson, Brett "Halo 3 Hype is justified" the publication needs disambing
  • Current ref 13, are you referencing a Wikipedia article? The link goes to a section on a wikipedia article? Or are you referencing the videos? Are they still available?
  • Current ref 41 is lacking a publisher. Also seems to be a blog?
  • Current ref 68 Longdale Holly Game Worlds in Written Words is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 70 Greene Marty First Strike Author Eric Nylund Q&A is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 72 "The Next Halo Novel is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 79 Staten Joseph The Great Hollywood Journey Part II is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 117 Wilcox, Jon "TVG Review Halo 3" is lacking a publisher
  • THe link checker tool is showing a a dead link to an MSNBC page. Otherwise sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the link checker shows dead to this, but I'm able to access it... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As to ref 41, it is a blog, but one published by IGN and written by Matt Casamassina, as such it fits WP:SPS because it is only being used to identify a claim he made, which is elaborated on later. I'll go through and fix the cites and fill them out properly when I can. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when the missing publishers/etc. are taken care of. Also have you fixed the mixing of the citation and cite templates? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a poor computer to do that kind of find/replace stuff; hopefully I'll have all the publisher/citation issues done for your review by the end of the day (EST). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, publishers have been added to the refs you listed above and the 404 MSNBC ref has been replaced with a Microsoft Press Release on GameSpot and an article from The Sydney Morning Herald. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Another comment - You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still mixed! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, all uses of Template:Citation have been removed. (Guyinblack25 talk 06:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comments

  • Most of the other issues have been caught by reviewers already, so I'll focus on one: redundancy.
    • "Some aspects of the SPARTAN Project"
    • "IGN listed it as the number two top Xbox game of all time"
    • "Several spin-off games have also been announced"
    • "He and a few other SPARTAN-II's"

There's definitely others that I missed. You'll probably disagree with at least some of these - that's fine, as long as you can tell me why the words add anything to the sentence. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and removed all the instances except one I felt was needed for some clarity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • References do not need to specify that they are in English.
  • For page numbers in references, prepend with "p." (or "pp.") when it does not appear automatically.
  • "The three main games in Halo series focus on the adventures of the main character, Master Chief." The three main games are mentioned in the lead before this, so they should be reiterated again in the body somewhere before this text.
  • "set centuries into" Unlink common words like this one.
  • "Evolved[32] Ensemble" Missing a period?
  • "'new trilogy' " Use double quotes.

These are a small sample of the issues. Gary King (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary, the issues you mentioned above have been addressed except for the "p." in the references. I believe citation style guidelines do not require it unless using Harvard referencing. Any other issues you see? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I'll strike out for now. Gary King (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Watched this article for a long time, and it has grown to a formidable article covering every aspect of the Halo franchise. It also meets the requirements and has improved while it has been at FAC. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments - I did another read-through this morning and I'm still not happy with the prose quality and jargon. I didn't have to go far to build a decent list of representative issues. I don't think it's within reach for this nomination period—recommend withdrawing to work on issues. I still maintain that it needs a solid copy-edit by a non-gamer who would likely catch the same issues I am seeing.
    • "In this science fiction setting, the term "Halo" refers to Halo megastructures, large orbital constructions, similar to those first popularized by the 1970 novel Ringworld by Larry Niven, though smaller in scale." Here, you are making a comparison that is quite complex for the reader to understand. They have to go to the Ringworld article, find the information about the "large orbital constructions", then imagine something smaller. Seems like a lot of work.. why not just describe them as they appear in Halo?
    • First-person shooter and game console are not wikilinked in the lead. Non-gamers will be lost.
    • The "with <noun> being" construction found in "... with Halo being the Microsoft Xbox's "killer app" and other places is poor grammar; these need to be revised. First paragraph of the body has "with the player experiencing"; check throughout.
    • The lead still does not clarify that there is a "main trilogy" until the reader stumbles on "... and soundtracks have been released for the three main games." It should be clear without clicking links that Halo: Combat Evolved is the first game of the trilogy.
    • "In Halo: Combat Evolved, the player's health is measured in both hit points and a shield which can continually recharge." What is the word "both" doing? More jargon... to most people, a "shield" is a physical device, in which case how does it "regenerate"?
    • "Later games exclusively featured the recharging shield and removed the health bar." Health bar? Isn't that where you buy diet frozen yogurt? Please don't force the reader to click away to find basic context. You haven't even mentioned a health bar yet and you can't take for granted that the reader will associate "hit points" with it.
    • "Rather than creating entirely new maps and geometry ..." What's the difference between "entirely new" and just "new"?
    • "Players can save their games as films and watch these saved films from all angles." I think "video" is a more apt term than "film", perhaps? --Laser brain (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed all your concerns, Laser. I still think it's important to mention Niven's ringworlds, but I shortened the tangent to him and increased the discription. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 15:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Image:Halo-Logo.png should be reduced in size per WP:NFCC#3a.
    • I halved the vertical and horizontal resolution so it is now a quarter of it's original size. James086Talk | Email 04:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good. I put the rationale in a standard template, hope you don't mind. Kelly hi! 14:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Halobox.jpg seems to be a decorative image - the rationale doesn't make it clear why its presence in the article is significant per WP:NFCC#8.
  • Image:Clixhunter.jpg should not be on the Commons - it's actually a derivative work of copyrighted art. Yes, unfortunately toys can be considered "art" under U.S. copyright law. The image needs to be moved back to en Wikipedia and the Commons copy flagged for deletion. It will actually need two license tags here (one for the photo, and one for the figures, such as {{non-free character}} or {{non-free 3D art}}) and a fair use rationale. See Image:Pikachu ThnksgvDayParade.jpg for an example of an image of this type.
    • Done I think. You'd better check to make sure I did it correctly though. James086Talk | Email 13:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:RvB ep58 Sarge Donut.jpg needs cleanup to remove the black spaces in the image. The rationale also needs to be improved per WP:NFCC#8 to explain why it is significant to this article. It seems kind of decorative right now, IMHO.

Kelly hi! 23:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other two images specified above have been removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Should this article be moved to Halo series? It seems more natural to me (I'm not aware of any naming conventions regarding this, though). · AndonicO Engage. 01:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah there's a naming convention (See point 6 of this). Although I too would prefer the title "Halo series" there isn't consensus for that. James086Talk | Email 02:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still finding issues, pursuant to my opposition above. Whenever I dive into a random section (these are all from "Main trilogy") I find lots of issues. Please, this needs to be withdrawn and given proper attention.
    • "The standard Halo 2 edition has traditional Xbox packaging, and comprised of a single disc, which contained both the single and multiplayer components." Grammar—mixed tenses and ambiguous use of "comprised"
    • "It holds the record for the longest streak as the number one game on Xbox Live, retaining the top spot for two years, after which Gears of War replaced it as the most-played multiplayer game." The term "longest streak" is too informal, and "number one game" is not defined until later. Don't make the reader skip ahead to discover the meaning. The transition of the subject of the sentence from Halo to Gears of War is awkward. The whole sentence needs reworking.
    • "A PC port for the Windows Vista operating system was later released by an internal team, dubbed "Hired Gun", which was composed of both Microsoft Game Studios and Bungie Studios personnel." What was dubbed Hired Gun, the PC port or the internal team? Internal to what? Again, readers have to skip ahead to discover the meaning of what's written.
    • Why "Halo: Combat Evolved was the first Halo video game ..." and then "Halo 3 is the third game and final game ..." Also, please: "third and final game". --Laser brain (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe all issues have been addressed. Blackngold29 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I sincerely mean no offence, but some of your changes (particularly "The game remained in the top game ...") are introducing more errors. --Laser brain (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I kind of rushed it. I re-wrote some. I will look over the article later and try to eliminate the "main trilogy" confusion. Blackngold29 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (lead only)

  • "the term "Halo" refers to Halo megastructures, large, habitable ringed structures, similar to Larry Niven's ringworlds" - I'm thinking the first comma should be a semi colon... it's kinda unclear for now.
  • "The Halo trilogy video games..." - what about the games outside of the trilogy? It's a bit confusing in that regard.
    • "As of 4 October 2007, all three Halo games combined have sold over 20 million copies.[8]" - same again.... you're making it sound like there is only the trilogy (which isn't correct)
  • "The cultural impact of the Halo series has been compared by Brian Bendis to that of Star Wars,[9] and dubbed those who enjoy the series the "Halo Nation"." - the stuff after the comma needs reworking.

giggy (:O) 01:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done - sorry I forgot about the intro when looking for "trilogy" references in disguise. Blackngold29 04:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Fails FACR § 1: prose. If the story section, which I just rewrote (it's been a long day, so I don't guarantee perfection), is any indication, this article has serious prose issues including: tense shifts, passive voice, exceedingly long compound-complex sentences, and weak verbs. I don't have the time or energy to do it all myself, so the help of copy-editors should be sought.
  • Regarding FACR § 2: the article has a halfway decent lead. The structure is OK, but could use some tweaking. The citations and sources are strong which is good.
  • Fails FACR § 3: images. Is it that hard to capture illustrative screenshots of rendering, characters, and gameplay? Or are there copyright issues that I don't know about? Fair use would have a strong argument here.
  • The length is OK, but I would say that there is considerable room for added depth here, particularly in cases where there are no related or sub-articles on the topic.

I would even hesitate to call this a "good" article. There is considerable room for improvement in prose, content (depth), and images. Most definitely fails multiple FACR. Lwnf360 (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments:
  • Multiple editors have done copy editing to the article, and I'm sure more will be done. (Maybe a case of too many cooks.)
  • What is missing from or needs tweaking in the lead/structure?
  • Similar images that illustrated the characters were removed (see Kelly's comments), though I'll see about adding in at least one gameplay image.
  • Length is normally not a major concern for an FA, not so much as comprehensiveness anyway. Content was restricted to a general overview of the series, though details were included when appropriate to help illustrate certain points. Some sections are divided the way they are to make the content easier to take in for the reader; the "Development" section for example. Also, further details can be found in the separate game articles (Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 2, and Halo 3), which are all linked a couple times in the article.
  • On a side note, I'm not sure I see the benefit in telling us the article does not deserve it's GA status. If you feel it does not you are welcome to take it to WP:GAR if it does not pass this FAC, or even WP:FAR if it does.
We'll see what we can do to address your concerns, especially the prose as multiple reviewers have commented on this. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:03, 16 June 2008 [7].

Germany Schulz

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been stable as a WP:GA for some time and is extensive enough and interesting enough to be a WP:FA. This is one of many Michigan Wolverines football bio articles that I worked on with User:Cbl62. He did most of the research on this one and my contributions were more organizational. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most issues resolved Giants2008 (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - A lot more information than I would expect for an early 1900s college football player. Here are some issues I found during my first run-through.

    • I worked with User:Cbl62 on a lot of Michigan Football players and he repeatedly found endless information on older players. I still wish I could get him to work on two newer guys (Thomas Wilcher and Thom Darden). He says he unsubscribed to his information service however so I don't think I can look forward to his magic on those guys.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He eventually entered a long career in the insurance industry." I would change the order to "He eventually entered the insurance industry, where he had a long career." I don't like my own ending, so I'm sure you can improve it.
  • Is the College Football Foundation the same as the National Football Foundation?
  • Childhood: Is his mother's name known? I'd like to see it if possible, but it can't be held against the article if unknown.
  • Concerns that Schulz was a ringer: Is "many decried the increasing recruitment of ringers" cited by the following source?
    • I don't have access to the source and I don't think Cbl62 does anymore either. The paragraph seems adequately sourced, but if you want to be certain on the attribution for each sentence that may not be possible because as I said before Cbl62 is no longer subscribing to the information source he used for this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were hyphens for "student athlete" in use a century ago?
  • I'd like to see it made clear that Willie Heston came from Stanford.
  • "Schulz was factory worker in an Indiana steel mill" Grammar.
  • Is "swell time" a quote? If so, it needs a reference.
  • Freshman year: Don't need another Willie Heston link.
  • 1905 season: Why is stardom not capitalized?

When these are done, I'll come back to read more of it. Giants2008 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back for more, as I promised. I left a note above, so check that out.
  • I don't think you can find a source for this, but I'd like to know how he returned to Michigan after 1906, especially since one report says he was basically kicked out. Later the article implies that Michigan's fortunes took a turn for the worse, so I'm sure that was a factor.
  • This seems quite heavy on quotes. I presume that the sources avaliable dictated this, but paraphrasing a couple wouldn't hurt.
  • When I work with Cbl62 he finds quotes and inserts them. I could paraphrase things, but I do not know the context of the surrounding paragraphs in the articles so I just work with his quotes. Do you want me to paraphrase his selection of quotes from articles I have not read?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some of the more modern player articles I am able to balance out his quoting with more paraphrased contributions and greater emphasis on statistics. I work with him less on older players because I am unable to balance them out and I don't know how to contribute as effectively. This athlete is so extraordinary an individual that I decided to work along.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, it is not clear that there is any policy suggesting heavy quoting is undesirable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Controversy over eligibility for 1908: "before the making of the rule on freshman ineligibility". This is awkward, so change it to, "before the conference's rule was enacted."
  • Comma between "Michigan where"
  • "about inaccurate reporting about his age" Change to "of his age".
  • I'm not a fan of using "In fact" to rebut material from Schulz's time. Isn't it our job to deal in facts?
  • Awards and accolades: Picky, but Century should be in italics, since it was a magazine.
  • Another Grantland Rice link.
  • Would it be possible to turn these bulleted items into a paragraph of prose, about awards given to him posthumously? Giants2008 (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tulane University: Comma after "take charge of the linemen during football season".
  • Later life: "including as state agent for an insurance company" Should this be "a state agent"?
There's the rest of the minor flaws I could find. Giants2008 (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments regarding images:
    • Image:Germany Schulz.jpg: source does not assert a date of first publication. How can we verify the PD-US claim? Why is a purportedly PD image using a non-free rationale for the James B. Craig article?
      • Given his year of birth, it seems extremely likely that this publicity photo is from before 1923 when he would have been almost 40 years old. I think it would be pretty reasonable to let this PD claim fly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia. Also, merely existing is not the same as being published. Proof is needed that this was first published before 1.1.1923. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Ferry.gif: source site indicates this is from a 1924 Wisconsin game and credits the image to "BHL, Ath. Dept.". This contradicts the PD-US license's assertion of first being published before 1.1.1923. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 1 "Schulz to play center" is lacking where it was publsihed?
  • Same for ref 21. "Schultz Played Star Game against Penn..."
  • Current ref 51 is lacking a publisher ( Glamourless Gridirons..) Deadlinked for me too.
  • Current ref 60 is lacking where it was published (Mrs Sophia Schulz is dead...)
Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am handicapped by the source being from a newservice that a co-author used. I can not recover any further detail. He is unsubscribed now to my knowledge. He is not becoming active in this discussion, so what you see is what you get.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried logging on to add the publisher cites this afternoon. These articles were derived from the microfilm newspapers of http://newspaperarchive.com/ However, that company is based on Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which is presently under water, causing power loss and loss of service, per that link. Accordingly, I cannot access the information at this time.Cbl62 (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support - I'm not happy about a couple of the reference issues I described above, but it does seem comprehensive considering the time period. Overall, gets one thumb up from me. Giants2008 (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly hi! 19:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:24, 15 June 2008 [8].

Curtis (50 Cent album)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets the featured article criteria. Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

Comments

  • A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title.
  • One reference is giving a cite error note.
  • Link checker tool is reporting a number of dead links or timeouts.
When the references are formatted consistently, I'll try to return to evaluate reliablity of sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Indefinitive prose, poor referencing methods used, some other factors which are quite detremental to the quality of this article. I'd suggest bringing through a rigourous peer review to get up to FA. Rudget (Help?) 20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article could use considerable improvement, generally and requires quite a bit of work to bring it up to FA standard. A rigorous peer review as suggested by Rudget would certainly be useful. Further comments:

  • The singles chart position table is very long, I'd suggest formatting it like the one on Hybrid Theory, with different columns for each chart.
  • The prose could do with quite a bit of work throughout. For example, from the concept section:
    • Stating that the album title was changed twice is a bit misleading, and the explanation of the change could be compressed. For example, "The album title, originally just "Curtis", was changed to "Curtis S.S.K." and back."
    • Did SSK stand for SoundScan Killer; SouthSide King; or Shoot, Stab, Kill (the latter being unreferenced)? If more than one, the section should probably be rewritten to incorporate all these into one more structured sentence. This sentence should probably mention the source of any meaning behind the name (the stated intention to "show the pressure 50 Cent felt to succeed") - did 50 Cent himself say this, or was it a commentary from someone else?
    • In the final paragraph of the section, "He also stated that..." could be changed to simply "and that..."
    • The paragraphs in the Concept section are quite short, and with the above suggested revisions would become even shorter, so combining the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs might be a good idea.
  • There's some repetition of information. For example the sales figures are given in Curtis vs Graduation, then again under Sales.
  • Also, the reception section seems to have the same view repeated by more critics than I'd consider necessary.
  • Is it really necessary to list the performer of every chorus and verse in the track listings, especially if the entire song is performed by 50 Cent, such as "I Get Money" or "Amusement Park"? I'd consider just listing the performers on each track, without the chorus/verse references, but certainly drop those references for tracks with only 50 Cent. Probably also cut for sections of songs performed by 50 Cent, leaving only the guest artist references, for example "All of Me" - Chorus: Mary J. Blige. From the history it looks like this information was only added in the last few hours, so possibly isn't stable yet and could use some editing.
  • There are quite a few referencing problems, unformatted references and the like. And #53 is showing a cite error warning.

Adacore (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I see a broken reference, and a stack more unreferenced. The reception section is far too short for a significant album like this one, and there is far too much quoting (as opposed to using your own words). A copyedit (as well as the other issues raised) would be really helpful. giggy (:O) 12:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - What is the deal with the huge stacks of lyrics? Withdraw, and try to model the article on FAs like Adore, Loveless, and Be Here Now. Probably needs to be delisted from GA as well. indopug (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Untidy and unpolished, needs a lot of care and attention to bring it close to FA. There are too many quotes, including the lyrics, and poor prose throughout. Here are a couple of examples:
  • The album's title was changed twice. The first time, it was changed from "Curtis" to "Curtis S.S.K.". The second time, it was changed back to "Curtis". - redundancy.
  • The first week sales totals of Graduation and Curtis have outsold the first week sales totals of Guns N' Roses' two albums. - you can't outsell a total and some possessives are missing.
  • And stated instead of said occurs about ten times. The article needs a radical copy edit and a peer review. GrahamColmTalk 15:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Raul654 16:52, 13 June 2008 [9].

Roman Catholic Church

previous FAC (00:01, 18 March 2008)

Nominator NancyHeise (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nom restarted, old nom SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andrea may be an intermediate speaker of English and an expert on the article subject. I do not think that we should be placing notes like this under people's votes. NancyHeise (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"under people's votes" - this isn't a vote. D.M.N. (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good! Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per previous nom. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Awesome article, beautifully written, meets all the criteria of an excellent article and everything we want in a featured article. Let's make this happen. Magnetawan (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Gary King (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, no major issues, although

  • "In the Catholic Church, a distinction is made between the formal," (entire paragraph) is unreferenced.
Thanks for pointing that out, I went back and added references. NancyHeise (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "helped".[117][82] Catholics " ascending order
Good eye - I corrected that one and rechecked the entire page for more (there were a couple of others that needed correcting). NancyHeise (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he basic administrative unit of the Catholic Church is the diocese." unreferenced
Thanks again - referenced. NancyHeise (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These were random samples. I really admire your determination in bringing this through FAC and sticking with it. Great job! I hope to support this FAC soon.

Gary King (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. NancyHeise (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To reiterate: In my estimation, this article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, and neutral. While I am not a fan of 'officially known as' in the lead, I have few stylistic concerns; the article is appropriately structured, and I like the distribution of the Nicene creed throughout -- that is a good solution to what had been an ongoing discussion. The length seems appropriate. An intelligent reader coming with no knowledge of the RCC would gain a good brodd overview from reading this entry, and would be guided to appropriate places for more research. Of course there is much that is left out, but this seems to be a feature of summary style, and not something that should stand in the way of FA status. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - excellent prose; just one thing: "Because of this diversity, some variations exist in the liturgical practices of administering the sacraments within the different rites yet all hold the same beliefs". Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I eliminated "some" - good comment. NancyHeise (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - well-written. Good explanation of a complex topic. One of the best documented articles I have seen in Wikipedia! Student7 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support This article has gone through a lot, and come out of it every time better and stronger. It is now the best it has ever been, and I think that it is even more deserving of my support vote than in past noms. From my point of view, it meets all of the criteria, which is amazing since it covers such a large subject. Props to Nancy and all of the other devoted editors who have brought this so far. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 00:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question for Sandy' (It would be better if Sandy handles this): hey sandy can we move the bottom section of the prior version to here? Just everything after the part where you asked people to summarize their opposes, and then some folks replied. Just a thought. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A restart was necessary because the FAC was 330KB and opposes were becoming obscured and were being argued rather than being addressed. I'm hoping this will provide a new chance for nominators to address Opposes if they are restated. Opposers can copy forward their own relevant comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, much more likely, will give up and go away. If RAul cares, he can read my myriad comments in the archives. If I see that they're addressed, will state that. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my previous comments. There's room for improvement, particularly concerning the article's sources. However, it currently meets FA criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on a fresh read-through today. I did not find any prose problems worth complaining about. I'm still not of the opinion that the prose is "brilliant" but it is certainly professional and representative of the best work we will achieve on this subject. --Laser brain (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Just to be positive about good referencing, I'd like a cite at the end of the following paragraphs; first and last paragraphs in "Beliefs", last paragraph in "Ordained members and Holy Orders", last paragraph in "Lay members, Marriage" (but before "Members of religious orders"), and end of "Roman Empire". Also, in regards to the last paragraph of "Ordained members and Holy Orders", it says "Throughout history women have held prominent roles within the Church as abbesses, missionaries, and Doctors of the Church." The sentence feels a bit out of place, as much of the entire section is about men, and the last paragraph deals briefly about women in the church. I didn't read the whole article, so I'm wondering if that statement needs expanding, or if there is a place elsewhere that deals with women in the church. I'm not sure if the layout has been discussed, but is there a reason the history section is not first? I notice that many articles have the history section first. All in all, looks good. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, I am working on it today but I have to go out for a while at present. I responded to your comment about organization below Squash Racket's comment that follows here. NancyHeise (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK Hurricane, I have addressed your comments regarding references and had to make some changes in text to match some refs. Women in the church, yes, I included text in the Holy Orders to finish the para explaining that only men can be ordained and I have a para in History section under Vatican II and beyond explaining the existence of controversy over the subject and the Church's response. NancyHeise (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Probably a bit late with that, but I think it would help future stability of the article if we would make a comparison with the respective article in Britannica regarding structure and references. Squash Racket (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Hurricanehink and Squash Racket, a FAC reviewer responded to this same comment on the previous nomination page and I agree with it. [10] Also, this article was organized following the example of the FA Islam. "Ample precedent" exists on Wikipedia to support current organization. Thanks for your comments. NancyHeise (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed to the structure of the Britannica article because it repeatedly proved to be insufficient to cite another Wikipedia FA in reaching concensus. I also mentioned the references of Britannica because I don't think anybody will question the reliability and neutrality of a reference if Britannica accepts it. Squash Racket (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might note, to give a full account of that exchange, that that was in response to my comment, and that I further commented here, as follows:
Interesting. I'm not surprised. This is, of course, how Wikipedia is different from other encyclopedias, in that its contributors are self-selecting, and so its content is generally written by fans and/or adherents. (Sometimes by detractors, but that's no better.) NB this does not necessarily mean that fans or adherents (or even detractors) cannot write good articles; but they face certain rather particular obstacles. Again, I'm not necessarily suggesting that history should be put before doctrine; but it is symptomatic that in fact the order is the other way around, in this article as in other similar ones on Wikipedia.
So this is certainly still an open issue, as far as I'm concerned, though personally I'm not sure I would insist on the revision at this point, as it would obviously require major reorganization. On the other hand, there is a degree of oddity, as the "Origins" section is separated from "History." If putting doctrine before history (like other WP articles, but unlike Britannica) is symptomatic, that stranded bit of history is symptom of the symptom. Something needs to be done about it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Jbmurray's comment here suggesting the possibility of moving Origins section: This was brought up by Karanacs in the last peer review and I responded here [11] by placing a note on the main article talk page to find out if there was consensus for such a change. The resulting responses supported elimination of the full quote of the Creed but there was no consensus for reorganizing Origins. I would be in violation of Wikipedia policy if I were to make such a change after having sought consensus and not getting it. NancyHeise (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not suggested moving the Origins section. Please stop misrepresenting my comments. I have merely pointed to a problem. There are no doubt various possible solutions. Moving the entire section might be one; it's not necessarily the one that I would recommend, which is why I did not make that suggestion. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. It seems to me that, if this protracted FAC process leads to the nomination passing, it will be in significant part due to the article editors' policy of wearing down critical reviewers and choosing to disdain their comments and upbraid their efforts in what is a shocking failure of good faith. See not only previous FACs, but also the series of comments first on my talk page, then on NancyHeise's, and also Karanacs's, and now again here. I do have other comments on this article, but am hardly encouraged to present them here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with this reviewers assessment of his comments. I felt he was provocative in his comments and went off topic as well as asking us to eliminate a top source that is representative of a significant point of view. I do not feel that this oppose is actionable and am not completely convinced that it is made in good faith. NancyHeise (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have to convince you of my good faith; you should be assuming it. Meanwhile, you continue to misrepresent my comments. Please stop. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jb, a lot of people think you misunderstood the use being made of Norman in the passage you objected to. He was being used to demonstrate ONE strand of opinion, not to present a consensus. Further remarks you made about Professor Norman were irrelevant and I believe unfounded. The main thrust of your other objections was vague and non-specific, and despite requests for clarifications and usable suggestions for improvement to deal with your concerns, we got only one solid suggestion for change, which was acted upon. Xandar (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's an (over-)long discussion of that particular comment on my talk page. (This article's defenders seem to like bringing up issues on reviewers' talk pages.) I do there offer a solid suggestion, which was flatly rejected with the words "I see no problem with the article text as it stands." There is another series of comments on structure, and particularly on this article's weakest section, in my view, further down the talk page. --16:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and my further comments on Norman are absolutely relevant when this member of the Peterhouse group is used as a source on liberation theology! Extraordinary stuff. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You had apparently never heard of Norman until he came up here. As a historian whose early specialisation was the religious history of Ireland in the 19th century, also heavily intermixed with politics, and later the author of "Christianity in the Southern Hemisphere (1981)", he is very well placed to comment on Liberation theology, though he clearly has a more sceptical view of it than some enthusiastic writers. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I hadn't heard of Norman. However, I'm learning a little about him. And I note that in this paragraph he's the source for the following statement: "the Church considers [liberation theology] 'a return to the pre-modern notion of establishing a Christian society through the coercive machinery of political management.'" That goes beyond being "more sceptical"; it is extremely tendentious, and yet it is being presented as fact. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, those interested may note that rather than use this clearly tendentious quotation, I preferred to quote what the Latin American bishops thought they were about. This is just in case anyone still thinks that I'm against quoting Catholics, for goodness sake. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, and it's been added back in, with the rather surprising summary that this was "adding the Church's point of view. Thus tendentiousness is added to tendentiousness, and NPOV flies out of the window. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, the section on the Latin American church was very poor. (NB also the article is riddled with typos and grammatical errors.) No doubt the poverty of its courage is owing in part to its continued reliance on our friend Norman. I've added more information, better sources--simply what I have to hand, however--a "citation needed" tag for a rather dubious assertion, as well as removing Norman's tendentious editorializing. More work still required, however. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment FAC reviewer Jbmurray, the only oppose vote on this page, has rewritten the paragraph on Liberation Theology, eliminating our referenced and consensus(ed) work that is being voted upon right now - he has replaced it with a version that none of us has discussed or peer reviewed or agreed upon. I think that this change at this point in the FAC process is unhelpful to the FAC process and I ask for guidance on how to deal with this at this point. Should I withdraw the nomination? NancyHeise (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous version of the paragraph was inaccurate, NPOV, poorly sourced, and flawed by typos. I encourage reviewers to judge for themselves if they think the relevant section has been improved or not. Frankly, the entire article requires such revision. I only have the sources to hand to work on this paragraph. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I don't know of any article that has made it through FAC without any changes. It is not uncommon for reviewers to fix issues themselves, especially early in the nomination process (and, since this nom was restarted, this is early in the process). The alternative is for the reviewer to leave a comment on this page and ask the nominator to fix the issue (either way, ideally, the issue is fixed). If there are particular issues with the changes he has made, you might take those up on the article talk page. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with Karanacs here. Good faith discussion is the best way to proceed here - everyone involved is clearly here to improve the article and ensure the FA process proceeds correctly and reaches the right outcome - i.e. the promotion of the article in its best possible state. Sometimes consensus can unfortunately lead to inferior decisions being made, not through any fault of the contributors, but just because of whoever (or whichever viewpoints) were represented at the time it was formed. Especially on controversial topics, consensus is useful in establishing scope but not always on content - I know of articles which jump from glorifying to bashing the subject quite randomly in an attempt to satisfy NPOV which everybody is equally unhappy with. Sometimes it's necessary to go back to core principles (NPOV/UNDUE, V, RS, OR/SYN, etc) to get it right - especially important when we want to say an article is one of the best Wikipedia has to offer. Orderinchaos 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am restoring the paragraph to its consensus'd version that has been peer reviewed and gone through two FACs. If FAC reviewer Jb murray would like to place comments on this page under his Oppose vote, I would be happy to address them. NancyHeise (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a bad idea. Jbmurray is making good faith edits that appear to be improving the prose and sourcing. You don't have the right to revert his changes based only on the fact that you want the article to be the same as when the nomination started. --Laser brain (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Unless there is something wrong with jbmurray's edits, then you should not revert his content. His comments are fully referenced, and he has as much right as any editor to fix issues he sees in the page. Saying that you will not accept his edits but will make any changes yourself is a little close to violating WP:OWN. Again, I recommend that if you see any issues with his edits, bring them up on the RCC talk page and decide from there what to keep and what (if any) to remove. Karanacs (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he was wrong to eliminate our fully referenced material that had consensus to be brought to FAC. His edits were not mere copyediting but a whole rewrite that is inappropriate at this stage of voting. NancyHeise (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. It is not uncommon for entire parts of an article to be rewritten or reworded while its at FAC. And we should always assume good faith. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. OK. Well, more reasons to oppose. (I had figured I might as well do something to improve the article while I was at it. I take it you'll also want to remove three reliable sources I added to the bibliography?) Anyhow, as I say, the paragraph in the state that NancyHeise seems to want it is grossly inaccurate, NPOV, poorly sourced, and flawed by typos. Rather than go through all the errors, it's probably easiest just to compare the two versions:

A. In the 1960's, a growing sympathy for working-class movements in Latin American cities gave birth to liberation theology. Chiefly promoted by Gustavo Gutiérrez, this new movement used a radical interpretation of the Gospel to redefine the mission of the Church. It's purpose was meant to achieve revolutionary political change to improve the lot of the poor.[308] Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI susequently denounced the movement as "dangerous" and the Church considers it "a return to the pre-modern notion of establishing a Christian society through the coercive machinery of political management".[308] The movement is still alive in Latin America today although somewhat diminished in popularity.[309]
B. In the 1960s, growing social awareness and politicization in the Latin American Church gave birth to liberation theology, and Peruvian priest, Gustavo Gutiérrez, became one of the movement's better-known scholars. Following a meeting of Latin American bishops in Medellín, Colombia, in 1968, to adopt the principles of Vatican II, the new movement was increasingly influential in re-interpreting the Gospel in radical ways that redefined the Church's mission. In 1979 the bishops' conference, in Puebla, Mexico, officially declared the Latin American Church's "preferential option for the poor".[308] The following year, the Salvadoran Archbishop Óscar Romero became the most famous contemporary martyr to state violence, when he was murdered while saying mass in San Salvador.[309] Despite opposition from Pope John Paul II and the Vatican, and the silencing of theologians such as the Brazilian Leonardo Boff in 1985,[310] the movement is still alive in Latin America today. although the Church now faces the challenge of Pentecostal revival in many parts of the continent.[311]

I was still working on this when NancyHeise reverted. NB my suspicion is that similar flaws litter the rest of the article. I could only really do anything with the one paragraph where I had reliable sources here to hand. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think the new edits are fatal, but they should really have been discussed. I have gone through them to trim, and correct some grammar and copyedit errors. But I will be rechecking the facts a bit later, and may amend, if necessary.Xandar (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course the new edits aren't "fatal." They're a marked improvement. But I appreciated Xandar's copy-editing, though I was also still working on it at the time. The only real issue I had with his or her changes, I raised on the talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to respectfully ask FAC reviewer Jbmurray to not rewrite whole sections of the article as he did with the Liberation Theology section just now. I am trying to answer other reviewers comments who have followed a peaceful procedure of posting any comments in bullet point format on this FAC page so I can address them as nominator. If Jbmurray has a problem with the Liberation Theology paragraph, it might help if he could point out these problems in bullet point - as other FAC reviewers are doing and have done throughout the FAC processes in the past. I am one nominator dealing with many FAC reviewers and I politely ask for your kind consideration in this matter. I would also like to not be accused of WP:OWN as Karanacs has just done. Thank you. NancyHeise (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here you have it in bullet points:
  • inaccurate
  • NPOV
  • poorly sourced
  • flawed by typos
I really had no desire to make a fuss about this paragraph on the FAC. I thought my improvements were entirely obvious and uncontroversial. But if you want to make a fuss, go ahead. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why reviewers often help address their own concerns, so that the burden of making changes does not fall solely on the nominator. jbmurray has the right to make edits to the article, period. (and I did not say that you violated WP:OWN, just that your comments were close to the line) Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My position has been vastly overruled. The page has been restored to JBmurray's version. OK, but I ask that the ref's that he has just installed be put in proper format, they are inconsistent with the rest of the article and have statements in front of them. NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jbmurray is using the footnotes in a slightly different way (as a bit of a see also as well as a citation), and I believe it is acceptable to have this mixed in with the other references. Karanacs (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, thanks Karanacs. I think I now understand what NH sees as the problem. Obviously, I didn't want to put undue weight on this paragraph, and tried to be concise as possible. One way to be concise as well as informative, and to increase the number of reliable sources to which the reader can refer, is to use the footnotes more discursively. If NH wants to strip the notes of the two (very) reliable sources I added, she's welcome to do so. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) *Egads. The paragraph has been restored to a version that I wrote with Xander's help in copy-editing, following pretty closely the structure that already existed. meanwhile, I'm not sure what's meant by the fact that the references "have statements in front of them." Is that what we call quotations? Seriously I'm puzzled. Anyhow, you're welcome to go in, of course, and fix any problems you see. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I appreciate your edits and the other reviewers help in resolving the matter. I am OK with the refs format if all the FAC reviewers are OK and it seems they are. I added the church's point of view that had been deleted which I think is necessary to make the article NPOV. NancyHeise (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The church's point of view was already represented in that paragraph. I've left a note on the article talk page for clarification on exactly who is being quoted in the restored text; let's have the rest of the discussion on this paragraph there, please, so this FAC doesn't follow the last one in readability terms. Karanacs (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) As far as I can see, you added Edward Norman's point of view, which I find remarkably tendentious, and not NPOV at all. That paragraph already, in fact, has the Church's point of view, in so far as it has the famous phrase that came out of the Puebla conference of Latin American bishops. Of course, this is complex. If you want to add the Vatican's point of view (which seems fair enough), can I suggest you seek out a direct quotation? Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Liberation theology was always controversial within the Church, and the words from Norman, which may well be a quote or paraphrase from a Vatican statement, seem an unexceptional statement of the hostile view, however much you may dislike it. Here, as elsewhere, you seem to have made up your mind as to what Catholics ought to think or believe and react with rhetorical violence to any statement contradicting these views. In this connection, it might be worth mentioning the ban on clergy holding political office, introduced as a response to the Liberation theology movement, and the Berrigans etc. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware that Liberation theology is and was controversial within the Church. This indeed is the point I am making when saying that Norman's quotation does not represent the Church. It represents, as you say, at the very least "the hostile view." I have no opinions on what Catholics ought to believe or think. I have not the foggiest idea where you are getting that from. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jbmurray, I dont hope to win your support for the article since you have claimed that it is in need of a rewrite but both of us have made changes to the liberation theology paragraph and I think we may be in agreement now. All comments are fully referenced and include your changes as well as mine. I believe all points of view are covered here. NancyHeise (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a couple of tweaks for accuracy, in line with some discussion on the talk page, but I can live with that paragraph now (even with Norman!) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I did was a brief copy-edit to smooth the prose a little. I didn't say I approved of what was in the new addition. I said that I was going to check references and see whether what was added was balanced and relevant. We can't just chuck out relevant referenced material, but we have to see whether it is appropriately balanced and weighted. As a general rule though, please don't add major new strands of material to the article at this time without some consultation on the Talk Page. Xandar (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've noted one more Latin America-related concern on the talk page. There are another couple of sentences that are really wrong, and I note that it's our friend Norman who's the source again. I don't know whether this is a misinterpretation of Norman, or whether the error (or perhaps, very bizarre bias in seeming to claim that there were Marxist regimes in Latin America from 1860 on) is Norman's own. Anyhow, this is something else that really has to be fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dealt with on the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no; please don't misrepresent me, Johnbod. As per the long discussion here, I find it hard to believe that Johnbod has much interest in improving this article, or indeed reading it with much attention. And given the hoo-ha that arose when I tried to fix another paragraph, I hardly feel encouraged to go out of the way to help myself any more, I'm afraid. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page comment has been resolved by adding a word to the text, please see talk page. NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been dealt with, and was not "really wrong" in the first place. It is clear from jbmurray's comments on the talk page that he was wholly unaware of the secularising legislation of 1859 on under La Reforma, so fortunately this is not an area where vastly complicated historical developments need to be summarized in a phrase able to keep everyone happy. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • Current refs 30, 40, 86, 89, 94-99, 112 are missing access dates.
    • Current ref 125 is broken.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wackymacs, I've taken a look at all of those citations without access dates. These are all references to actual Bible quotes, the link leads the reader to a page that offers them their choice of Bibles from which to read the actual quote, both Protestant and Catholic versions and leads them to the actual quote if they click on a certain Bible. These references are treated differently than the others and are cited using the formula used by the FA Islam when quoting the Quaran. I have asked for advice from another editor to find out if I am supposed to change these into a cite web format but that would require me to make the choice of Bible used for the reader which would eliminate the option for reader to choose which Bible. Please let me know if you have more knowledge of treatment of this special reference, I wanted it to be the best it could be and I felt the present format was the most NPOV way of offering the information. NancyHeise (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NancyHeise, my understanding about accessdates is that the point is that webpages can go down or offline, or be changed at any point. You put in an accessdate to signify that at that point, at least, you can verify that the information was there, and that it said what you are claiming it did. Thus any reference to a website of any sort (regardless of its content) should include an accessdate. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These refs use the {{bibleverse}} template. If the website goes offline, the template will be changed to something else; anything using the template will stay up to date. If the refs were based on a specific translation, it might be different. Although {{bibleverse}} is a template, I would consider it much the same as the built-in support for PMID 12345678 or RFC 123, which don't need access dates. Gimmetrow 20:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that Gimmetrow. I'll just leave them as is then. NancyHeise (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the broken link. Today's date is acceptable for accessdates? Squash Racket (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you accessed it today, then that's the date!;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Sigh, this is getting boring indeed. Tony just said about resistance towards critical reviewers, and here it is again (see Malleus' comment above). Tony's concern about prose quality are definitely valid. My concern about missing access dates has still not been addressed as well - all online refs need access dates, no matter what they might be. Personally I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which comment of mine have you decided to take offence to? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're talking about bible references. In John 1:1 the reference is John 1:1, not the website. The website functions as a convenience link. Prose is definitely an issue, but opposing over accessdates on this point is improper. Gimmetrow 08:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right...but it's a still a web page. And if that page went down or the site died, then there's no access date to confirm if it was ever accessible? WP:CITE states: "All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. Full citations must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used." - I am nitpicking, and it is not stated in the FA criteria, but it's still important that we stay in accordance to policy and style guidelines. SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) is usually the one who points out citation errors, so you might want to ask for their opinion. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm inclined to agree with Gimmetrow on this: the source is John 1:1, which anyone can find any number of ways; the website is only a convenience link, and not at all essential to locating the source. John 1:1 is enough for other editors to identify the information; this is similar to a PMID, which is only a convenience link. If others disagree, I suggest continuing the discussion at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Although from reading above, I see there is a wrinkle in comparing it to a PMID: which translation is being used in direct quotes does present an issue, so this may not be as cut and dried as a PMID link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am willing to change the format of the Biblerefs if all of you FAC reviewers will come to a decision on which Bible I should be using and which format. Right now, I can do nothing. I think it would create a POV problem to change what presently exists just so you can have and accessdate which seems to be such a minor and disposable thing for this issue which has precedent on the FA Islam to support the current presentation. NancyHeise (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Since there is ample precedent for current format in the FA Islam and both Gimmetrow and Sandy have expressed support for current format, I do not consider this an actionable oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please read carefully; that is an oversimplification of what I said (and the Oppose isn't based only on accessdates). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What am I supposed to do to act on this oppose if Gimmetrow and precedent of FA Islam support current format and you have not made a decision either way? NancyHeise (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (You allready voted to oppose on June 3 above--please don't vote twice. I will leave your further objections intact. Lwnf360 (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)) - Yes, the prose has improved. But this clearly isn't ready by any measure. Things are being rushed, and mistakes are naturally being made because we're all human. A topic as sensitive as "Roman Catholic Church" needs months of work spending on it. The number of comments on this page shows us this is not ready. A FAC which is ready, or near-ready, always has very few comments on it. This one is quite the opposite, as the longest FAC I've ever been involved in. The wikidrama caused by Xandar and NancyHeise is not productive, and neither are personal threats to Tony who is just trying to help. I recommend a withdraw, and then consulting the help of those who have expressed opposes based on POV/clarity issues - It is better to take your time than to rush. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your oppose seems to have been largely concerned with wikilinking bible verses. If you have any other remaining specific matters to raise, please do so.
Regarding your more general comments, the article has been worked on by a team of editors for over six months. It is at least the equal of most FA articles for prose, and on POV is comparable with other encyclopedia treatments including Britannica. In fact compared with such treatments it goes further in presenting critical views of the church. Of course for some people the article will never be ready for FA. The number of comments on the page is not a good guide for the state of the article if many of those comments are vague or pushing a certain POV. Simply because there are a number of persistent people who either post vague unadressable comments and refuse to supply specifics, or demand that certain POVs dominate the article without providing proof to back them up, does not mean the article is at fault. I think we have dealt with all of those who have brouht up specific POV and clarity issues, there is no need for withdrawal for that. (And as far as "wikidrama" is concerned, anyone reading this page and the talk page for this page will see that nancy and I are not the souce of that, but false and misplaced attacks from one of the objectors.)Xandar (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly actionable—I am referring to what other editors have already stated in regards to prose, clarity and POV (There is little point in me repeating what others have already said, correct?) Actually, the citation issues I raised earlier are no longer the issue. As already stated, if this was really ready, there would not be the amount of opposes and comments that there are. Furthermore, yes, a lot of work has been put into the article. What I am referring to is how much time has been taken to address the issues raised during this restarted FAC nomination. Indeed, the proper procedure to undertake would be to withdraw this nomination to ensure accurate edits are made to address all issues without rush and haste, which have mostly been caused by the amount of wikidrama. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we cannot make accurate edits to points that are not raised precisely and specifically. An oppose that refers to other unspecified comments bu other editors that may or may not be specific, or may or may not have been settled is just too vague to be actionable. This is YOUR objection. Please specify what exactly your objection consists of, preferably quoting the specific sentences and paras and the problem you allude to with each. If you have such objections, this is your opportunity to present them. If not, the objection is too vague to be actionable in its own right. Xandar (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider Wackymacs oppose actionable and the prose has been extensively improved by Ceoil, myself, and others. Prose is a point of personal taste. Some people are going to disagree (a minority on this FAC) but that should not prevent FA. NancyHeise (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have every right to oppose per other comments made on the page. In addition, "brilliant" prose is a requirement according to the FA criteria, and as such is a reason for opposing. According to [12], approx. 3,000 people read the Roman Catholic Church article every day - why give them a half-baked cake instead of the real deal? If you withdraw this nomination and come back in a month or two, it'll be greatly improved and truly ready. I notice neither of you have denied the fact that the number of comments and opposes show that this is not yet ready for FA status. I am also tired that, no matter what I say, both of you (Nancy and Xandar) come back to fight again - you do the same to everyone who opposes at this FAC. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the 4th FAC this article has been through. I'm afraid "come back in a few months and it'll pass", does not seem to signify. The point is that you appear to have no specific objection to raise about the article at this time. You refer to "other" unspecified objections. However the fact that some other people have objected (for whatever reason) in no way affects YOUR objection - unless you are saying that all the remaining objections amount to a single objection from a group. In fact many of these remaining other objections are vague, unspecified and so cannot be acted upon. Therefore, returning to your objection - not anyone else's - if you think that there are aspects of prose that are so seriously amiss that they need to be corrected to reach FA status, please follow FAc procedure and list them here so that they can be addressed. The editors are not mind-readers. If you cannot or will not provide this necessary information, we are forced to consider that your oppose non-actionable. Xandar (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no limit to how many times an article can go through this process. Here's some examples from the lead paragraphs of how you could polish the prose to meet criteria 1a for "brilliant" prose:
  • "It is made up consists of one Western church (the Latin Rite) and 22 Eastern Catholic churches, divided into 2,782 jurisdictional areas around the world." - Please avoid unnecessary wordiness.
saving two letters/spaces, but using a Latinate word instead of simpler Anglo-Saxon. Personally I don't see this as an improvement. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why use three words instead of one, exactly? One word is better than three, my friend. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not always; this articles is of necessity heavily loaded with Latinate vocabulary, and where simpler Anglo-Saxon terms can be used, they should be, which is in any case a basic principle of English style, unless you are Alexander Haig. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still see no reason of using "is made up" instead of "consists", sorry. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer is made up of for the reasons Johnbod states, Saxon-based words are easier to understand at a basic level. Unless the space saving is large, most writers would advise sticking with simpler language. Xandar (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the lead seems to say "the Church", but then suddenly it changes to "Catholic Church" in this sentence: "From at least the 4th century the Catholic Church has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilization." - Is there a reason for this that I am missing? This is nitpicking, but there should technically be a comma after "4th century".
We can change this if it helps Xandar (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 11th century, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western, Catholic Church split," - The current wording is confusing, I assume you mean: "In the 11th century, the Eastern and Western Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church split," unless I am wrong?
Well, yes, you are. There is no Western Orthodox Church in this sense (Dang, that was supposed to be a redlink - however the subject of the article is a group of churches dating back only to 1864). Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I do not understand what the sentence is saying. Why is there a comma between Western and Catholic Church? Western what, exactly? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Western Catholic Church. Catholics in the Western Roman Empire, Orthodox in the Eastern Roman Empire. Maybe this should be spelled out, or helped with these links. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some sort of further explanation/clarification would help the reader understand it, yes. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The wording here was set in response to a recent objection. It's a tricky problem since the Western and Eastern Churches wouldn't have distinguished each other as Orthodox and Catholic at this time. Today we refer to them as Catholic and Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox Church now refers to itself as such. The Catholic church does not refer to itself as the Western Catholic Church, hence the use of western as descriptive of the split, and its separation with a comma. In view of space considerations in the lead, the best clarification might be to place a comma before the word Eastern, too. Xandar (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is nitpicking, but unnecessary words should be avoided, so: "...largely over disagreements regarding papal primacy" - why not "...largely over papal primacy disagreements" instead?
Ouch, no, terrible! And much less clear. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why, exactly? Read it out loud - it is fine. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of grammar is not my forte, but this is certainly ungrammatical; essentially you are trying to use a noun (primacy) as an adjective. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right on this point actually, now that I look at it again. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..."but acknowledges that the Holy Spirit can make use of Christian communities separated from itself to bring people to salvation."
best left, imho. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The use of that in the sentence adds nothing, and if you read it out loud, removing it makes sense. — Wackymacs (talk ~edits) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the word "that" would make the sentence very confusing. It would read, "..but acknowledges the Holy Spirit..." which would convey the false meaning, "..but recognizes the presence of the Holy Spirit..." a completely different meaning to that intended. Most readers would have to re-read the sentence to arrive at the correct meaning. Using the word "that" simply and easily avoids any confusion by transferring the force of "acknowledges" forward onto the verb-cluster. Xandar (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Modern challenges facing the Church include the rise of secularism and opposition to its pro-life stance on abortion, contraception and euthanasia.[28]" - You might want to clarify 'modern', just to be on the safe side...I assume you're talking about 21st century when you say 'modern'.
No, certainly the 20th for all those, and "the rise of secularism" goes back much further. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article should clarify by stating the century, or perhaps a mention of decades (as that's what the rest of the lead does). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I think people understand what "modern" means. It is a very useful word. It would be too unwieldy to say "in the 20th and 21st centuries," or "from the 1960s to the 2000s" Xandar (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've only gone through the lead, but the rest of the article contains similar things. I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!
— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We obviously have rather different ideas as to what constitutes "brilliant prose". Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Wackymacs list here - I am in agreement with Johnbod on all points. Johnbod is another FAC reviewer for this article who voted to support its advancement to FA. He is not an editor of the RCC article in the sense that Xandar and I are - I make this distinction so his support vote is counted as valid. Wackymacs points here, if followed, would not result in article improvement but factual inaccuracies. I appreciate his comments but we can not follow his recommendations. NancyHeise (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More resistance from Nancy, interesting. See the Talk page, this is uncooperative. Exactly why is it not actionable to consult the help of external copyeditors (at least two, this is such a large article)? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wackymacs, most of the suggestions you have made are 1) minor. and 2) Not improvements at all, as editors have noted above. Not agreeing with all your suggestions, especially when many are misguided, is not being "uncooperative," it is simply entering into a constructive engagement, which is the purpose of this process. A number of editors have worked on this article, and are still doing so. But I certainly do not feel that you have presented any evidence of major problems with the prose. And the items you have pointed to above are certainly no credible evidence for a failure of FA, or that the article needs a complete copyedit by "someone else". The suggestions above will be dealt with, where they are improvements, and we are quite open to any further suggestions you may have for improving sections of the prose. Xandar (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wackymacs, please reread WP:FACR. The article's prose does not need to be "brilliant," only "engaging...and professional." If "brilliant" were a requirement, that clause would read: "its [the article's] prose is engaging, brilliant, and of a professional standard;" i.e. a serial conjunction. "Even brilliant" is being used as an Intensive in this case, not as an element of the conjunction. I admit that the wording in WP:FACR is poor and I will recomend a change on its talk page to reflect this. Lwnf360 (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Comment/Question Do Opposes and Supports from the immediately prior archived version still stand? If not, is someone gonna notify all those !voters of the restart? Ling.Nut (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, in a restart comments from the archived version are not considered (we're really starting over). Generally, the nominator notifies all previous reviewers, but anyone can do that, as long as they notify both supporters and opposers and use a neutral message. Karanacs (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is WP:AWB spam socially acceptable? Ling.Nut (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case, Support as before. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've followed all the previous FACs on this as well as the extensive talk discussions and the multiple other by-ways this has nom lead to. But I never had the courage to speak up. I have to say I find the article impressive on a number of criteria, not least that it gives a balanced overview for non experts. I consider it engaging, informative, and unbiased, and overall a fine resource. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - per previous nomination. Extensive research and discussion has clearly paid off here, as evident in the excellent prose. Good job. Rudget (Help?) 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am totally unsure what the procedure here is. I have written pages and pages in the previous nom expressing my concerns about the quality of sourcing, the selection of data from those sources, provided specific examples of those problems, and so on. Those remain unaddressed. Am I supposed to repeat it all, and possibly engage in the same discussion over again? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A restart functions the same as an entirely new FAC nomination. Any objections that you still hold and would like to see addressed should be restated here. The hope is that this doesn't come down to the same arguments as before, or at least that we can more succinctly discuss the issues as they relate to WP:WIAFA. Karanacs (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well. If the same issues are raised, and met with the same obduracy that occurred in the previous two noms, to expect that it won't come down to the same arguments is perhaps unrealistic. Or perhaps not, as it will lead to reviewer exhaustion. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
    • In the opening paragraph of the lead, both "Western" and "Latin Rite" link to the article Latin Rite. That seems unnecessary. — Angr 21:13, 2 June 2008 — continues after insertion below
      Yes, I agree, I eliminated the Western one since the actual link is to "Latin Rite". NancyHeise (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link http://www.jknirp.com/miss2.htm gets a "404 - Not Found" message.
      I repaired it. NancyHeise (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not link to One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (or to Four Marks of the Church, where it redirects to) when that phrase is mentioned in the lead and the main body of the text?
      Linked. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What translation is being used for the Bible quotes?
      I have not chosen the Bible quotes, they are linked to a page where reader may make the choice of Bible from which to read the quote and are in the same format without access dates as on the FA Islam which we have used as a guide. If I add access dates as a previous FAC reviewer on this page asks of me, I am afraid that I will then have to choose which Bible which will lead to POV wars - are you in favor of the current method or would you rather see me make a choice of Bible and use the cite web citation format so I can put access dates? Please elaborate on what you would rather see. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, now I see that Gimmetrow has answered my question regarding this, we do not put in cite web format, we leave them as they are so the reader will be able to choose the Bible. NancyHeise (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not talking about the refs, though, I'm talking about the quotes actually used in the article itself. Of the many translations available on the page the refs link to, which one is actually used in the article? —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I would guess it's the New American Bible.[13] Gimmetrow 06:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Words like "baptism" and "penance" shouldn't be capitalized. I fixed a few, but there are more.
    • Perhaps a link to Saint Dismas on the words "good thief" at the end of the section "Final judgment and afterlife"?
      I added a wikilink but since that is a quote, I can't put the wikilink inside of a quote so I placed it after it. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You can't put wikilinks inside quotes? —Angr 06:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a particularly silly recommendation in the MoS that I for one regularly ignore. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a guideline to that effect, but it's not absolute even as a guideline. Gimmetrow 06:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the sentence "Although it was superseded by the vernacular as the primary form of the Mass, it was never forbidden after the reforms of the Second Vatican Council;" it isn't immediately clear that "it" refers back to the Tridentine Mass, rather than one of the other nouns in the previous sentence.
      Ok, reworded making this clear. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Protestants if they freely ask for them." What about the other way round? Are there circumstances under which Catholics may receive the Eucharist from a Protestant minister (or at least a validly ordained non-RC priest in Apostolic Succession, like an Anglican, Old Catholic, etc.)?
      This produces a whole can of worms, which we can't really go into in the article. Catholics are not allowed to receive protestant communion, and for this purpose Anglicans count as Protestants since their orders were declared invalid for various reasons. Catholics are allowed to take Orthodox communion, but I don't think the Orthodox officially allow it, except in extremis. Xandar (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand the article can't go into great detail on the issue, but since it brings up the issue of non-Catholics receiving Catholic Communion, it should really at least briefly summarize the issue of Catholics receiving non-Catholic Communion. —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Isn't that covered by "intercommunion with the Eastern Orthodox ... is possible"? Relevant rule is canon 844 §2, which in case of "necessity" (for example, danger of death) and "it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister", a Catholic may receive "penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid". Gimmetrow 07:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added text to cover this issue with reference to Catechism para 1400. Good comment Angr, thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Christmas follows, beginning on the night of 24 December, Christmas Eve, and ending with the feast of the baptism of Jesus on 13 January." This contradicts Baptism of the Lord (which should be linked to), which says the feast was fixed on 13 January before Vatican II, but now is on whatever day between 7 January and 13 January inclusive is a Sunday. The sentence is also unsourced, and contradicts what I was always taught (in an Episcopal church, to be sure, but I thought we shared this with Catholics), namely that Christmas ends at Epiphany, but that the Christmas greenery may remain up in the church until the feast of the Presentation on 2 February.
      Christmas for Catholics ends on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord per my Nihil Obstat source and I refd the entire paragraph for you too. I eliminated the date of January 13 since my source did not give an actual date and I wikilinked Baptism of the Lord. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Epiphany is included under the season of christmas in Catholic Churches, even though the traditional "12 days" of Christmas end on Epiphany. So the season of Christmas ends on the 13th january, after Epiphany week. However the old tradition of keeping christmas decorations up until Candlemas, 2nd of February, persists in part of Europe. Xandar (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also unsourced is "Lent is the 40–day period of purification and penance that begins on Ash Wednesday and ends on Holy Thursday" which again contradicts what I learned, namely that Lent ends on Holy Saturday (the 40 days are the weekdays and Saturdays from Ash Wednesday to Holy Saturday).
      Referenced. Actually, the entire paragraph comes from the source refd at the end of the paragraph, I wasn't originally sure if I had to put a ref at the end of each sentence or not. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I didn't see the ref at the end of the paragraph. Sorry about that! Indeed, if the whole paragraph comes from the same source it's not necessary to ref every single sentence. —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grouping "Lay members, Marriage" under a single heading seems a little odd. Marriage should be lower case, too.
We arent going to change this grouping because it is consistent with the structure in the rest of the Beleifs section where we discuss the relevant sacrament in the section that precipitates its use. Capitalization issue has been discussed at length and was resolved in favor of capping when used as proper noun. NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Some parts of Europe, Ireland and the United States have experienced..." - Ireland is in Europe.
      Good point, eliminated mention of Ireland. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Among those who have been excommunicated or incurred excommunication..." - what's the difference between being excommunicated and incurring excommunication?
      The first sentence of that same paragraph explains that a person may excommunicate themselves or be excommunicated. Incurring excommunication is when you excommunicate yourself. Would you like some more explanation added to the sentence? NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, please. It still seems, at least grammatically, that "incurring excommunication" would be a cover term for both cases, i.e. you have incurred excommunication regardless of whether you did it yourself or someone did it to you. —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying now, yes, you're correct, and I changed wording in the text to reflect your comment here. NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All for now, maybe more comments later. —Angr 21:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Angr, I am not sure about your question regarding Catholics receiving communion from other churches, I'll have to do a little research to answer that one. Also, I am not sure about capitalization of sacraments. We have had a fair amount of MoS gurus go through the page and I think it was decided that they should be capped. I will do some research on that too or ask DanK to come give us some input there. We are also awaiting a decision from the MoS folks on whether to capitalize "Church" throughout the article when it referred to the RCC as opposed to being used in a generic way. Wikipedia policy was vague on that and the Mos people were hashing it out for us. NancyHeise (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) states "Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth, original sin or transubstantiation." This seems fairly open to interpretation as to whether it includes the sacraments. My instinct would be to capitalize Church, Marriage, Eucharist, etc. when used as proper nouns just as you would capitalize Bible or God in the context of Christianity. --Laser brain (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a while since I left school, so my understanding of English grammar may possibly be out of date. Is it not the case that proper nouns are capitalised, whereas improper nouns are not? Does it not therefore seem consistent that "Marriage", when used as a proper noun referring to name of one of the sacraments, ought to be capitalised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuarum (talk • contribs) 23:33, June 2, 2008
I could agree with capitalization in phrases like "the Sacrament of Marriage" and "the Sacrament of Baptism", but not every time marriage or baptism is mentioned alone. —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of WP:CIVIL. These vitriolic, sarcastic comments from both sides are not helping anyone. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 23:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion moved to talk page SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Comment: I must confess that his debate may have passed me by. I had no problems Opposing the earlier versions. In many respects, the current version seems to skirt just barely under the WIAFA requirements, in my opinion. As I said before, I think any problems with the writing could be cleaned up. Major problems have been addressed. You might think, then, that "a little bit acceptable is still acceptable". Perhaps there's no such thing as being a little bit FA-worthy, like there's no such things as being a little bit pregnant. Well, the one fear I have stems from others' concerns that the article presents Catholicism through the worldview of Catholics. Unfortunately, you could take everything I know about the history of the Roman Catholic Church and fit it in a thimble, with room left over for three caraway seeds and the sympathy of a steely-eyed deletionist. I feel unable to Oppose and unable to Support. Will think further. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I find the article exceptionally well referenced, informative, and it sets a good example for all other religion articles to follow. The amount of effort that has gone in to pleasing such a diverse range of editors is akin to the task of Sisyphus. Religious topics seem to bring a higher degree of scrutiny, but that also makes for better articles. Also, perfection is impossible on Wikipedia; articles change by the minute. This is an exemplary article. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose—1a. And I'm disappointed to see a resistant approach by the nominator towards critical reviewers. Please read the instructions. The "Support" immediately above does not, to me, reflect critical scrutiny, and the fact of continuous and open editing has nothing to do with our task here. Some of those one-word "Supports" don't hold much water, either; nor do the extravagent yet empty one-liners such as—

"Awesome article, beautifully written, meets all the criteria of an excellent article and everything we want in a featured article. Let's make this happen."

More like intra-club support, given the Latin in the user's signature.

I looked at just one section, "Origin and mission", which—right at the top—you'd expect to have been trawled over to the point of shine; but shine it doesn't, so I really wonder whether the drive-bys are based on any more than a quick glance.

  • "Scholars such as Edward Norman, agree that the Church was founded by Jesus and believe the historical record reveals that it was considered a Christian doctrinal authority from the beginning." What is the comma doing there? — Tony1 05:21, 3 June 2008 — continues after insertion below
Thank you for pointing out that stray comma, it was left over from answering another FAC reviewers comment to remove a section of the sentence that described Edward Norman' credentials as a respected historian.NancyHeise (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scholars such as Edward Norman, agree that the Church was founded by Jesus and believe the historical record reveals that it was considered a Christian doctrinal authority from the beginning.[14] Others, like Eamon Duffy, caution that the insufficient number of clear written records surviving from the early years of Christianity make such precision difficult to confirm." Um ... where's this precision that may be hard to confirm?
This is now reworded and specified with help from other editors, thanks guys. NancyHeise (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He dismisses a letter from Pope Clement I (c. 95) that other historians cite as evidence of a presiding cleric,...". What's your angle here? That evdence from a presiding cleric is unreliable? Unclear.
Please see the paragraph again. NancyHeise (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pope Benedict XVI summarized ..." and then "He states". Which tense is it to be?
  • "He states that these duties presuppose each other and are inseparable.[9] The Church therefore administers social programs throughout the world." Run that causal logic past me again.
  • "corporal"; my dictionary suggests that "corporeal" is more appropriate in this context.

Now, given that these issues occur in just one small part of a very large article, the best thing to do would be to withdraw the nomination and come back when the article has had time to brew: several months, not several weeks, I'd say, for proper NPOV consideration. TONY (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

< Personal commentary unrelated to FAC or WIAFA removed to talk page.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These "issues" are merely your opinions. Your opinions are certainly interesting, but they do not carry the weight of law as you seem to believe. My opinion is that it would be better to let this restarted FAC take its course, hopefully with reviewers taking a more positive stance in fixing the odd misplaced comma or two and focusing instead on whether or not this article meets the FA criteria. Not the imaginary FA criteria for articles about controversial topics. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand on that, please? The snark is entertaining, but not precisely loaded with clarity. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comma use needs cleaning up, that's for sure. Gimmetrow 06:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony. you produced a few points which you have quibbles with, largely minor, however, you also appear, without good reason, to be failing to assume good faith among other editors, and in fact make unwarranted allegations against them. You also insist on making unhelpful blanket accusation of POV, without providing any specifics to discuss or be dealt with. And you repeat the desire that "someone else" (unnamed) rewrite the article, and that preferably it "go away" for a period of months (or years?) The article has been through several complete copyedits at different hands, and has also been up before the league of Copyeditors. However in an article which is large, of interest to many people, edited by many hands, and is being tweaked up to 50 times a day to respond to FAC comments and to revert vandalism, you are always going to come up with points of imperfection. With rspect to your actionable objections, which, to avoid breaking up your post, I have numbered for convenience:
1. Comma. Already dealt with by Gimmetrow.
2. I have (subsequent to Gimmetrow) further clarified this point.
3. Clarified
4. He can do both since one statement is written and therefore continuing. But these sentences have been made consistent.
5. The logic is quite simple. Pope Benedict expresses the centrality of charity. Church social programmes logically follow.
6. A matter of preference. Agree with Gimmetrow. Corporal means bodily. Corporeal is more old-fashioned, slightly less likely to be understood.
(No. 6: OK TONY (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
If you have any further specific actionable points, please bring them forward. If they're important enough to prevent FA status, they should be easy to identify. Xandar (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: No, you're totally misconstruing the function of my examples: they're random examples of why the whole text falls below our requirement of "professional"-standard prose. Characterising them as "quibbles", "largely minor", and "merely [my] opinions" is an old trick here that we just don't buy. (BTW, everything that drops from my lips is my opinion.) You'd be the first to complain if a film contained little editing glitches; professional-standard writing does not have micro-errors for the reader to trip over; here, they occur throughout the article, and I'm not copy-editing it in its entirety for you—it's your nomination, not mine.

In this small window, some of the examples covered logic and clarity, which are by no means "minor". The logic of "He states that these duties presuppose each other and are inseparable.[9] The Church therefore administers social programs throughout the world" is still beyond me, despite your insistence. Duties that presuppose each other? Huh? And such presupposition and inseparability logically lead to the Church's administration of social programs throughout the world? What's the causal connection? Your response read in some implicit connection you came up with, but it needs to be explicit.

And finally, the barrage of personal abuse I've received over my review is unacceptable. I've been labelled as seeming to believe that my opinions carry the weight of law; and over the page, of having a "poor manner of speaking to people", of being "very mean and disrespectful", and there's the reference to "the sniffy attitude of those like you who reject our contributions in total after months of collaboration and consensus building".

Well, this sniffy, mean, disrespectful rewiever is moving to "Strong oppose": this article simply has too many problems. TONY (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider this an actionable oppose. Tony has not considered that Xandar has addressed his concerns since this posting. I am fine with Xandars changes to the text to remove any possible appearance of POV that were recently done in response to another reviewers comments. Extensive attention has been paid to the POV comments including additions of new text and rewordings. We have followed Tony's recommendations for writing an FA. We have responded to FAC comments positively as evidenced by the edit history. Tony's comments here are indicative of his offense at my efforts to help him see how his review comments offended all the other supporters of the page. Perhaps I should have politely asked him to reread the rules under WP:Civil instead of calling him disrespecful and sniffy, I apologize, I do request his apology to the many supporters of the page one of whom I know is an editor of a journal and possibly an academic, who has an email address from a prominent US university. He too performed a thorough edit of the article before posting his support - twice. I have qualifications too which I do not choose to post on my user page - its too puffy. I just thought that my obvious brilliance would be apparent without having to post my credentials. I guess I have not impressed the superior Tony. NancyHeise (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my 200 KB of concerns in the previous noms that are still un-addressed. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A brief summary of outstanding issues is needed for this to be an actionable oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Written in a non-neutral style, facts not selected per their importance in the field of study; poor sourcing, relies on the fact-selection and details from parochial sources, or theologians writing on history; specific objections to the Reformation section outlined two FACs ago, and to the absurd writing of the Latin American section ("some people") outlined in the last FAC. I am taking this off my watchlist now, per jbmurray's comments elsewhere on this page. A restart was patently un-necessary. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know how to act upon this oppose, there is no mention of which source is unacceptable or how it fails to meet WP:RS or WP:Reliable source examples. Which sources does he consider parochial? The Bokenkotter book, written by a priest and university professor has been a standard text in University classrooms for decades. The other priest author, Vidmar, does not have any citations that are cited only to himself but serves as a double or triple to other authors whose books are written by non-priests, considered to be critics and/or published by university presses. Are there any factual inaccuracies? Have we omitted a notable event or criticism? Regarding non-neutral style, I have just eliminated mention of the 5000 priests who were killed in Nazi death camps because another reviewer felt this was POV. There is no mention in the article about the laws and discrimination of Catholics in the US for many decades and other similar issues explained in depth by editor Xandar here [14] in response to Karanacs comments. I think we have been very NPOV. While I complied with the request to remove mention of the 5000 priest killed by Nazis (and many more imprisoned), I don't see how reader is helped to know about the RCC when we fail to mention facts like these for (POV reasons) but I am trying to find common ground with reviewers.NancyHeise (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will respond to only one of the above arguments; most of them, other than the last couple, I have already discussed elsewhere. Indeed, I have twice made the point that I am about to make again: that the narratives of history are formed by which "facts" are left in and which taken out; that points cited to Vidmar are also backed up by alternative sources does not change the fact that the history section broadly follows Vidmar's outline, and thus we are left with a non-neutral narrative. The action required to correct this is to revise the section and the choice of "facts" as well as the implied weightage of those facts after looking closely at the structure of other articles or historical surveys of the church. Normally I would have done this myself. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify which notable facts of history have been omitted from the article otherwise I do not consider this an actionable oppose.NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its been done at length in the last FAC. No action was taken. Claiming it is not actionable just because I haven't repeated them is a little absurd. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your objections are not actionable if you cannot specify them and back them up. Your claims at the last FAC that the catholic church somehow instituted slavery were not backed up by any facts despite repeated requests for you to do so. Your claims of a "consensus opinion" on this matter which did not need any facts to back it up were proven erroneous, and you withdrew from the discussion. Ample proof was given from a multitude of sources that Catholic priests and bishops were indeed the main defenders of indigenous rights. You ignored this. In spite of this you were offered a sentence reflecting your point of view in the section - as what it is - a point of view. You refused this, and walked away, wanting your opinion to be the view of the article. That is not acceptable when it is contrary to the validated facts. Xandar (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're extensively specified in the archives, and outlined above. The fact that you choose to misrepresent one of them grossly by claiming that I said "the catholic church instituted slavery" is precisely why going through the whole rigmarole again is pointless. The Latin American Church benefited from forced labor, I presented dozens of unimpeachable references stating that it did so, and that it provided local justification and theological support for it at various times, that it was considered extremely problematic. Instead, that large section of the history of the Latin American church is dismissed with a focus on largely theoretical papal bulls and a claim that the near-universal statement that the Church had this record in reliable sources is merely an "opinion", but bulls are "facts", so the second must be prioritised, and the first reduced to a statement that "some scholars disagree with these obvious facts" or the like. This displays not only basic ignorance of historiography, and what constitutes a "fact" in history, but is the sort of attitude that is endemic throughout the history section. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Relata's desire to include something about the Church supporting slavery in the article text. The facts do not support Relata's argument. I researched this subject previously and answered Relata in depth on the previous nom page but I will do it again here. The Catholic Church official position is stated in the article text via wikilinked papal bulls. There were some bad priests here and there who did not obey those pronouncements but their actions were not sanctioned by the Church. Just as we have omitted mention of them, we have NPOV omitted mention of the great number of saints who worked to free and care for the slaves. Slavery is mentioned with appropriate wikilinks to the papal bulls and to the Laws of Burgos affair - the most notable events. Your position, Relata, is that you want to single out the Catholic Church as a particular bad guy on the slavery issue. Maybe you dont know that per my sources, slavery was an institution all over the world in practically every place except Christian Europe. My Edward Norman book goes into the horrors of Muslim slavery when they ruled parts of Spain (page 67). I have a book called "Bird Woman Speaks" about Sacajawea that describes in detail the North American Indian's practice of killing another tribes adults and taking the children as slaves (she was a slave, forced against her will eventually to be the wife (sex slave) of Charboneu). Slavery was also an institution among the Indians of central and Latin America as well as Africa before the Europeans got there. My Justo Gonzalez book describes how the Catholic Church in Brazil operated independently of the rest of the Catholic Church and that some missionaries "used slave labor to generate the income necessary to support their mission , schools, and other activities." This same book later describes how Methodists, Baptists, and mainly Presbyterians moved to Brazil from the US so they could keep their slaves - Gonzalez then states that the southern branches of these Churches were sympathetic to these slave holders and provided them with material and spiritual support. (p 199-200). Earlier in the book, (p152) he describes how slaves in Cuba were required to learn "the principles of the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion" as required by the code of 1842. He then goes on to tell that this was a code enacted upon the slaves by the crown in an attempt to regulate the relationship between master and slave. In defiance, the Bishop sent Franciscan monks to educate the slaves because he was concerned about the high number of suicides - the Queen ruled against the bishop and left the education of slaves in the hands of slaveholders. Everything here shows that slavery was a fact of life supported by the government and often fought by the Church. Your arguments now and previously were dismissed because they do not improve the article but insert POV when the fact is that slavery was everywhere and the only voice for a long time raised against it was the Church. The controversy that some people think the Church did not do enough to end slavery is also a referenced fact in the text. NancyHeise (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relata, I don't think I misrepresnted your arguments at all. On the issue of the Indians, it was clear that even the books you quoted admitted that the Church was their only defender. You then fell back on the issue of slavery. And here, one of the quotes you made was : "The State and the Church were essentially inseparable from each other in establishing the institution of African slavery in Portugal and its overseas colonies." Another was: "The Catholic Church was complicit in this system, either by justifying it in religious terms or through its own inquisitorial violence and extraction of revenues." However when we asked for verifiable facts to back up these startling assertions, you could provide none. In fact the one concrete figure you produced, Antonio Vieria, whose sermon, it was alleged, helped to create, "a general climate of agreement in favour of slavery." in fact virtually condemned slaveholders to perdition. You did produce some opinions from a number of academics which were condemnatory of the Church, but still no facts to back up these opinions. You argued that these opinions were somehow the "academic consensus", and should be the basis of the article. However it was demonstrated that numerous academics hold a contrary view - and one backed up by facts, such as papal pronouncements and priests identified or executed for assisting slave revolts. Articles on the church like the Britannica do not carry your view either. In view of this the most we could offer was to place the opinions you identified in the article as a school of opinion. You refused this, wanting your views to dominate. I am afraid we could not agree to this in violation of balance, accuracy and WP policies. Xandar (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some content still focuses on the Western perspective. "Lent is the 40–day period of purification..." This section is identified as the Latin rite calendar, but still, how is it 40 days from Ash Wednesday to Holy Thursday? Might it be better to just say "Lent is a period of preparation for Easter", which would cover both Eastern and Western practices? Also, "The couple desiring marriage are themselves the ministers of the sacrament" is a Western view. It would also be nice to write a conclusion for the article. Gimmetrow 09:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made changes to reflect your comment here - no conclusion though per following comment by Xandar. NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article conclusion would be very problematic. It's a big article about an ongoing institution. It would either be very bland and say "The church goes on into an incident-filled future..." or it would become a source of arguments about POV. Is it positive, negative etc? The article is long enough, and i don't see a useful purpose being served. Xandar (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. The article is: well written; comprehensive; factually accurate (emphatically per WP:V and WP:RS); neutral (per extensive talk page slug-fests); stable; has a strong structure, lead, and consistent citations; contains many appropriate images. It is lengthy, but this is justifiable due to its 2000 year history and social importance. These are all of the criteia in WP:FACR. My only quibble is the article title, which has been hashed out again and again--apparently, I'm 'wrong' that it's actually the Catholic Church instead of Roman Catholic Church, but what's an expert's knowledge worth? Lwnf360 (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: be forewarned that there will be hundreds if not thousands of similar comments from users that the article title and first sentance are inacurate when this becomes a FA. Suggest either correcting, or putting a note at the top of the talk page saying that this has been extensivly discussed, and the current version is a comprimise. Lwnf360 (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. Yes, I agree with you on the name but per Wikipedia policy WP:NC, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." Based on that policy, the article was named "Roman Catholic Church" with the redirect for "Catholic Church" coming to this page as well as offering the reader the fact that the Catholic Church officially calls itself the "Catholic Church". NancyHeise (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the History section has 4993 words "readable prose size". The article History of the Roman Catholic Church has 850 words "readable prose size," and is essentially a mammoth time-line. I have been trying to look at this article with fresh eyes. I had an epiphany, but unfortunately it was a deeply discouraging one. After the previous FAC, I mentioned to Nancy that I was almost sure the "next FAC" (i.e., this one) would pass. I was looking at the organization of the article at that time, and projecting the amount of time until the prose could be brought up to speed. I now wonder if it needs major restructuring. i wonder if the History section should be farmed out to History of the Roman Catholic Church, the time-line from History of the Roman Catholic Church farmed out to Timeline of the Roman Catholic Church, and much material from Role of Catholic Church in Civilization (that was moved out of this article because it was too long!!) moved back. It is depressing. I also wonder... shouldn't South and central America get more verbiage? And I like the suggestion of a conclusion as per Gimmetrow, too... I am also seeing the prose as being more flawed than I had earlier thought (see the demographics section) . Ling.Nut (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lingnut, some more for you to consider - Your restructuring would completely change the entire article which has been built by review and consensus for the past five months. You can't just all of a sudden decide on your own that the entire article gets tossed and a new one replaced. I too like the idea of a conclusion and I will perhaps offer one on my talk page later asking for comments and consensus to add it. NancyHeise (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment to FAC reviewers - Wackymacs and others have made some diparaging comments about "resistance" to reviewers comments by editors. I believe they are confusing editors of the RCC page (who have not voted on this FAC because we have substantially contributed to the page) and other FAC reviewers who are answering their comments. Just to clarify something here, Malleus Fatuorum and Johnbod are not editors of the RCC page but FAC reviewers who have cast support votes on this page and who have been extremely helpful to the editors in expressing our difficulties faced in answering many of the FAC reviewers comments that are outside of the FAC criteria. Please try to have more respect for your fellow FAC reviewers who are doing everything they can to help get this top page for Wikiproject Catholicism to FA. I personally appreciate their help very much and I dont think their comments have been anything but proper to the conversation. NancyHeise (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now is not the time for a major restructure of the article, causing massive instability. As per the Britannica article, details of which have been posted below, History makes up a significant, and necessary part of both treatments. Even if the material were transferred, this article would still need a smaller History section, and deciding what went in that and at what weight would be horrendous. (Witness the six months of discussion here and on the Talk pages at RCC). the current length of the History section has been determined, not by the editors so much as by the need to deal with certain subjects in sufficient detail to present necessary viewpoints, and to balance events by importance and Due Weight considerations. Indeed, the History of the Church Article COULD be rewritten in prose style, but that is a mammoth undertaking and would need more detail than we currently have in the RCC article. I ams ure someone could take the current RCC text and expand on it, but that is another (quite large) project. When that is done might be the time to start thinking whether history content in the main article could be trimmed. Xandar (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: NancyHeise left a message on my talk page concerning the restart; many thanks. On 30 May, NancyHeise responded to Ling.Nut and added other citations to text that were cited only to Vidmar. I had asked for replacement than just additions, but what was done is definitely a step in the right direction. It would be better if the text were supported on the solid sources alone. The facts that I stated concerning the book’s reliability still stand. There are potential pitfalls with this source: as I mentioned, one reason is that an erroneous statement could be supported. More importantly, another reason is the source could be used to subtly push a POV which violates criterion 1d. The latter reason was mentioned by Ling.Nut and Refero. So in summary, WIAFA concerns: 1c and 1d, Action: at least add solid sources to the text that cite only Vidmar, which may require some modification of the text. Some more comments and questions: — RelHistBuff 11:52, 3 June 2008 — continues after insertion below

  • The final paragraph of the "Modern era" section concerns the Church’s relationship with the Jews during World War II, a rather controversial subject, therefore it should stand on a bedrock of scholarship. Unfortunately, only a part is cited to solid scholars. The clause "because even though no Church teachings promote the killing of Jews" (cited to a NYT article) should be removed. The clause may be truthful, but I couldn't find that statement in the source.
I eliminated the clause and left the rest of the sentence. NancyHeise (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention of prominent members of the Jewish community and the use of their quotes is simply sourced to a book of quotations. This makes it appear that cherry-picking was done which might bring out claims of WP:OR. The sentence should be supported by a solid source or removed.
I added Bokenkotter as a source and provided the quote to support the current text. NancyHeise (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is a statement about "prominent Jews" (we are not told who made this statement) and the appearance of the cherry-picking of quotes. Bokenkotter’s text said that it was David G. Dalin who made the observation. He said four persons "would likely have been shocked" and he gave only quotes made by Einstein and Herzog. To correctly paraphrase Bokenkotter’s text, it should say something like "An American rabbi, David G. Dalin, states that Einstein and Herzog praised the actions of Pius...". The cite to the quotations book is not needed, otherwise it is cherry-picking quotes thus violating neutrality. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two final sentences in the paragraph (only cited to Vidmar), appear as if they were statements from an apologist; quoting a single Israeli consul making a unsupported claim may not be a direct example of a POV, but it is a POV by proxy. The previous clause quoting Dalin (cited to Bokenkotter) is sufficient. The sentence giving the number of priests killed by the Nazis is unrelated to Pius' and the Church's relations with the Jews and just appears defensive. The two sentences should be dropped as what is left in the paragraph is enough.
While I disagree that I can't use Vidmar, especially when the preceeding sentence supports the next one, I have eliminated these last two sentences in compromise with you. NancyHeise (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the subject of Mary I, who were the "Catholic spiritual advisor and others" mentioned?
Mary I was married to a Spanish Catholic who asked his chaplain to preach against the burnings, I was only able to find this fact in Vidmar and one other source but it was not a university press or a university professor so I did not use it as a back up. I eliminated the phrase "Catholic spiritual advisor" and replaced with "Spanish ambassador" as supported by the quote by Haigh.NancyHeise (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the subject of the Huguenots, ending a paragraph with the Edict of Nantes is misleading giving the impression that France became a tolerant nation. Surely, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes and its rather devastating after effects should be mentioned as well?
After looking into this extensively through all my sources and online, I dont think that it deserves mention since my scholarly sources do not go into it, probably because it was not an action of the Catholic Church but a secular ruler. If you don't mind, I would like for the text to not stray too far off topic, there are a number of tangents we could follow in all areas of history but we have to have some kind of limit for size reasons. NancyHeise (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Edict of Nantes was also emitted by a secular ruler. So the Revocation could also be included as well. Ending the paragraph like that would seriously misrepresent the history of the Church in France. The history of the religious decisions of secular rulers (e.g., Charles V of the HRE, Henry VIII, Mary I, and Elizabeth I of England, and Henry IV and Louis XIV of France) are tied to the history of the Church at that time. Adding a sentence on Louis XIV and the Revocation and its impact completes the story leaving France as a largely Catholic nation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have inserted text with wikilink to Revocation of Edict of Nantes but it is in the French Revolution area listed as a reason for the anticlericalism that preceeded the French Revolution. Since the article is about the Roman Catholic Church, not France or the Huguenots, I think this is the best presentation. Readers who want to know what the Revocation did can find it through the link provided and this treatment is consistent throughout with other issues. NancyHeise (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said previously, I find this seriously misleading and I am concerned about 1d. The paragraph ends by mentioning the Edict of Nantes that declares tolerance in France. Then later in the article, it is mentioned that the persecution of priests developed after the Revocation of the Edict. This leaves a rather obvious lacuna in the history of the Church in France. The actual Revocation and its effects which were to either force the conversion of the Huguenots to Catholicism or to expel them appears as an attempt to hide some uncomfortable facts. A sentence on the Revocation and the effects on the Huguenots should be added at the end of the paragraph. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--RelHistBuff (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have provided the relevant facts for the history of the Church, we are not writing the history of all of Europe and we dont have the space to do so. The Church did not sanction the Revocation or its effects on the Huguenots. We are trying very hard not to confuse the actions of secular rulers with the actions of the Church. I think there is room to mention what you are asking for and I have posted on the talk page for suggestions and invited one editor to come and contribute. I posted your concerns on the talk page too. For purposes of FA nomination, this article does not omit any important fact or controversy in Catholic Church history including the Revocation of Edict of Nantes. I have made changes in the text to try to resolve your concerns and I continue to try via my postings on the talk page. I do not feel that your oppose is any more actionable as there are no FAC criteria being violated. NancyHeise (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. I have not asked for a history of all of Europe to be written. I am asking for adherence to criterion 1d. Currently, the article mention a Catholic ruler who allowed for some toleration of a minority (Henry and the Edict) and secular attacks on Catholic clerics (after the Revocation). And yet there is no mention of the Revocation itself, i.e. the period in between, about a Catholic ruler (Louis XIV) who forced conversions to the Catholic faith and forced expulsion of hundreds of thousands of a minority leaving France almost wholly Catholic. This is an integral part of the history of the Church. Despite the danger of reusing a metaphor, I submit that this is "cherry-picking" bits of history in order to portray the Church and its supporting rulers in a positive light and dropping other bits that are inconvenient using the excuse that the actions were done by a "secular ruler". Both Henry and Louis XIV were secular rulers. Mentioning only one secular ruler but not the other is not only a violation of NPOV, it is a refusal to give the complete picture, thus violating comprehensiveness. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are ample scholarly sources to back up the WWII material in the article. Since this is about the Church and the Nazis, I think reference to numbers of priests killed is relevant. I will look up further references. Xandar (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure there are sources to back it up. I was just stating that it is out-of-place in the context of Pius and the Jews. It looks like it was put there to defend the Church against charges of anti-Semitism, but in fact they are separate issues. The number would be fine in another paragraph on the Nazis interaction with the Church. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FAC criteria 1(c) requires the text to be "factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;"
To meet this criteria, we used an equal balance of both apologist and critic sources in the text. Our main sources are from Edward Norman and Eamon Duffy who are introduced in the article in the Origins and Mission section in a way that helps the reader to understand that there are different scholarly viewpoints on Catholic Church history. Duffy and other authors who take the critical viewpoint are more than equally represented in the text than those like Norman who represent the apologist viewpoint. Sensitive areas of the article like Inquisitions, Crusades, Reformation, and Sexual Abuse were created using both critic and apologist sources and quotations from all of these sources were included to reader could see all the various viewpoints for themselves. The book RelHistBuf does not like, The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages by John Vidmar(2005) Paulist Press, is one of our apologist sources. It meets WP:RS criteria and qualifies as a top source per WP:Reliable source examples. Elimination of this book would leave a huge imbalance in the article balance of both points of view. Further, every Vidmar citation in the article text except for one point no one cares about is a double to another reference that no one has a problem with, in most cases the other ref has a quote included so you can see that the sentence is not "built" around Vidmar. Although wikipedia policies allow me to have some citations in the article text referenced only to Vidmar, I have conceeded to FAC reviewers comments and doubled all of his references. Vidmar's book was peer reviewed by critical historian Thomas Bokenkotter in the academic journal Catholic Historical Review which has been published since 1915, there is another peer review by a professor of Theology (theology departments teach Church history) at Graduate Theological Union, Berkley, and another on Googlebooks. None of these reveiws state that the book has any factual errors or radical POV and all of them recommend the book at the end of the review. Thus, there is no Wikipedia policy violated in using Vidmar and I have gone beyond the mere policies to satisfy RelHistBuf but I think it would violate policy completely to remove use of this book. In addition, there is neither any FAC criteria violated unless I do remove him. I will be answering all of RelHistBuf's other comments shortly just underneath his bulletpoints and I very much appreciate the fine way he has framed his comments and review here. I think his is a perfect example of polite opposition and organized review. Thanks RelHistBuf. NancyHeise (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but, yes, I remain in the opposition. I, like many of our other colleagues here on Wiki, would really like to see this article reach FA, but do not feel that it has quite satisfied WIAFA. Concerning your points, I have to question your definition of the split of apologist and critical sources. I get the impression that you are setting your own "goalpost" of what is acceptable or not. I have pointed out the reasons why the source is not reliable (the author's background, the publisher, the mistakes, the review) and they have not been refuted. Your criterion that a review has to state that it has factual errors or a radical POV in order to be rejected is an arbitrary one. The review speaks for itself: Bokenkotter disagrees with several points in the book and he calls the style "breezy". If there are no other scholarly reviews of the book, then that in itself is equally damning as the book is not even considered decent enough to show up on the journal review radar. However, as long there are other cites along with Vidmar, then 1c appears to be satisfied. I will start looking more in detail concerning WIAFA criterion 1d. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered all of RelHistBuf's concerns point by point making concessions to his desires except to remove use of Vidmar which I am not required to do per any Wikipedia policy as he meets specified requirements of WP:RS and WP:Reliable source examples. I do not consider this an actionable oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you again for leaving a note on my talk page. I am sorry, but not all of my points were addressed. Concerning the sources, I repeat, the artificial division of "apologist" and "critical" sources is an imaginary creation and simply moves a "goalpost" so as to justify the use of a very poor quality source which I have shown is not reliable (1c violation). I also opposed due to 1d. I have found neutrality problems as mentioned above. But these are just examples; I am afraid that this may just be the tip of the iceberg. Other reviewers (e.g., Awadewit and jbmurray) have already noted other POV problems, thus confirming my suspicions. The oppose is clearly actionable as I have given the criterion violated, the reasons why (none of which have been refuted), and the suggested possible solutions. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rel HisBuff The specific concerns that you raised have been addressed. On Vidmar, you may disagree with the use of his book, but it breaks no FA rules, and his his use is backed with citations from other scholars. editors have net over backward to deal with your "neutrality concerns", but now you say these were "just examples", yet refuse to state WHICH other passages you have concerns about. If you cannot specify precisely what you are continuing to claim are POV concerns, then your oppose cannot be actionable. Editors cannot mind-read your concerns, and refusing to specify them or to engage in the process, makes them impossible to address. Therefore unless you do specify your precise concerns in an addressable manner, your continued oppose must be seen as non-actionable. 92.40.196.30 (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One neutrality concern (1d), I "specified precisely", the Edict being included and the Revocation of the Edict being excluded, has not been addressed. I disagree with your claim that I refused to specify them. There is no need to "mind-read"; I repeat again, all my statements are actionable as I stated the criteria violated and suggested potential solutions. On the issue of Pius and the Jews, I suggested a formulation using a paraphrase of Bokenkotter without sourcing to a book of quotations which appears as cherry-picking (1d). Note also that on the article talk page, Qp10qp suggested a formulation to correct an error on the statement that Pope Clement VIII supported King Henry IV's edict when in fact Clement was dismayed by it (in my opinion, another 1d concern). Concerning Vidmar, your doubling of cites is a step in the right direction and partially solves 1c. But this point is not a matter of personal disagreement as you claim; the source is poor quality and biased. I gave the reasons why it is a poor source in detail (credentials with a Doctorate in Sacred Theology, works at a small Catholic college that does not do Ph.D level research, he is a member of the Paulists and published by the Paulists hence it is effectively self-published by a missionary organisation, gives a Catholic POV, errors in the book, one weak review with certain criticisms found in a Catholic journal). It is the use of that source that may contribute to the NPOV problems (1d). --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RelHistBuff's oppose is unreasonable for these reasons:
  • Edict of Nantes is completely covered the third paragraph of Late Medieval and Renaissance where the sentence states that it was supported by Pope Clement III - a fact. Editor Qp10qp wanted to add text that said the Pope was dismayed by it but the Duffy quote says that he agreed with it after a "long hesitation" - it is very POV to assume that he was dismayed - perhaps he was putting the matter to prayer and after coming to know God's will in the matter, supported it. It is not unusual for a Catholic person to not know exactly the correct thing to do at the momment but to wait on a decision after putting the matter up to God in prayer. It is offensive to Catholics and very POV to then assume that a pope's hesitation over a big decision constitutes "dismay". Duffy is our most respected source in the article and his quote does not support use of the word "dismay".
The "perhaps" says it all. Qp10qp provided a source that supported the use of "dismay". Duffy does not say that the pope "supported" the Edict. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revocation of Edict of Nantes is covered in first paragraph of Enlightenment section. This is the actual sentence " In 1685 King Louis XIV of France issued the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, ending a century-long experiment in religious toleration. However, the religious conflicts of the Reformation era had provoked a backlash against Christianity. " Three editors have agreed to this placement as we have gone through the article making prose corrections. It was placed there by myself and edited by Ceoil and Xandar. It exists in its most logical place in the article text at a point that is discussing the buildup to the French Revolution. The Revocation was part of that buildup. RelHistBuf's opposition to the article because of no mention of Revocation of Edict of Nantes is made in error.
The change was made by Xandar yesterday (see [15]), I assume to address my comment, but no mention was made of it here until now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • RelHistBuf wanted me to eliminate a source contributed by another editor that is a book of quotes stating that it appears as if we were cherry picking those quotes. I supplemented the source with Bokenkotter who named those same quoted people and more and I added the actual quote from Bokenkotter in the reference to prove there was no cherry picking as he has improperly alleged. I do not see how the article should be denied FA because we have two sources instead of one supporting a controversial section. We want more not less sources in areas like that.
  • RelHistBuf opposes because he wants me to eliminate use of the book "The Catholic Church Through the Ages" by John Vidmar whose book is peer reviewed by Thomas Bokenkotter in the academic journal Catholic Historical Review. Bokenkotter calls the book "breezy" and points out some contentious statements made by Vidmar on issues not even covered by our article text. He never states the book is incorrect or radical and ends the review by recommending it to the reader. All cites to the Vidmar book serve as doubles to another reference and his book provides a valuable asset to the page by giving reader the perspective of a Catholic apologist in sensitive areas like Inquisitions, Crusades, Reformation, etc. where we included refs and quotes from a variety of authors from various perspectives. RelHistBuf's request to eliminate Vidmar is unreasonable and is not based on any Wikipedia policy and would make the article less informative and eliminate one of the sources used to satisfy FAC criteria 1c " accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge".
  • For these reasons, I do not consider RelHistBuf's an actionable oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder people just give up commenting. A poor quality source is continually defended by wikilawyering. Wikipedia has no chance of improving with this kind of attitude. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the Edict of Nantes, I think Qp10p's references established that the Pope publicly supported the Edict, but privately was "dismayed" - or something very similar. The current text is not in "error", as Carlaude dogmatically puts it, but would be improved by the insertion of, for example, "reluctantly" at the relevant point. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But does Duffy support the assertion that the pope "supported" the Edict? --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to fail FA over the use of one word, I do not have a problem with its insertion but I do not see how "a long hesitation" translates absolutely into "dismayed" or "relucatantly" when we are not in a position to know why he hesitated. It seems to be more POV and incorrect to make that assumption rather than to just leave the text as is - a plain factual statement minus any speculation over why he took his time. NancyHeise (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just added "hesitantly accepted" and removed "supported" from the Edict of Nantes sentence. The new words directly reflect Duffy's message in his quote that I provided on the talk page discussion over this issue. NancyHeise (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - someone asked me to compare with the Encyclopedia Britannica entry (Roman Catholicism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Library Edition). The EB entry is at "Roman Catholicism", is 121 pages long, and has the following structure:
Structure of Encyclopedia Britannica article on Roman Catholicism
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Introduction
  • History of Roman Catholicism
    • The emergence of Catholic Christianity
      • The emergence of Roman Catholicism
        • Internal factors
        • External factors
        • The early medieval papacy
    • The church of the early Middle Ages
      • The concept of Christendom
      • A period of decadence
      • Popular Christianity 1000
    • The church of the High Middle Ages
      • Gregorian Reform
      • The reign of Gregory VII
      • The Investiture Controversy: Gregory VII to Calixtus II
      • The Crusades
      • The papacy at its height: the 12th and 13th centuries
      • The renaissance of the 12th century
      • The apostolic life
      • Religious orders: canons and monks
      • The mendicant orders
      • The rise of heresy
      • Religious life in the 13th century
      • The golden age of Scholasticism
      • The persecuting society
    • From the late Middle Ages to the Reformation
      • The “Babylonian Captivity”
      • Late medieval reform: the Great Schism and conciliarism
      • Jan Hus
      • Efforts to heal the East-West Schism
      • Roman Catholicism on the eve of the Reformation
      • The decline of Scholastic theology
      • Expressions of spirituality and folk piety
      • Roman Catholicism and Renaissance humanism
      • Roman Catholicism and the emergence of national consciousness
  • The age of Reformation and Counter-Reformation
    • Roman Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation
      • The Roman Catholic Reformation
        • The Council of Trent
        • New religious orders
    • The Counter-Reformation
    • Post-Reformation conditions
    • Developments in France
      • The Gallican problem
      • Jansenism
      • Quietism
    • Controversies involving the Jesuits
      • The Chinese rites controversy
      • Suppression of the Jesuits
    • Religious life in the 17th and 18th centuries
  • The church in the modern period
    • Catholicism in Revolutionary France
    • Napoleon I and the restoration
    • Pius IX
    • Leo XIII
    • The period of the World Wars
    • The Second Vatican Council
    • Aftermath of the council
  • Roman Catholicism outside Europe
    • The New World: Spanish and Portuguese empires
      • Colonial period
      • After independence
      • Spanish and French missions in North America
    • Roman Catholicism in the United States and Canada
      • United States
      • Canada
    • Roman Catholicism in Africa and Asia
      • Missions in Africa
      • Missions in Asia
  • Structure of the church
    • Doctrinal basis
      • The nature of the church
      • Apostolic succession
    • The papacy
      • The papal office
      • Ancient and medieval views of papal authority
      • Early-modern and modern views of papal authority
      • Historical conceptions of the relationship of the papacy to the world
      • Contemporary teaching on papal authority
    • The offices of the clergy
      • The Roman Curia and the College of Cardinals
      • The college of bishops
      • Ecumenical councils
      • The priesthood
    • Religious communities
      • Hermits and monks
      • Mendicant friars and clerks regular
      • Nuns and brothers
    • The laity
    • Canon law
  • Beliefs and practices
    • Faith
      • Concepts of faith
      • Preambles and motivation of faith
      • Heresy
    • Revelation
      • The concept of revelation
      • The content of revelation
    • Tradition and Scripture
      • The magisterium
      • The concept of teaching authority
      • Organs of teaching authority
      • Object and response
    • Major dogmas and doctrines
    • Sacraments
      • General characteristics
      • Baptism
      • Confirmation
      • The Eucharist
      • Reconciliation
      • Anointing of the sick
      • Marriage
      • Holy orders
    • Liturgy
      • The mass
      • The divine office
      • The liturgical year
    • Paraliturgical devotions
      • Eucharistic devotions
      • Cult of the saints
      • Mysticism
    • The order of the mass
      • The introductory rites
      • The liturgy of the Word
      • The liturgy of the Eucharist
      • The communion rite
      • The concluding rite
    • The role of the church in society
      • Missions
      • Education
      • Charitable activities
      • Church and state relations
      • Economic views and practice
      • The family
  • The church since Vatican II
  • Additional Reading
    • General Works
      • History
      • Belief and practice
    • The Latin church from antiquity to the late Middle Ages
    • Reformation and Counter-Reformation
    • Roman Catholicism in modern times
    • The papacy

References are lengthy:

References used for the EB article on Roman Catholicism
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • History:
    • Large-scale works are Hubert Jedin and John Patrick Dolan (eds.), History of the Church, 10 vol. (1986–89). John McManners (ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (1990, reissued 2001), is useful. Roland H. Bainton, The Horizon History of Christianity (1964, reissued as Christianity, 2000), is a well-written, beautifully illustrated, comprehensive introduction to Western Christianity through the centuries and includes references to modern Catholicism worldwide.
  • Belief and practice:
    • Reference works include Robert C. Broderick (ed.), The Catholic Encyclopedia, rev. and updated ed. (1987); Thomas Carson and Joann Cerrito (eds.), New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., 15 vol. (2003), which treats all phases of Roman Catholicism; Karl Rahner et al. (eds.), Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of Theology, 6 vol. (1968–70), which deals with Catholic doctrine and theological thought; and F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone (eds.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (1997), with informative articles on Roman Catholic subjects and helpful bibliographies.
    • An excellent brief compendium of doctrine is A New Catechism: Catholic Faith for Adults, trans. by Kevin Smyth (1967, reissued 1982; originally published in Dutch, 1966). Also valuable is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later elected as Pope Benedict XVI) and Christopher Schönborn (one of the contributors to the church's new catechism), Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994). Roman Catholic theology of the church is discussed by Hans Küng, The Church (1967, reissued 1976; originally published in German, 1967); and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today, trans. by Adrian Walker (1996; originally published in German, 1991).
    • The contemporary Roman Catholic Church is surveyed by John L. McKenzie, The Roman Catholic Church (1969, reissued 1971). A balanced and comprehensive introduction is Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism, completely rev. and updated (1994). See also Barrie Ruth Straus, The Catholic Church (1987, reissued 1992). Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 5 vol. (1971–91), opens with the apostolic Fathers and closes with the Second Vatican Council. Jaroslav Pelikan, Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 4 vol. (2003), is a comprehensive collection of statements of faith and includes a volume of commentary on the creeds. Rosemary Ruether and Eleanor McLaughlin (eds.), Women of Spirit: Female Leadership in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (1979, reissued 1998), is a step toward redressing the imbalance in most scholarship. An important starting point for developments in Roman Catholic theology after the Second Vatican Council is Hans Küng, On Being a Christian, trans. by Edward Quinn (1976, reissued 1984; originally published in German, 1974). On developments in Roman Catholic feminist theology, see Mary Jo Weaver, New Catholic Women: A Contemporary Challenge to Traditional Religious Authority (1985, reissued 1995).
  • The Latin church from antiquity to the late Middle Ages
    • Perceptive introductions to the medieval church are Bernard Hamilton, Religion in the Medieval West (1986); and R.W. Southern, Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages (1970, reprinted 1990). A useful survey of the history of the early church is Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, AD 200–1000, 2nd ed. (2003). Important studies of the church in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages are Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (1983); R.A. Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity (1998); Richard E. Sullivan, Christian Missionary Activity in the Early Middle Ages (1994); and J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church (1983). Étienne Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (1955, reissued 1980), is a masterly summary with a full bibliography. Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism, rev. ed. (2000), looks at the theology of the late Middle Ages in its entirety, with special emphasis on nominalism. C.H. Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 3rd ed. (2001); and C.H. Lawrence, The Friars: The Impact of the Early Mendicant Movement on Western Society (1994), are accessible surveys of the medieval religious orders. The profound changes in spirituality and church organization that occurred in the 11th and 12th centuries are studied in Uta-Renate Blumenthal, The Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century (1988, reissued 1991); Michael Frassetto (ed.), Medieval Purity and Piety: Essays on Medieval Clerical Celibacy and Religious Reform (1998); Rachel Fulton, From Judgment to Passion: Devotion to Christ and the Virgin Mary, 800–1200 (2002); Gerd Tellenbach, The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century (1993); and Caroline Walker Bynum, Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (1982).
    • Henry Charles Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages: Its Organization and Operation (1954, reissued 1993), remains the essential, but sectarian, introduction to the topic. Bernard Hamilton, The Medieval Inquisition (1981); and Edward Peters, Inquisition (1988), offer a more balanced view; and Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, 2nd ed. (1997, reissued 2000), is the best introduction to the institution in Spain. The history of medieval heresy is best examined in Malcom Lambert, Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation, 3rd ed. (2002); and R.I. Moore, The Origins of European Dissent (1977, reissued 1994).
    • A useful introduction to the Crusades is Thomas F. Madden, A Concise History of the Crusades (1999). Francis Oakley, The Western Church in the Later Middle Ages (1979, reissued 1985); and Steven Ozment, The Age of Reform, 1250–1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe (1980), cover the late Middle Ages with sound judgment. W.A. Pantin, The English Church in the Fourteenth Century (1955, reissued 1980), is a good introduction to late medieval English developments; and Lawrence G. Duggan, Bishop and Chapter: The Governance of the Bishopric of Speyer to 1552 (1978), an important study of the institutional church in Germany.
  • Reformation and Counter-Reformation:
    • The period is surveyed thoroughly in two reference works: Thomas A. Brady, Heiko A. Oberman, and James D. Tracy (eds.), Handbook of European History, 1400–1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation, 2 vol. (1994–96); and Hans J. Hillerbrand (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 4 vol. (1996). An important introduction is G.R. Elton (ed.), The Reformation, 1520–1559, 2nd ed., vol. 2 (1990) of The New Cambridge Modern History, 14 vol. (1957–77, reissued 1975–99). Other useful introductions to the period are John Bossy, Christianity in the West, 1400–1700 (1985); Euan Cameron, The European Reformation (1991); Heiko A. Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought (1986, reissued 1992); and Lewis W. Spitz, The Protestant Reformation, 1517–1559 (1985).
    • Jaroslav Pelikan, Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther's Reformation (1964), is an investigation of Luther's thought; and Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (1950, reissued 1995), remains the best introduction to Luther's life. Developments in England are considered in Eamon duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400–1580 (1992). George Huntston Williams, The Radical Reformation, 3rd ed. (2000), is a synoptic presentation of the “left wing” of the Reformation. Reform in the Roman Catholic Church is treated best in Robert Bireley, The Refashioning of Catholicism, 1450–1700 (1999); Michael A. Mullett, The Catholic Reformation (1999); and R. Po-chia Hsia, The World of Catholic Renewal 1540–1770 (1998).
  • Roman Catholicism in modern times:
    • An extensive and valuable study is Kenneth Scott Latourette, Christianity in a Revolutionary Age: A History of Christianity in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, 5 vol. (1958–62, reissued 1973); vol. 1, 3, and 5 concentrate on Roman Catholic themes. E.E.Y. Hales, The Catholic Church in the Modern World: A Survey from the French Revolution to the Present, new rev. ed. (1960), concentrates on Europe and America. Two works that make aspects of the American Catholic experience readily available to readers are John Tracy Ellis, American Catholicism, 2nd ed. rev. (1969); and Jay P. Dolan, The American Catholic Experience: A History from Colonial Times to the Present (1985, reissued 2001), an essential study. Stephen Neill, Colonialism and Christian Missions (1966), and A History of Christian Missions, 2nd ed. rev. by Owen Chadwick (1986, reissued 1990), provide brief and generally fair comments on Catholic ventures. Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, trans. and ed. by Caridad Inda and John Eagleson, rev. ed. (2001; originally published in Spanish, 1972), is a provocative introduction to Roman Catholicism in the developing world. Another essential study is Anthony Gill, Rendering unto Caesar: The Catholic Church and the State in Latin America (1998). Adrian Hastings, The Church in Africa, 1450–1950 (1994), is a valuable introduction.
    • Lester R. Kurtz, The Politics of Heresy: The Modernist Crisis in Roman Catholicism (1986), provides an introduction to the debate over Modernism. Austin Flannery (ed.), Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, new rev. ed. (1996), is a useful collection of documents from the council; and Adrian Hastings (ed.), Modern Catholicism: Vatican II and After (1991), is a valuable consideration of the postconciliar Roman Catholic Church.
  • The papacy:
    • Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, 2nd ed. (2002), is a comprehensive and lively study of the papacy. An excellent brief introduction to papal history up to the Reformation is Geoffrey Barraclough, The Medieval Papacy (1968, reissued 1979). Essential studies for the development of medieval papal claims are W. Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power, 3rd ed. (1970); and Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150–1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty, and Tradition in the Middle Ages (1972, reissued 1988). Other valuable studies of the medieval papacy are Peter Llewellyn, Rome in the Dark Ages (1971, reissued 1996); Colin Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (1989); Guillaume Mollat, The Popes at Avignon, 1305–1378 , trans. by Janet Love (1963; originally published in French, 9th ed. 1949); and Francis Oakley, Council over Pope? Towards a Provisional Ecclesiology (1969).
    • Good studies of the papacy from the Renaissance to modern times include John A.F. Thomson, Popes and Princes, 1417–1517: Politics and Polity in the Late Medieval Church (1980); A.D. Wright, The Early Modern Papacy: From the Council of Trent to the French Revolution, 1564–1789 (2000); Owen Chadwick, The Popes and European Revolution (1981); and Frank J. Coppa, The Modern Papacy Since 1789 (1998). Edward Cuthbert Butler, The Vatican Council, 1869–1870: Based on Bishop Ullathorne's Letters, ed. by Christopher Butler (1930, reissued 1962), is a history of the First Vatican Council. Walter M. Abbott (ed.), The Documents of Vatican II (1966, reissued 1989), is an introduction to the achievement of the Second Vatican Council. Garry Wills, Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit (2000), is a controversial and highly critical commentary on the modern papacy.
    • Works on the papacy from theological perspectives include Paul C. Empie and T. Austin Murphy (eds.), Papal Primacy and the Universal Church (1974), an ecumenical dialogue; and Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Church in the New Testament (1965, reissued 1974; originally published in German, 1961), which presents the results of 20th-century Roman Catholic biblical scholarship. Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, and John Reumann (eds.), Peter in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (1973, reissued 2002), considers the biblical problems in the Petrine question. Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger, The Episcopate and the Primacy, trans. by Kenneth Barker (1962; originally published in German, 1961), is an analysis of the pope-bishop relationship; and Hans Küng, Infallible? An Unresolved Enquiry, new expanded ed. (1994; originally published in German, 1970), and Structures of the Church, trans. by Salvator Attanasio (1964, reissued 1982; originally published in German, 1962), are basic to an understanding of contemporary “liberal” Roman Catholic thinking on the papacy. Francis Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, trans. by Edwin A. Quain (1966, reprinted 1979; originally published in French, 1964); and John Meyendorff et al., The Primacy of Peter, 2nd ed. (1973, reissued 1992; originally published in French, 1960), are useful studies of Eastern Orthodox views on papal primacy.

Hope that's useful. If someone wants a copy of the article, drop me an email. Neıl 龱 13:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Interesting. But you must remember the EB article is far larger than ours, and has the advantage in terms that you can flip to whichever section you want by turning the page, rather than reading through long stretches of text as you tend to on a one-page article. That's why History, being the longest section, but not necessarily the one people will want to read first, has been placed where it is. Xandar (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have not read this article since its last FAC and I hoped to be able to support it this time around. In the meantime, actually, I read several books on church history to be able to better comment on the article. However, I find that I am not able to support the article, most unfortunately. I know that a lot of work has gone into it, but I feel that the article fails 1b, 1c, and 1d. — Awadewit 15:00, 3 June 2008 — continues after insertion below

  • The "History" section has a slight Catholic POV. I know that the editors have worked very hard to avoid this, so I am sure this is unintentional. However, the way some of the sentences are constructed and perhaps even the choice of sources have resulted in a Catholic POV. For example, the editors have made a good effort to begin several sentences "the Catholic Church believes...", however it is not clear where this distinction stops in a paragraph - what is believed only by the Catholic Church and what is not? The waters become muddied. Also, the omission of particular details creates a feeling that the section is a Catholic view of history. Let me give some examples of what I mean:
  • In the 16th century, partly in response to the Protestant Reformation, the Church engaged in a substantial process of reform and renewal, known as the Counter-Reformation. - A reflection of this problem occurs in the lead, actually. Considering that the Counter-Reformation also includes events such as the Spanish Inquisition, I feel that this sentence is a bit of a whitewash.
  • No. Spanish Inquisition began a good 60 years before the counter-reformation, and was no part of that process. It is dealt with in the High Middle Ages section Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the Spanish Inquisition page itself delineates, part of it had to do with with Counter-Reformation, since it lasted for hundreds of years. Anyway, this individual example is not really the point. The more important point is that the Counter-Reformation itself is misrepresented in the lead. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Spanish Inquisition was created by a secular King and was an arm of a secular government. If we have omitted the Spanish Inquisition from the text, I would consider your comment but the fact is that we have quite a lot of text on the inquisitions with many refs with quotes from many different sources to support the text. While we have certainly not covered every detail of history in our short summary of the 2000 year history of the Church, I know we have not omitted any main facts. I think that your insistence on requiring more commentary will not help the aritcle's summary style. The text provides a vast number of wikilinks including Spanish Inquisition and Counter Reformation that will help reader to discover all the missing facts we had to exclude for size considerations. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please reread my objection. I only used the Spanish Inquisition as an example. My main objection is to the misrepresentation of the Counter-Reformation in the lead. It is represented as an innocuous "reform" - it was not. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many important reforms came out of the Counter reformation that are discussed in the article text. These are referenced to scholary sources. It appears to me that the scholars would disagree with you that this was "innocuos". NancyHeise (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that many important reforms came out of the Counter-reformation, but so did some unpleasant events. That the lead only represents the positives is what makes the statement POV. It is uncontroversial statement that the Counter-Reformation produced some positives and negatives and that will appear in all of your sources. There is no reliable source that says the entire Counter-Reformation was all roses. There is no need to debate this. The sentence needs to be fixed. I have now explained this several times and I see no reason to explain it yet again. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IF the Spanish Inquisition were a doing of the Catholic Church and not a secular ruler we might be able to include this fact. The pope protested to the King about its abuses, this was not sanctioned by the Church and you need to provide some sources to back up your statements since we have ours already referenced in the text. NancyHeise (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You allege that the article "misrepresents" the Counter-reformation, and that the CR was not innocuous. Yet apart from the misplaced mention of the Spanish Inquisition, you have come up with no evidence for this. As already stated the Spanish Inquisition was not a part of the counter-reformation process. It existed in Spanish territory, but was already past its peak by the time the counter-reformation got going. You will find that most church histories consider the counter-reformation to have been based on a reform of church practice, a renewal of liturgy, stronger action against abuses, and the formation of new better-educated preaching orders. Yes, there were wars and other events in this period, but they have largely been mentioned under the reformation section. Xandar (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the objection. You are not responding to it at all. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Catholic Church considers Pentecost to be its moment of origin because this was the day when the apostles first emerged from hiding to publicly preach the message of Jesus after his death - This is mixing theology with history. This belief was already stated in the "Origins" section, anyway, and this theological belief, which is not endorsed by historians, does not need to be included in a "History" section.
Another FAC reviewer endorsed the current text as an important lead and suggested that it was a necessary duplication. I am in agreement with that presentation. Reader needs to know what the Church considers to be its own historical beginning and Wikipedia policy requires us to present all significant viewpoints in the article text. NancyHeise (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the reader needs to know the Catholic Church's version of its history - I have already suggested a way that could be done. However, the reader also needs to know that historians do not necessarily endorse all of the parts of the Church's official history. Right now, the mix of official Church history and scholarly history is confusing - including a theological belief such as Pentecost in the "History" section is particularly confusing. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy requires us to present all viewpoints. The history section is not exempt from this requirement. The Catholic viewpoint is a significant point of view that needs to be included in order to satisfy written policy. I would be in violation of this rule if I were to submit to your request. NancyHeise (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you would not. I am asking that the Catholic POV be distinguished from other points of view so that readers are not confused. I am not asking you to eliminate the Catholic POV at all. I have already suggested one way in which to do this: create a section explaining the Church's own history of itself. The article already has the start of such a section: "Origins and mission". Expanding this a bit and removing the theology from the "History" section would be a perfectly satisfactory resolution to this problem. I feel no need to repeat myself on this point any further. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence itself tells the reader that it is the Catholic POV, there isnt any more qualification required. NancyHeise (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have now specifically reinforced the elements that are based on Church Tradition and/or scripture in the Roman Empire Section. That is quite sufficient for any reader to have no serious chance of possible confusion. For reasons of coherence this information needs to be there, at least in overview form at the beginning of the Church History section, and secular historians did not start keeping records about the Church until much later. In addition Pentecost, as used here is a day when a particular important event is said to have occurred. It is not being used here, or defined in a theological manner. If the day this happened had beeen Caesar's birthday it would have been just the same.Xandar (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since Pentecost is a church holiday which cannot be demonstrated in historical records (it is a mystical event), this is an excellent example of the article's slight Catholic POV. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the first century onward, the Church of Rome was respected as a doctrinal authority because the Apostles Peter and Paul had led the Church there - This is a Catholic view of history. The book Lost Christianities by the religious scholar Bart Ehrman, for example, explains that Rome was not the center of orthodoxy until the fourth century and that the orthodox actually developed this story about Rome being the center, emphasizing the role of Peter, in retrospect to solidify their authority. In fact, he even goes into detail regarding the academic reliability of various explanations of the emergence of orthodox Christianity, carefully explaining what academics support and what they do not. It is a very useful and accessible book.
  • Ehrman's view is just that - a view - and a rather extreme one. I'm sure you will find a satisfactory discussion of opposing views in the Origins and Mission section at the head of the article. This sentence in History, could be tweaked, however. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehrman's view is not an extreme view. One reason I took so long to comment on this FAC was because I was reading books so that I could be fully informed. If you would like a full bibliography backing up this position, I can certainly provide you with one. I simply offered what I thought was the most accessible book on the subject. Moreover, just because the article explains the various views in one place does not mean it is off the hook in others. This suggests some reorganization needs to take place - if one section is NPOV and one place is POV to avoid repetition, perhaps some revision can be done, as you suggest.Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text specifically does not say that the Church of Rome was the center of authority but that it was respected as a doctrinal authority because... and it is refd to three scholars, two falling into the critic categories and the refs have the actual quotes to support the text. NancyHeise (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is exactly is that Rome was not the center of doctrinal authority. I also see that two of these references are to some of the sources that are in dispute. If you want, I can provide you with even more sources documenting the position I have outlined here. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources are in dispute. All meet top standards for Wikipedia policy and that has already been proven. If I have a third source as well, why even bring this up, it is a referenced fact. The text does not say that the Church was the doctrinal authority, it says it was respected as one. The refs even have quotes. NancyHeise (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For added measure, I referenced these sentences to Bokenkotter's book and provide the quote. Bokenkotter's book is a standard fare used in University classrooms for decades. Apparently representative of a majority view. One of the other books is the National Geographic Society compiled work of over 10 University professors, "Geography of Religion", also representative of a majority view and the other reference is to Vidmar, representative of the Catholic view. I have enough scholarly works and opinions to prove that the text is factual. NancyHeise (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the sources are in dispute by other editors - I've read the FAC. I am going out of town tomorrow, but when I return I will place a bibliography, quotations, etc. on the article's talk page to demonstrate just how mainstream this view is. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been resolved. No person on this FAC, even though they have tried, has been able to prove that any of my sources violate WP:RS or not representative of the top sources described in WP:Reliable source examples. Please provide any bad reviews of my sources before you make such a false accusation please. NancyHeise (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the article doesn't say that early Rome was THE doctrinal authority, but A doctrinal authority. I would say that this is beyond dispute. Apart from the attested Roman origin of the letters of Paul and possibly Peter, there was unchallenged belief in the time (ref: Irenaeus and others) that they had led the Church from there, and left their seal of doctrinal purity there. There is the letter of (Pope) Clement of 85 AD, already referred to in the text in which he sorts out problems in the Corinthian church, and early and most renowned Christian apologists, such as Justin Martyr were based in Rome. Mainstream histories such as Collins and Duffy all acknowledge the position of Rome. Any claim that there was no centrality at Rome before the 4th century is well beyond the mainstream, and seems to edge into Dan Brown territory. Xandar (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't accuse me of relying on fictional sources when I have already provided you with a reliable source. Moreover, the overall tone of the paragraph is that Rome is where doctrinal authority emerged - quickly and because of Peter. The paragraph does not explain the sects and were stamped out. The problem here is also the tone and what is left out - the omissions. This is another good example of the slightly Catholic POV of the article. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although competing forms of Christianity emerged early and persisted into the fifth century, the Roman Church retained the practice of meeting in ecumenical councils to ensure that any doctrinal differences were quickly resolved - This is a Catholic view of history - see again Lost Christianities which delineates the debates between these competing forms. It explains how some forms of Christianity were labeled "heresies", such as Gnosticism, and deliberately stamped out by an eventual victor, what we label the "proto-orthodox". This now seems inevitable, but it was not at the time. None of this would be considered "resolving doctrinal differences" - it was basically sect against sect.
  • I have clarified this point in the article. It wasn't meant to indicate councils were held with Gnostics etc. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to misunderstand my point. I am pointing out that there was no established church in the way the article now suggests. It now says "within the Church itself", but histories of Christianity argue that there was no centralized, established church before the fourth or fifth century, so such a statement cannot be made. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very radical POV comment. All of my sources, including the ones considered critics do not hold the view offered by Awadewit here. There was a Roman Church, with a pope, beginning with either ST. Peter, according to Norman or someone earlier than Anicetus in the year 150 per Duffy. Oxford History of Christianity states:"Towards the latter part of the first century, Rome's presiding cleric named Clement wrote on behalf of his church to remonstrate with the Corinthian Christians ... Clement apologized not for intervening but for not having acted sooner. Moreover, during the second century the Roman community's leadership was evident in its generous alms to poorer churches. About 165 they erected monuments to their martyred apostles ... Roman bishops were already conscious of being custodians of the authentic tradition or true interpretation of the apostolic writings. In the conflict with Gnosticism Rome played a decisive role, and likewise in the deep division in Asia Minor created by the claims of the Montanist prophets to be the organs of the Holy Spirit's direct utterances." page 36. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't it more that there was a (pretty loosely) centralized, established church in this period, but it contained a wider range of doctrinal views, and every so often one group or another split off? I do agree with Awa that the Pentecost bit, and maybe the whoole first two paras, may be better in "Origins", starting the history at a period when there is more material for historians to work with. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no scholarly source justification to remove the early history of the Catholic Church from the history section and present it as if it were a POV separate from the main body of historians whose books support the article text. Why do we have to comment on the whole of Christianity in the Roman Catholic Church article? We have right now, the history of the Roman Catholic Church in the history section, just because it overlaps with other Christian sects (which are mentioned) does not mean we have to eliminate that section of history from its logical position in the article. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, I gave you a scholarly source for this view - Ehrman. He explains how orthodoxy did not really coalesce until the fourth century. If you want, I can give you many more sources explaining this view. This is actually a very widely held view among religious studies scholars. I realize that it is not a widely held view among Catholic theologians or Catholic historians, however. I suggested one solution to this problem - a short section on the Catholic Church's view of its history, but Johnbod's solution is another good one. That would not solve the POV problems in the rest of the "History" section, but it would be a good start. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If orthodoxy did not coalesce until the fourth century does that mean that we remove the early history of the Church? The early history of the Church does not cease to exist just because the Church evolved over time and this fact is apparent in all of my sources. Ehrman is not suggesting that the Church did not exist prior to the 4th century and we have Duffy telling us that there were popes at least as far back as the year 150, National Geographic Society puts it at St. Peter. Peter was writing his letters from the Church of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church, as this article is named, has a history before the 4th century and we would be factually incorrect to exclude that from our article. NancyHeise (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a straw man, actually. I'm very dubious that most "Catholic theologians or Catholic historians" would take general issue with a view that "orthodoxy did not really coalesce until the fourth century" - or maybe they would like it a lttle earlier. There's no doubt many big issues were still open for widely ranging views. This is what the quote from the article immediately below is talkling about, surely? Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of confusion is creeping in here. Of course there was no "established church" before the 4th century. Christianity was not legalised, and was often under bitter persecution. These are not conditions in which an established church develops. However the sources are quite clear that there was a Christian Church at this time that was organised, considered itself one spiritual body, was organised under bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and insisted on doctrinal orthodoxy in line with the scriptural writings and apostolic tradition. The fact that things like the Nicene Creed were not formall adopted until later does not mean that the Church was not secure in its teaching before this point. This church even called itself the Catholic Church. The article says that there were competing brands of Christianity at this time, and I can't really see any justification for adding much more. Yes there were gnostics, marcionites, and all sorts of other groups, but they were outside the official catholic church, and the church shunned interaction with them. Most of its writings at the time were to preserve orthodoxy from attacks by these groups. So the idea that there was amish-mash of widely differing beliefs within the Church, is a false one, even though it has been popularised by the likes of Dan brown. heresies like Arianism and Nestorianism could rise out of the Church, when individuals were influenced by outside groups, but actuion was always taken against them. The Arian controversy is already mentioned with respect to the Nicene creed. perhaps a sentence could be added to that, but I don't think much more is needed on these topics. Xandar (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit says she is going to provide us with quotes from actual historians who agree with her statements but I think she is going to be left dry on that. We can't change the text to suit her desires when it goes against the top WP:Reliable source examples we have referencing the content right now. NancyHeise (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. This is from Christianity Through the Centuries. by Earle E Cairns. 1996..
p112. During the period between 100 and 313, the church was forced to give consideration to how it could best meet the external persecution from the Roman state and the internal problem of heretical teaching and consequent schism. It sought to close its ranks by the development of a canon of the New Testament, which gave it an authoritative Book for faith and practice; by the creation of a creed, which gace it an authoritative statement of belief; and by obedience to the monarchical bishops, among whom the Roman bishop took a place of leadership. The last gave it a bond of unity in the constitution of the church. Polemicists wrote books in controversy with heretics. Around 170 the church was calling itself the "catholic" or universal, church, a term first used by Ignatius in his Epistle to Smyrna (chap. 8). Xandar (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first few centuries of its existence, the Church defined and formed its teachings and traditions into a systematic whole under the influence of theological apologists such as Pope Clement I, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Augustine of Hippo. - In my opinion, this is tilted towards a Catholic view, because it implies that the doctrine developed at this time was "systematic" when really it was a response to all of the various versions of Christianity at the time. Some of the doctrinal additions at the time don't make much sense in combination with each other. See Ehrman's discussion of the development of the Nicene Creed in chapter 9 of Lost Christianities, for example.
  • Hmmm. I'd have to look further into this. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that this is tilted towards the Catholic view, our text is referenced to peer reviewed scholarly sources from scholars of all viewpoints. NancyHeise (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not just about referencing, Nancy - it is about how it is written. Please read my objection carefully. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can not write something that is not in my references. Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits us from inserting opinion unless it is framed as opinion and requires facts. We have referenced facts in the article. All particulary sensitive sections have references to a variety of critic or apologist or neutral sources with quotes so reader can make the decision for themselves. NancyHeise (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question is about "systemic" - a choice of wording here. Again, I would find it surprising if your reliable sources actually argued that the doctrine developed at this time was coherent. That would make the sources very questionable, actually, as it is abundantly clear that the doctrine is anything but a coherent system. Again, when I will return, I will add quotations, etc. to the talk page demonstrating this. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what the objection is to "systematic", since doctrine did develop towards a systematic whole. The main issues were the precise nature of Christ and the Incarnation, and the purest sources of teaching authority. The Church fathers built on the established teachings and were very systematic. In fact they have been accused of being slaves to Greek philosophy! But how would you prefer the sentence to read? Xandar (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not systematic - they do not go together as a coherent whole. It is frustrating that you are not reading the sources I provide that demonstrate this. You prefer to argue. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Matters grew still worse with the violent anti-clericalism of the French Revolution. The Church was outlawed, all monasteries destroyed, 30,000 priests were exiled and hundreds more were killed.[278] When Pope Pius VI took sides against the revolution in the First Coalition, Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Italy. The pope was imprisoned by French troops the following year and died after six weeks of captivity. After a change of heart, Napoleon then re-established the Catholic Church in France with the signing of the Concordat of 1801.[279] All over Europe, the end of the Napoleonic wars signaled by the Congress of Vienna, brought Catholic revival, renewed enthusiasm, and new respect for the papacy following the depredations of the previous era - This is also a rather one-sided perspective of the French Revolution. It does not acknowledge that any of the complaints against the clergy at the time might have had merit. In fact, it doesn't explain why any of this violence took place. See Sutherland's France 1789-1815, for a good one-volume history of the French Revolution on this point. There is a helpful index, which will guide you to the relevant sections on the "clergy".
  • There may have been complaints against the clergy, but I'm not sure such complaints are any justification for what happened. Compare Russian revolution, or complaints against Jews prior to pogroms. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the reader cannot decide for themselves - you do not offer the people's perspective. In fact, the reader does not even understand why these acts took place. Right now, it just seems like random violence, but it was not - there were reasons for it. Whether or not you feel those reasons justify it is irrelevant - we should explain those reasons to the reader. The reader needs to know why people in eighteenth-century France thought it was accepted to exile and kill priests, etc. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that is like asking the Holocaust article to go into detail why the Nazi's wanted to kill them, it is assuming that some crime was being committed by the population of people who are being killed. In the Holocaust it was Jews, in the French Revolution it was priests. I think it is POV to insist that whoever is being wiped out at the time must have done something to deserve it in the first place. NancyHeise (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Holocaust article should (and does) explain very briefly the reasons why different things happened. That does not mean the victims are at fault and that the Germans are right. NPOV means includes the facts; the fact is that in France people thought XXX and used that for their justification for exiling or killing priests. The article is not meant to derive a conclusion on whether or not they were correct in thinking those thoughts or doing those deeds. Karanacs (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence with wikilinks to lead into the French Revolution. Sources say that the cause of the French Revolution is a disputed point among historians, we have French Revolution wikilinked where the cause is discussed in detail. NancyHeise (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about the causes of the French Revolution. We are talking about one aspect of the French Revolution - the clerical controversy. Only one side of that controversy has been presented. Returning to the Nazi analogy, I would be shocked, actually, if the Holocaust article did not explain why the Nazis killed the Jews - if the article did not explain Anti-Semitism, White Supremacy, etc. Readers deserve to know what reasons the French people gave for killing and exiling their priests. In no way does this justify what they did, however. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I added more info to the section to address your comment here. NancyHeise (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could be explained more clearly, but this is much better. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One way of solving this POV problem, I think, would be to have a section dedicated to the story the Catholic Church tells about its own origin and history - just a few paragraphs. This can include the information about Jesus, Peter, etc. However, the "History" section should be much more NPOV. I worry that we are going to have to "Histories of the church" sections on many different pages, such as Reformation, Lutheran Church, etc. that all present the history of the Christian church from a particular point of view and they will all sound different. This will be confusing to readers. All of these histories should sound similar - they should not sound Lutheran on one page and Catholic on another page, for example. That is why I would suggest dedicating one section to the Church's view of its own history.

  • I think this would risk fictionalising the church take on its history, and factualising opposition viewpoints. Best, I think, to try to do the best with scholarly material as it exists. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that historians do in fact say that the Church's view is unhistorical. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section is created using peer reviewed scholarly sources that support the article text with sensitive areas and other areas showing quotes from scholars of all viewpoints. NancyHeise (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the bigger question is whether the sources currently used represent the overall opinion of historians in the appropriate balance. Karanacs (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else linked this, I just saw it when I made an edit to French Revolution in response to comment above. NancyHeise (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also concerned that the article presents Catholic belief as a unified whole with very few or no dissenters. Catholic beliefs are interpreted different by liberal theologians, conservative theologians, different orders of monks, different national churches, etc. It is hard to see what those debates are here (there is one brief discussion of liberation theology, but that is about all). This choice could also be viewed as POV - the Catholic Church wants its followers to believe that it has a unified set of doctrines, when in fact those doctrines are not uniformly followed. A section dedicated to "Disputes over Catholic theology" or some such could help remedy this. I understand that it would be hard to sprinkle them through the entire article at this point.
  • This is a point. However there are not so many differences as some may think. Womens ordination has been mentioned, and Liberation Theology. There are Liberal views and Traditionalist views, which perhaps also deserve a brief mention. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brief is all I think can be done, anyway. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have mentioned in the Demographics section the fact that the number of practicing Catholics is not reliably known. Disputes over Catholic Theology are already discussed throughout the history section in a manner suggested by Jimbo Wales. Women's ordination, birth control, liberation theology and all the past disputes over Catholic theology like Arianism are talked about and wikilinked for the reader who wants to know more. NancyHeise (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are all very brief mentions and these are not the current, core disputes in Catholic theology. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit, what current core dispute in Catholic Theology exists that we have not mentioned? NancyHeise (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can name two right off the bat: Christology and reproductive ethics. Both have resulted in not only intense internal but also external debate. They have been covered by both Catholic and non-Catholic media due to their results. The publication of several near-heretical books by Catholic theologians on Christology caused quite a stir a while back when the authors were investigated, for example, and the set of choices the Catholic Church has made regarding contraception has had a huge impact on its aid programs in Africa, particularly with regards to AIDS, and the way other countries and groups interact with those programs. Both of these topics are quite controversial and are very visible - for obvious reasons. Awadewit (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction and use of condoms is covered in the History section under Vatican II and we provide the fact that it is something the Church is criticized about especially in the instance of AIDS. Christology is not notable, no Church documents have changed, no wars, no mass exodus of Catholics over the issue. There are other things that people disagree with the Church about - throughout history - we mention the notable ones, others are covered in the article on Roman Catholic theology which is listed as a link in See Also section. Also throughout history, we mention the notable dissenting theologians whose works are notable, meaning they resulted in some significant event or change in Church doctrine. All notable facts are included. NancyHeise (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I was referring to a much wider discussion of reproductive issues - condoms are only one part of it. This section of the article is underdeveloped. Moreover, Christology has seen debate amongst theologians of the Church. I specifically gave an example of a larger political issue and a more specific theological issue. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your examples are covered in proper detail except Christology which is not a notable issue. Liberation Theology is notable because there has been quite a lot of bloodshed and politics surrounding this. Christology is an issue only discussed among some academics and ordinary Catholics do not even know what it is. If you can not name a notable issue that I have omitted, then I can't answer your question. NancyHeise (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a short section to cover Liberal and traditionalist dissenters in the postVaticanII section. Other dissenting topics are, as Nancy says, not notable enough for coverage in a broad article such as this. A book here and there on Christology is of little note even to a church like the Anglicans or the Baptists, and the issue of Christology is touched upon in the mention of Kung. Xandar (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that the most important theological disputes of the Catholic Church are all political, actually, and that is the focus of these dissents. That is why it is clear to me there are gaps in the article. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is very little in the article on the Catholic Church's missions. This is a large and very significant section of the Church. I mentioned this problem in the last FAC. Brief mentions of charities do not explain the huge networks of schools, hospitals, etc. that the Catholic church builds and runs throughout the world. The article focuses too much on doctrine and history at this point. It does not really explain what the Church does.
  • Would take a lot of space, is my first thought. esecond is that this might be considered puffing of the Church. What do others think? Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it is one of the main missions of the Church, I think it is crucial to discuss. If done correctly, it is not puffing. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not omit the fact that the church has schools hospitals etc now or throughout history, this fact is throughout the article. I did some research after the last FAC and considered a section on the current work of the church throughout the world, possibly even listing all of the hospitals, schools, and missions but even after an extensive search, I could not find all that data in one place, I would have had to compile it myself via going to each country in the world's bishop's conference data and we are not allowed to do that on Wikipedia. What could be done is to have a separate wikipedia page on that subject that could link to this page when it is completed. NancyHeise (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would anticipate that an entire page could be written on this topic and then summarized in this article. However, that does not mean that currently the article does an adequate job of covering this topic. It mentions but does not explain the Catholic Church's charity missions - one of its core functions as an institution. This a very serious omission. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to suggest ways to fix the issues I have raised, so I hope these were helpful suggestions. I am sorry that I could not support at this time. I actually spent several days thinking about this oppose. I can see how hard this FAC has been and I wanted to make sure that I was opposing for very substantial reasons. These are not issues that I believe I could easily fix myself or that I believe could be fixed in a day. I believe that some thoughtful and careful revision needs to take place and some additions need to be made before the article should become an FA. However, I have no doubt that these changes can eventually be made. Awadewit (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have done my best to outline what I feel are the major problems with this article - its slight Catholic POV (of which I gave examples, but there are many more, some of which have been pointed out by other editors), and its omissions. I am leaving town for a few days. When I return, I will do my best to add helpful quotations and resources to the article's talk page. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)\][reply]
Awadewit makes statements about Roman Catholic Church history that are not accurate. She needs to provide some refs and quotes to back up her assertions because we can not comply with several of her wishes here on the simple basis as they are incorrect. She does not point out any factual inaccuracies in the article text and can not provide any notable events we have omitted. She has called our presentation of history POV but does not provide any sources or quotes to reflect some other version. The source she did provide never states that the Roman Church did not exist before the 4th century, that is completely opposed to all historical evidence. It has often happened when dealing with Karanacs and Awadewit that I have been asked to add more info in a certain section to supposedly reveal some very bad side of the Church, yet when I have gone about my research to comply with their wishes, I find that the compendium of historical evidence in my top sources does not match their hoped for version. It is impossible for me to build a history except on the facts, as much as I have tried to make them happy, especially Karanacs through literally hundreds of her comments beginning in January. NancyHeise (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My statements are correct. I have provided sources - that you have not checked them to verify my statements is the problem. These sources actually do agree with historical evidence. When I return from my trip, I will place all of the relevant quotations on the article's talk page. I have pointed out many POV problems with the article. I have been very patient in this FAC, but my patience is wearing thin at this point. I actually did a lot of research before commenting on this FAC to make sure that every statement I made at this FAC would be correct. What this research revealed to me was that the editors themselves have only scratched the surface of the research available - they are using very few sources and select sources at that. This has been pointed out numerous times in this FAC and the previous FAC. Anyone who doubts these statements is free to investigate this at the article's talk page in about a week's time, after I return from my trip and spend the hours it takes to type up all of the necessary references and quotations. Awadewit (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just on the references issue at this point: Anyone who looks at the list of citations in the article, will see just how many different authorities there are here. Because some people have tried to make a fuss at some books actually written by catholic scholars being used, doesn't mean these books are poor sources. And no-one has pointed out any errors or falsities in the subject matter used. If you have other information. okay, but it has to be judged like the rest. Xandar (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took you up on your offer to look at the list of citations, and I have to say I am unimpressed. Aside from the books, most of the sourcing is to official Vatican sources or otherwise presenting a Catholic opinion (which is fine, to a degree). I don't have the expertise to evaluate the books that are used, but I'll note that they are cited almost exclusively for the History section, and that four or five books predominate to a large degree. I'm not saying I agree with Awadewit's concerns, as I don't really have the knowledge to understand them, but looking through the citations does not convince me his arguments are invalid. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit's comments have all been addressed. We have made changes to text where appropriate, provided valid reasons where we could not. I do not consider this an actionable oppose.NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked on my talk page whether my objection still stands and indeed it does. Nancy, "inacationable opposes" are those unrelated to the FAC criteria - all of my objections are related to the FAC critera. An "inactionable oppose" is something like "add an infobox", which is unrelated to the FAC criteria. It is now up to the FAC directors whether or not the oppose is sufficient. Let me explain why I am still opposing. 1) I gave examples of why the "History" section of the article has a slightly Catholic POV. Rather than try to fix these problems, the editors disputed the examples endlessly on the FAC page. Some of the problems I have pointed out have still not been fixed because the editors have either not understood my objections or for some other reason. Moreover, I did not list every example of POV. I listed the kinds of problems inherent in the page based on the periods I am most familiar with. Other editors, such as RelHistBuff, Jbmurray, and Durova, have listed the same kinds of problems from periods they are most familiar with. 2) I have described omissions from the article. Again, the editors have disputed the omissions rather than try to fix them. I would like to emphasize once again that I did not make this opposition lightly and I only did so after reading more books (I apologize I have not been able to add my sources to the talk page yet, but I will when I return from my trip - at this point I will have to rest on my reputation as a good researcher). I know that this article was difficult to write and to research, but I do not believe that it is FA quality yet. Awadewit (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that it was not only editors responsible for the article who disputed your objections here (not all of them in my case, but several, not all commented on). If all the suggestions by those you mention above had been followed, I for one would be likely switch my position to strong oppose until balance had been restored. Likewise for Mike's objections below (is it?). Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you have written here, Johnbod. Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear enough to me - not all suggestions of objectors (generally)) would improve articles, and there are many here that would not. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please make it clear which you feel would improve the article and which would not - thanks. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to Awadewit's objections, which need clarifying:
1. Many statements not prefaced with The Church believes: ADDRESSED in text rewording.
2. The Spanish Inquisition was an essential part of the Countereformation: Point of view REFUTED. Major Historians and the britannica do not take this view.
3. The counter-reformation was not an innocuous reform - Again the majority of history sources including EB present it as mainly a reform process. Your view appears to be a small minority one at best.
4. The Church's view of its origin should be placed in a separate section from Church History. We could not agree, since this is not the method used by most historians and would be POV by implying the Church position on its origin is not historical. However we adopted the solution at 5 below.
5. It is hard to tell which part of early history is Church tradition and which is historically verified. ADDRESSED. History section specifically changed to specify which events are church tradition and which are verified history.
6. pentecost is a mystical event, it should not be mentioned in History section. EXPLAINED that Pentecost is used as a day when an important Church event happened. It would be unreasonable not to mention it.
7. Objected to position of article that Rome became a doctrinal centre from early centuries. COULD NOT ACCEPT this objection as it is not proven. Most mainstream historians accept this position along with the Encyclopedia Britannica. The only support adduced for the position of the objector was a book from Bart Ehrman, a POV fringe historian who has written books connected with Da Vinci Code. His position is minority and cannot be the one of the article. alternative views are already mentioned in the Origins section, and the history section already states that competing forms of Christianity existed. That is enough.
8. Not enough information on reasons for French revolution attack on Church. ADDRESSED. Further background added.
9. Too little mention of alternative Catholic views. ADRESSED sections on Traditionalists, Liberals added as well as Liberation Theology section expanded as per other review. And, as stated there are mentions of AIDS, Arianism, Womens ordination and other controversies throughout the article.
Basically the editors have attempted to address all comments from Awadewit. Some we could not accede to since they would mean changing the article to reflect a small minority POV in the face of the consensus of academic opinion. Xandar (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding this to the end of the FAC; this is unrelated to Awadewit's comments directly before this post. After several talk page and article talk page reminders throughout these FACs, I am formally and directly requesting that personalization of this FAC cease. I will remove further personal commentary, not directly related to the WP:FAC instructions or WP:WIAFA to the talk page. If someone simply must comment on an editor and not the content, pls do so elsewhere, or preferably, not at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose. I've been reading and rereading the article, and the comments that others have offered about the article, since this was restarted to evaluate whether I am indeed holding this to a higher standard than other articles I review. I think that if I am, it is simply because I am much more familiar with the content in this article (at least the history) than other articles I review and can thus more easily see some potential issues. This is definitely a good article, and it has improved dramatially in the last few weeks. However, to fully meet the featured article criteria, I still think it needs more work. Following are a few suggestions (some are new, because I tried to read some of the sections I hadn't previously counted on). I think the easiest way to get over that last little hump would be to invite experts in some of these historical areas to help identify issues that they see in how things have been summarized to ensure that it is fully accurate and NPOV; identifying these on-wiki experts and getting them to help, though, could be difficult.
    • Is there any information on the true demographics of the church? Perhaps percentages by gender or age? It might also be useful to have a few sentences about the way the demographics of the church have changed over time; very broadly, this could mention any changes since countries stopped mandating Catholicism as the national religion (I think in much of Latin America this happened in the 20th century?), and especially demographic changes over the last 50 - 100 years. — Karanacs 18:00, 3 June 2008 — continues after insertion below
  • No percentages on gender or age but I added text reflecting what the worldwide population was in 1970, the earliest figures anyone has on that. NancyHeise (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the splits of bishops by continent would be easier to find, and give an idea? Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But she's not asking us for that and we already summarize that where Church growth is occuring in demographics section. NancyHeise (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A table with that information (RC population by continent or bishops by continent) might be really useful in the demographics section. I just did a Google Scholar search on demographics and Roman Catholic Church. Did you know that there is a journal called Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion? It is not one I am familiar with, but I wonder if it would have demographic info? Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched for Catholic Church statistical info and that info has to be compiled which constitutes original research per Wikipedia policies. I answered a FAC comment of Awadewit's that a separate article could be made on Church missionary work which could also include this information that could then be linked to this article. I do not think that our failure to add this info right now should prevent the article from becoming FA.
What about this link? This gives the percentage of Catholics by continent.[16] Karanacs (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It gives figures for 2004. I think that is too old. I plan to do the separate article discussed with Awadewit and I believe I will have that info after intense future research. I dont think this has to fail FAC because it does not have this specific info, this article is a summary. NancyHeise (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the article has a European/American focus.(Please note that the links provided are not sources I'm recommending you use, just a starting point so you can see what I am talking about)
      • There is only minimal mention in the article of the Church in Africa. As this is now one of the fastest-growing places for the church, it seems as if this merits a bit more discussion. From what I understand of the continent's history, Catholic churches were established in Africa very early, then languished, then a renewed missionary period in the late 15th century, then locals adapted the religion to look nothing like Catholicism, and missionaries started over in the early 17th century.
  • This is answered after the next comment below. NancyHeise (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm answering here for clarity. The African church gets three mentions, in passing, and in conjunction with other areas of the world. These are those pieces: membership is growing, particularly in Africa and Asia, The apostles traveled to various areas in northern Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, Greece, and Rome forming the first Christian communities, Through the late 15th and early 16th centuries European missionaries and explorers spread Catholicism to the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania. That's it. I would expect the fastest-growing area of the world in terms of Catholic population to have more coverage than that. Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have added a paragraph in Modern Era because that is when the Church really took off. I included the reasons for this effect which are really the only notable mentions needed for this effect. It explains for reader why the Church in Africa grew so quickly. NancyHeise (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, it might be worth mentioning in the paragraph on more modern challenges the more specific challenges of the church in Africa. This would include witchcraft[17] and the fact that many of the church practices that Europeans/North Americans take for granted are not practiced as regularly there.[18]
  • Yes, without going into too much detail, the article text mentions the establishement of the Church in Africa in the Roman Empire section of History. Then article text mentions the missionary efforts going into Africa in the 15th century. The article text also includes mention of Africa in the demographics where it is noted that it is an area of population growth for the Church. I think this is sufficient mention of Africa. I just finished reading a biography on Michael Tansi, an African priest and there is much about the witchcraft problems that the priests had to deal with in helping the converts leave behind old superstitions - but this is a quality that is not limited to African converts. All missionary efforts had to deal with the indiginous practices of the people they converted. We dont go into this kind of detail in the aritcle and I disagree that we need to do so. NancyHeise (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are current issues facing the church, though, and I think they ought to be covered. Perhaps the article could place it in the context of missionary efforts as a whole, but as it is a current issue facing an area that is rapidly increasing in Catholic population, it is important to mention. Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the article needs mention of this - it is not a notable historical fact, it is a pastoral concern for missionaries that has existed not just in our time but in all ages of the Church. Mentioning it would single out Africans which would present a POV problem. We have added a whole paragraph per your comments here and that is enough.NancyHeise (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article mentions the different rites and that they do have different liturgical practices. It does not mention any examples of how the rites differ, which would be useful to someone like me who isn't sure. It also isn't clear from the article whether any of the practices listed in the article are specific to the Latin Rite or not. This maybe ought to be more clear.
  • The article Beleifs section introducing reader to these different rites says this "Different liturgical traditions or rites exist throughout the worldwide Church that reflect "particular expressions characterized by the culture".[49] These are the Latin rite (most commonly used), the Byzantine rite, the Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean rites. Because of this diversity, variations exist in the liturgical practices of administering the sacraments within the different rites yet all hold the same beliefs.[49]". This text makes clear that the Latin rite is the most commonly used and provides Wikilinks to the other rites for the reader who wants to know more. In addition, the article text explaining the sacraments mentions specifically when a certain rite differs from the one being discussed. The section on the Mass tells reader that it is describing the Latin rite and tell them the Mass in Eastern Church's is called Divine Liturgy providing the wikilink for the reader who wants to know more. I disagree that more description of each of the rites will improve the article. We have omitted no relevant or significant facts. Also, this is English Wikipedia, in the English speaking world, the almost completely universal rite used is the Latin rite. NancyHeise (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still felt like I didn't quite understand what the differences were, and since I am unfamiliar with the other rites I'm not sure how to fix this. Perhaps someone else has a suggestion? Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other rites (more appropriately, other churches in communion with the Roman Pontiff) constitute about 2% of the Catholic Church. Perhaps it deserves a brief sub-section in the Organization and Membership section, with a hat trick to the main article (Eastern Catholic Churches) and a one or two paragraph summary. More than that would be overkill for this article. Majoreditor (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But they are already mentioned in the Beliefs section and wikilinked. All a reader has to do is click on the wikilink to know more and I dont think more mention is necessary. It is already mentioned in the Lead, Beliefs opening paragraph, certain areas in the different Beliefs sections and again in History. NancyHeise (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is the same for all rites unless specifically identified in the article text. Places where differences in rites is discussed are: third para in Beliefs opening para, last sentence of Holy Spirit and Confirmation,second para of Eucharist with a wikilink after explanation (Because there are numerous rites and many differences in the liturgy for the Eucharist I do not advise addressing this in the article because it would be too lengthy, best to let the reader click on the wikilink and see the different rites). NancyHeise (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still not happy with this sentence The five solas were one attempt to express these differences.. Perhaps if we switch it from passive to active voice this would help? Which organization attemped to codify these differences and when? Something like, "During the Protestant Reformation in XXXX, so-and-so wrote the five solas to attempt to express the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism." That would give more context and help the sentence fit in place better.
    • In reading over the article as a result of some of jbmurray's concerns, I found that I was interpreting some of the stuff in the article potentially differently than was intended. For example, there are quotations sprinkled through the article. I assumed that most of those were quotes from Church publications that were then quoted in the source used, but in one sentence with two quotations, one was quoting Cardinal Ratzinger and the other was quoting the author of the book. The article needs to be able to differentiate who is being quote, and I don't think it is 100% there yet.
  • I can't answer this comment unless you have a particular error in the text you want to point out. I have already gone through all quotes in the entire article, it took me two days, checking to match each citation and quotes. NancyHeise (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I don't have the sources, I have no idea what these quotations are actually quoting. Would it be easier if I left a list of quotations on the article talk page? Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please make a list and I'll go through them all, I dont think there are very many anyway. NancyHeise (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The quotations have been checked. NancyHeise (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to reiterate (but not argue over) statements I've made previously that I think the history section is subtly pro-Catholic POV. Using a critic's source for 50% of the citations and a pro-Catholic source for 50% of the citations absolutely does not mean the article is NPOV. It depends on how much information is taken from each source, and whether the information is appropriately balanced with opposing viewpoints on that particular issue. (relata has also brought this up.) I'd prefer that the article use neutral sources so we don't have to worry about pro-Catholic and anti-Catholic (surely there are historians who present no opinion one way or the other??). As an example, I feel that undue space is given to persecutions of Catholics while persecutions by Catholics are glossed over. Furthermore, this article's coverage of the missions is definitely pro-Catholic. When I've brought this up before, I was told that the coverage is this way because it was not officially Church policy to persecute non-Catholics or to cause bad things to happen in the missions. In my belief, though, if this was widespread practice, regardless of whether an official policy was issues, it should have mention here.
  • (ec) "apologist" and "critical", which I thought already something of a false dichotomy for the likes of Norman, Duffy and Le Goff, is now turning into "pro-Catholic" and "anti-Catholic", which is certainly excessive, though not in the case of Vidmar, who is unapologetically apologist. Critics of the balance have not done too well on citing some individual cases here in the past (or the passages have been changed), though Awa has another go just above. I don't say the balance is perfect, but this is the history of the RC Church, not the effect of the Church on the world, which would be a rather different topic. Which persecutions by Catholics do you think are glossed over? Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Johnbod -what persecutions that the Church sanctioned are not mentioned in the article text? This article is about the Church, not what Catholics have done throughout history. That is off topic material. NancyHeise (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding use of our sources, Wikipedia policy requires us to consider all significant viewpoints, the Catholic viewpoint of history is a significant viewpoint and the three sources to Vidmar, Norman and Woods provide us with that specific viewpoint. All other sources can not be classified in that category and some specifically fall into the critic category, also a significant point of view. These views become apparent in certain sensitive sections of the aritcle that NPOV considerations required us to provide refs to all viewpoints with added quotes so reader could see for themselves what various theologians have to say about the issue. While an equal 30% of sources are considered critic and 30% are considered apologist, the rest of the 40% do not fall into either category. I think what makes this article particulary FA is the high quality and varity of the particular sources used. NancyHeise (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not that x% of the sources are of this type of source, it is how the sources are used and whether the percentage of information from each viewpoint is appropriately balanced. If only a few scholars put forth an explanation, and the vast majority of other scholars have differing interpretations, the vast majority should get the vast majority of the text, even if the minority espouse the RCC viewpoint. It does not mean the minority viewpoint gets equal weight with the majority. (I am not saying that this is necessarily the case in this issue, just trying to make the point clear.) As an example, just look at the difference in phrasing between the persecutions of Henry VIII (which were politicialy motivated and not due to religion) and Elizabeth I (again, primarily politically motivated) compared to that of Mary I. If we are not to include acts that were not officially sanctioned by the Vatican, perhaps we should not include things that affected Catholics but did not strike directly at the Vatican? Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this particular strand of criticism is misconceived. Firstly, getting a completely "neutral" source about history, especially on a subject like this is virtually impossible. All historians have their viewpoints and favoured theories. That is why a range of sources is best. Secondly, you have produced no evidence that persecutions of others by the Catholic Church are glossed over in the article, or treated differently from the persecutions mounted against Catholics. I would actually say that the way the English reformation section is written bends over backwards to accommodate and portray the Protestant view. For example the article possibly over-emphasizes the political nature of Henry's transformation of the Church, and only records the death of Thomas More. The article does not mention the hanging, disembowelling and quarterings of monks, priests and abbots, the massacres of English Catholics following the Pilgrimage of Grace, the Prayer Book Rebellion, and other attempts by them to follow their old faith, or the massacres undertaken in Ireland. And that is only a fraction of what is not mentioned in the article on the Catholic side. Producing a balanced account does not mean listing all the misdeeds that ever took place. As another example, at the last FAC, someone stated that we should cover the Spanish Civil War. We didn't, but if we had, we could list literally thousands of blameless priests, monks and nuns systematically murdered by Anarchist and Communist militias. Against my advice, nancy has also removed reference to the thousands of priests executed by the Nazis in WW2, which I would consider deserve mention as a counterbalance to allegations of Church collaboration. Xandar (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of an authoritative source that determines which viewpoint is the majority view? My sources meet Wikipedia guidelines as top sources per WP:Reliable source examples, the authors are very respected and the book reviews are good. None are radical POV's that Wikipedia does not allow us to use, even though some FAC reviewers have searched for bad reviews, none have found any, only good reviews. NancyHeise (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying the persecutions of Henry and Elizabeth were not religiously motivated, but those of Mary were? I find that a very dubious proposition; most rulers, and much public opinion, at the time regarded religious dissent as a political matter, and it is barely meaningful to attempt a distinction. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, Johnbod's comment just above is not a response to my comment, he is responding to Karanacs. NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can not act on this comment. It does not specify any source that is unacceptable per WP:RS. Karanacs. Pro-Catholic, you mean apologist sources are three books out of a huge list. All Vidmar cites are doubled with Bokenkotter, a critic or Duffy, also a critic. There are now many more critic cites than apologist. My original analysis noted a 30% critic, 29% apologist split with the other 40% indeterminable as to critic or apologist viewpoint. That has now changed with excessive addition of citations to Duffy and Bokenkotter. NancyHeise (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This caption Early Christians were martyred as entertainment in the Colosseum in Rome, a short distance from Vatican City. Jean-Léon Gérôme, 1883. makes it seem as if Vatican City was already in existance at the time that Christians were killed in the Colosseum.
    • The vast majority of the images are right-aligned. Perhaps some of these could be left-aligned instead?
  • Moved 3; it's difficult with so many sub-headings, below which right alignment is needed. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, none of this ever came up at peer review or the last two FAC's but I'll try to answer each comment after some research, this may take me into tomorrow. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry about that; I've been concentrating on different sections of the article each time I review. Karanacs (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs comments have all been addressed. We have made changes where appropriate, provided valid reasons where not. I do not consider this an actionable oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Criterion 1D: neutrality. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to advocate one school of scholarly thought over another, yet this article does, and does so editorially and repeatedly. I'll quote one passage as an example:
Historians note that for centuries Protestant propaganda and popular literature exaggerated the horrors of the inquisitions. According to Edward Norman, this propaganda "identified the entire Catholic Church ... with [the] occasional excesses" wrought by secular rulers. While one percent of those tried in the inquisitions received death penalties, Norman states that in the 16th century "the Inquisitions were regarded as far more enlightened than secular courts", which did not grant more lenient sentences for those who repented their crimes.
Twice, this discussion labels Protestant criticism of the inquisition as propaganda--using this highly pejorative term not as quote but as editorial assertion--then follows up with a quote and a paraphrase from a pro-Catholic scholar without any comparable attention to the criticism itself. In justice to the nominator, this is a difficult and nuanced area where--having familiarity with the subject myself--I agree that the inquisition was exaggerated in the Protestant world and exaggerations were used for propagandistic aims. Yet to make that element the central focus of a discussion on the inquisition itself results in a POV defense of Catholicism, by overlooking the actual abuses that did occur. The presentation's chronology is also confusing, even to a reader already grounded in the subject: this passage discusses late fifteenth and sixteenth century events in a section ostensibly dedicated to the High Middle Ages, then the following paragraph introduces the fourteenth century. Then the following section Late Medieval and Renaissance discusses the Protestant reformation without a hint of interplay between the Inqusition and the Protestants.
With gratitude and respect toward the person who obviously put a lot of effort into bringing the page this far, there are deep structural issues that stand between the present version and featured article quality. I do not believe that the issues at hand are cosmetic or can be addressed within the time frame of an FAC. It would require considerable additional research to achieve scholarly balance, and would require basic reworking to achieve adequate chronological or thematic structure (it ought to have one or the other and presently has neither). The inquisition, for example, had its roots in the Albigensian Crusade of the high middle ages but existed in its most objectionable form during the Renaissance--which receives scant mention. Long as this oppose is, it focuses on one fraction of a single paragraph to give a representative illustration of comprehensive problems. This is a difficult and ambitious subject. I applaud the nominator for choosing an important topic and for bringing it this far. I also, unambiguously, urge the withdrawal of this FAC and advise obtaining a collaborator in bringing the page to the next level. Based upon the previous FAC and responses to comments at this one, it really appears that this editor has done all that he or she can alone. Assistance is needed, and I offer my best wishes for a successful bid on the next try. DurovaCharge! 00:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. In our efforts to satisfy Wikipedia's requirement to provide all significant viewpoints, we used several sources to reference each of the sensitive areas of Church History like Inquisitions. If you will click on the actual references you will see that they all mention the issue of Protestant propaganda and these sources are not just Catholic, but others as well - the most respected scholars some might say - on the subject of Church history. Wikipedia requires us to have facts in the article and that is what has been presented. These are not opinions of Catholic history but actual events - we have not omitted notable controversies or criticisms. If I were to eliminate the statement from Edward Norman, I would be eliminating a substantial point of view. NancyHeise (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comment and point of view. I understand there are many different structural ways that a person could present the information in this article. For over five months, we have labored over this article with many editors and reviewers through the GA process, two separate peer reviews and FAC's as well as pages and pages of talk page discussion to arrive at the present format and presentation. It is a reflection of much consensus building. I do not feel that I can change it based on the review of one person who has not been involved in the process until now. I appreciate your advice but I do not feel that I can act on this oppose for these reasons. NancyHeise (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what point of view you impute; I'm the editor who raised Joan of Arc to FA--certainly no anti-Catholic bias. I agree; since it appears you have reached the limit of your own abilities, and the article still falls short, a collaborator would be the best solution here. Best wishes. DurovaCharge! 05:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this counts as an "I'm going to make a controversial comment and then announce that there is no possible solution or discussion," oppose. Particularly with frankly insulting remarks to one of the main editors who has spent literally hundreds of hours opf her time on this project. The suggestion that "someone else" (unnamed) redo the article before it can be worthy of FA is NOT an FA criterion. Your comments on the inquisition are misplaced, since you yourself admit that much propaganda has been poured out relevant to the inquisition. This IS a fact. As for time periods, you should realize that many historical events run across necessarily artificial time-divisions. Events are dealt with largely in the PRINCIPAL era of their origin or effect. The Inquisitions were largely medieval in origin. It would be risible to introduce sections labelled Inquisition in the 16th century, Inquisition in the 17th century etc. If you refuse to discuss ways of resolving your objections, or even to state them in an addressable manner, your objection is not actionable. Xandar (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that the Inquisition was principally Medieval is a popular myth. Its most active century was the sixteenth, it remained a potent force during the seventeenth, and it did not formally end until the eighteenth. If anything is risible it would be the uneven treatment that delves into its origins but fails to address either its peak or its conclusion, hence perpetuating the myth. I offered repeated and explicit thanks to the article's principal editor, yet that gets construed as insult. So I'll be more explicit: this article and its two FACs give the strong appearance of having been done by people who are hardworking and dedicated and who lack adequate grounding in the fundamentals of historiography. Others before me have attempted to articulate concerns about priority of sources and textual criticism, and the responses do not recognize what these concepts are or why they matter. How do I state that problem in an addressable manner? I identify it as criterion 1d, parse one brief example out of many in some depth, and suggest an additional collaborator--because really what this article must have is a contributor who distinguishes between theology and historical method. Without that it will probably remain more appropriate for the Catholic Encyclopedia than here. FA is not a thank-you for hard work; that is why we have barnstars. DurovaCharge! 14:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK everybody be nice please. I appreciate your comments Durova but the only discussion we need to be having here is which FAC criteria you think is not being met. Just because I am a person who does not want to fill my user page with my credentials does not mean that I fail to posess them. Please have a bit of faith in me. You have indicated that the article is not NPOV enough to meet to your satisfaction and I would like to correct that. Please tell me what you think should be removed and with what do we replace it? Do you have suggestions for appropriate texts? We faced textual criticism on this FAC because some people did not realize that all of our sources meet the top criteria required by WP:Reliable source examples. No one has been able to offer any wikipedia criteria failure nor any lack of or bad peer review of any of our sources. The authors are notable, respected, and highly recognizable authors representing the "representative" body of historical research on the Catholic Church. The actual text in the article identifying the height and duration of the inquisitions is here: "Abuses committed during the crusade caused Innocent III to informally institute the first papal inquisition to prevent future abuses and to root out the remaining Cathars.[220][221] Formalized under Gregory IX, this Medieval inquisition executed an average of three people per year for heresy at its height.[221][222] Over time, other inquisitions were launched by the Church or secular rulers to prosecute heretics, to respond to the threat of Moorish invasion or for political purposes.[223] The accused were encouraged to recant their heresy and those who did not could be punished by penance, fines, imprisonment, torture or execution by burning.[224][223] In the 14th century, King Philip IV of France created an inquisition for his suppression of the Knights Templar.[222] King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella formed an inquisition in 1480, originally to deal with distrusted ex-Jewish and ex-Muslim converts.[225] Over a 350-year period, the Spanish Inquisition executed between 3,000 and 4,000 people,[226] representing around two percent of those accused.[227" Can you identify for me any factual errors or omissions of notable fact? The following section containing Norman's quote is referenced to three different sources that verify the fact that this was eventually used as a propaganda against the Church, a notable fact we can not omit - agreed by a variety of scholars including John McManners Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity a book that is the consolidated work of 18 top university professors. If you would like to see another top source saying the same thing, please see [19]. This University of California Press book, by History professor Edward Peters, also uses the term Protestant Propaganda to describe the way the Inquisitions were reflected in English literature. It was very easy to find a multitude of sources saying the same thing by going to GoogleBooks and typing in Protestant Propaganda, Inquisition. So it appears to me that this is not some sort of POV but an important fact that had serious adverse repurcutions for the Catholic Church for centuries and is a notable fact. NancyHeise (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, Durova, that this is meant to be a positive and constructive process. Objections should be made order to point out what specific things need to be done to improve the article with a view to it attaining FA status. It is not a matter of picking one sentence out of its context and then saying in so many words: the entire article is rubbish, the writers know nothing and "someone better" needs to redo it. The article has gained GA status and has has a lot of very positive support at its various FACs, including support for dealing with a very large, controversial and complex subject in a clear and informative way. The editors are always ready to deal with specific problems raised and to consider wordings that will help to improve the article and satisfy objections. Passages on subjects like the Inquisition have already been through much refining, agreement and compromise over the past six months. Arriving at a very late stage in the process, you may not realize this. However please make raise specific problems you may find in the text and be prepared to discuss them with the editors with a view to finding solutions. Xandar (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of "the Inquisition", strictly there was no such thing. There was a Medieval inquisition which was virtually defunct by the end of the 15th century. There was a Roman Inquisition, which was under the control of the Pope, but ran under the supervision of local rulers in other Italian states, and is considered by far the mildest of the Inquisitions. The other two, the Spanish and the Portuguese were run by their respective governments with no "interference" permitted from the Vatican. I'm not sure which inquisition you claim peaked at the time of the Counter-reformation, but unless you can provide some proof of the claim that the Inquisition was a major part of the Counter-reformation movement, we will have to stick with the academic sources that say differently. Xandar (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Please refrain from imputing motives or paraphrasing my statements; it does not reflect well on either of us. The four lines I selected as an example are a striking case of WP:UNDUE: a lengthy in-article rebuttal of a notable position whose parameters are available only via the footnotes. The Google test is a poor metric for the editorial use of propaganda. Some people in the world seriously contend that the World Trade Center never existed and 9/11 is American propaganda. I get 241 Google Books returns for "World Trade Center 9/11 propaganda".[20] Of course it would be difficult to find a reputable scholar who argues the latter, yet the salient points remain: historiography isn't about stacking up two piles of books and counting which is taller than the other. Even if the Google test were a reasonable metric here, it's a flawed assumption to suppose that all uses of propaganda refer to Protestant exaggerations rather than Catholic defenses; the latter also has propagandistic elements. WP:NPOV is about presenting all notable points of view according to the relative weight those views carry among leading experts, thus empowering the reader to reach his or her own conclusions. A thoughtful reader could reasonably infer from the present text that early Protestants were so sympathetic to Islam and Judaism that they employed propaganda in defense of those other religions, because if the Inquisition had nothing to do with the Counter-Reformation then it leaves unanswered what all those Protestants were complaining about. This is one of the starker examples and in several kilobytes of discussion I see no movement at all. A few other instances, briefly:

  • No mention of a Protestant viewpoint on whether Peter was the first pope.
  • Pope Alexander VI appears only in relation to the Inter caetera bull. The name Borgia and its significance would shed light on the Renaissance.
  • The coverage of the California mission system gives a low figure for the decline in the indigenous population and attributes it to disease, not mentioning other factors.

Without intending any disrespect toward the Cathoic Church itself or toward the volunteers whose efforts have improved this article, these examples tend in a particular direction because the present text tends in the opposite direction. Explaining that one's sources are reputable scholars doesn't mean it's appropriate to promote an FAC that advocates one school of thought editorially. DurovaCharge! 19:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Durova has very eloquently expressed the same issues in the history section that I and several other opposing reviewers have been trying to point out for several FACs. I strongly endorse her description of the issues in the history section. Karanacs (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs was an editor for this article and it was she herself who provided us with the source and quote that was eventually used to build the paragraph in the California missions, the one you are claiming now is evidence of Catholic POV. I would like to ask that if you are stating we have a factual inaccuraccy in the text regarding the figure for the decline in the indigenous population, it would help us to bring this article to FA for you to maybe provide us with a source that you are certain says differently. Perhaps then we could include an estimated range with a sentence that states "historians differ as to the actual number of indians ...." I thank you for your directly addressed points regarding the protestant viewpoint on Peter and Pope Alexander, I will try to address those issues. To my knowledge though, I believe we have already addressed the Peter issue with our presentation of the different scholarly positions in the Origins and Missions section. We make this clear to reader that not everyone agrees that Peter was the first pope and I dont think anyone could accuse us of POV in that section regarding that issue. I think that maybe you havent read that section? Im not sure and I dont want to assume but it seems to me that a lot of text has been devoted just to the first pope issue already. NancyHeise (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a bit of research and added a sentence to address your comment with "Because the simony and nepotism practiced in the Church of the 15th and early 16th centuries prevented any kind of papal reform, rich and powerful families like the Borgia's were able to control the papal office and seated their own worldly candidates like Alexander VI in (1492).[253] " The section contains several other sentences about this corruption so please read the whole section. I think this is what you wanted to see. Please let me know. Thanks, and that was a very good comment by the way. NancyHeise (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the attention. I may be a little slow in following up. This discussion has taken more time than I anticipated and I have a featured content drive of my own to work on--a photographic restoration. This kind of work is largely invisible because I pick up maybe a dozen edits onsite for the whole FPC, but spend so many days and hours in Photoshop that I dream in colloidon glass prints. Regards, DurovaCharge! 22:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, it seems from your comment about books on 9/11 that you doubt what I have said about the Protestant Propaganda. There are two scholarly sources in the article text supporting this fact and I just provided you with another example above to the Cambridge University Press source. I hope you understand that I can not eliminate these highly referenced facts, because they are notable and important in the history of the Catholic Church. Elimination would be against Wikipedia policy and would make the article POV. NancyHeise (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few points here. 1. Durova. You haven't proved your point re the Inquisition being a major part of the Counter-reformation process. Most histories do not take this view. Just looking at Chadwick's "The Reformation", a quite authoritative treatment, I find 70 pages devoted to the Counter-reformation, of which just half a page refers in any way to inquisitions. That's the level of weight a major, unbiased historian gives it. 2. There is ample discussion of the origin of the papacy, which actually gives the "anti" view more space than the Catholic one. There is no additional requirement for a "Protestant" or even a Muslim viewpoint on Peter's status. 3. Nancy has put something in about Mr Borgia. 4. The mexican missions section was discussed at previous FAC and agreed. In fact I think it already goes past NPOV by implying that the missions were responsible for the large fall in the indian population when this occurred everywhere that Old World contact occurred, because of Indian susceptability to disease. It's probably unfair to connect this to the Church because the first contacts were friars rather than gold prospectors or cattlemen! But that is the agreed wording. Xandar (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, on the issue of your claim that the article is fatally unbalanced because the Inquisition is not mentioned again with respect to the Counter-Reformation. I have just looked at the Roman Catholicism article at Encyclopaedia Britannica. The article is many times larger than ours. It has ten times as much space on the Counter Reformation. However in that treatment, the Inquisition, and its alleged central role are not mentioned once. Unless you are alleging that Britannica is twisting history in aid of the Catholic Church, I think that is a pretty authoritative back-up for the article as it stands. Xandar (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to comments about the use of the term Protestant Propaganda with regard to the inquisitions, it is indeed common in respected histories. here is an additional example:
Armstrong, The European Reformation, Heinemann, (2002), p103, quote: "Contrary to subsequent Protestant propaganda the procedure followed by the (Papal) Inquisition was careful and respectful with regard to legal rights. Clear proof was required, along with two witnesses, and rarely was torture used to extract confessions. Anonymous denunciations were illegal, while a defence lawyer was guaranteed for the suspect. Punishments were generally lenient and designed to bring the guilty party back into the fold. The public abjuration of protestantism before a congregation might suffice, for example." Xandar (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Durova's comments have been addressed in full including changes to the text as indicated above. I do not consider this an actionable oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Others, like Eamon Duffy, caution that the insufficient number of clear written records surviving from the early years of Christianity make precision about the early status of Rome difficult." What does this sentence mean? Gimmetrow 00:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what happened to that paragraph, maybe it was a mistake - please see the paragraph again. NancyHeise (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on copyediting and neutrality grounds. (Later note: Consider my oppose strong, for whatever that's worth. It's apparent that my concerns are being dismissed, and that no attempt has been made to even understand my points, much less respond to them reasonably)
  • "God the Father, original sin, and Baptism": It's usually bad form to begin a section (or even a paragraph most of the time) with a direct quote. The beginning should describe the subject of the section. — Tuf-Kat 01:12, 4 June 2008 — continues after insertion below
Thank you for your comments. While I agree that there are numerous ways we could have presented this material, editors of the page, through consensus, decided upon the present format. The Nicene Creed is the central statement of Catholic belief so certain sections begin with a certain quote from the Creed that pertains to the section being discussed. This treatment was met with great approval from many reviewers, even some opposers on this page. The section title describes the contents being discussed in each section. The seven Church sacraments are discussed in each section of Beliefs that pertains to that specific sacrament - thus Baptism is in the same paragraph that describes original sin. NancyHeise (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not acceptable to start with a quote from the Nicene Creed, then explain what the section is about and why that quote is important. For more, see below. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the arrangment of the sentences to comply with your comment here. The quote has been moved. NancyHeise (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the Church, the Holy Spirit reveals God's truth through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. - is an excellent example of why I have neutrality concerns. This takes a statement that the Church might well have said precisely, and attempts to satisfy NPOV by slapping a "According to the Church" at the beginning. The "Holy Spirit" should be defined in that paragraph, and something better than "reveals" is needed. The meaning of "God's truth" is not clear. (They are vehicles through which God's grace is said to flow into all those who receive them with the proper disposition. is another example: adding "is said" to does not make a sentence neutral) A more neutral wording might be something like "The Church claims that its beliefs are inspired by one of the manifestations of God, the Holy Spirit, who is said to communicate God's will through a collection of sacred books, church traditions and the body of official pronouncements known as the Magisterium". (I'm not sure if that's really an accurate rewording, but that's because the original isn't clear either. I don't see any reason to use the terms "Sacred Scripture" or "Sacred Tradition".
Thank you. I added some wording to help the reader know who is the Holy Spirit, good comment. Holy Spirit is also wikilinked at the beginning of the Beliefs section. We have to use the phrases "According to the Church" etc in order to be able to concisely present Church belief. Size has been a consideration and it is not against Wikipedia policy or any violation of NPOV to frame these sentences as we have. Since all of this wording is in a section called Beliefs and we use "According to the Church" and "The Church believes" or " the Church teaches", etc, I doubt that anyone is going to think that we are presenting these items as facts rather than as Beliefs. Please see the FA Islam which incorporates similar language - I think it is just a factor of being able to explain a section without having to overqualify each sentence when it is clear from the heading alone that the section is not being presented as a statement of fact held by all people. NancyHeise (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point. You can not take a sentence that presents the church's viewpoint, slap "According to the Church" on it and call it neutral. That is simply not a method of producing neutral prose. I'm not concerned about Islam and won't look at it now, as it's not relevant. It is possible to use phrases like "According to X" in a neutral manner, but you haven't done that in this article. Better prose (both better written and more neutral) would probably be smaller than the current length. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nancy here. The section is about explaining the Church's beliefs. There is no other way to do it other than saying "The Church believes X" or some similar formulation. This is simply a section for exposition of the Church's core beliefs. It isn't a section for debating whether those beliefs are right or wrong. This is factual material. To add to every belief something like: "The church believes it is guided by the Holy Spirit, but some Protestants don't believe this, since they think the Holy Spirit doesn't guide churches, but only people as they read the Bible," is just impracticable and confusing. And where would you stop? Why should only Protestant views of catholic beliefs be presented? You'd have to add "and Muslims don't believe the Holy Spirit is divine; while atheists don't believe in a Holy Spirit, or anything much, at all..." We do not need to put next to every belief that someone else doesn't believe it as well. 92.40.93.200 (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about. My suggested version of the sentence did not present any points of view besides the Church's. The Church claims that its beliefs are inspired by one of the manifestations of God, the Holy Spirit, who is said to communicate God's will through a collection of sacred books, church traditions and the body of official pronouncements known as the Magisterium Statements like vehicles through which God's grace is said to flow into all those who receive them with the proper disposition and the Holy Spirit reveals God's truth are effectively religious jargon, as if you're not already familiar with Christian theology, terminology and imagery, it doesn't make sense. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see that suggestion. It gets hard spotting everything in a long, changeable mass of text like this. I think, however, that your version tends toward POV in the other direction by being rather arch about things like the "collection of sacred books". (It sounds more like someone's Marilyn Monroe collection!) And saying that the Church's beliefs are "inspired by one of the manifestations of God" is still jargon, and doesn't explain that the church believes it is preserved from doctrinal error by the HS - which is extremely important to Catholicism. I think some religious jargon is unavoidable in an article like this, since (as with science or medicine) there are some concepts that ordinary language cannot properly convey. Feel free to suggest alternative wording for phrases that concern you, or provide a list of stuff you think is too impenetrable, and we'll take a look at it. Xandar (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like "The Church claims that its beliefs are inspired by one of the manifestations of God, the Holy Spirit, who communicates God's will inerrantly through a collection of sacred scripture (the Bible), church traditions and the body of official pronouncements known as the Magisterium". (I still don't like the repetition of "God" within just a few words, and I like infallibly better than inerrantly but I know the former word has special meaning in this article). Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The wording you suggest fails the test of precision. The Holy Spirit does not, according to catholics communicate God's will simply through sacred scripture. And the Magisterium is far more than a body of official pronouncements. However, i take your point about this section, and as I have said in response to your comment below, I will look into how this passage can be simplified and somewhat de-jargonized. Xandar (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is better, but I'm still not entirely satisfied on this point. Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • to condemn false interpretations of scripture or define truths. - should be "to condemn alternative interpretations...", as it otherwise implicitly accepts the Church's pov.
But the beliefs section is supposed to explain the Church's pov and using this wording actually explains it. If it existed in any other section but Beliefs, I think your comment would be valid but not in this situation. NancyHeise (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's in the Beliefs section doesn't mean it can implicitly support the Church's position. You can explain Church viewpoints without imparting their truth to the reader. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have more of a point here. But replacing the phrase with "condemn alternative interpretations of scripture" would be inaccurate, since all alternative interpretations of scripture are not necessarily condemnable. However the sentence can be amended simply to something like "..to condemn interpretations of scripture believed to be false..." Xandar (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"alternative" is not exclusive (e.g. it doesn't imply that all possible alternatives are included), but anyway my first thought was "condemn particular interpretations of scripture", but I thought that would be rejected. I think "believed to be false" is wordier than necessary. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the college of bishops acting in union with the pope to define truths or to condemn interpretations of scripture believed to be false - I can't support this wording, as it is longer than needed and begs the question "believed by whom?" Also, since they did both, it should be and instead of or right? Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This comment has been addressed by changes made in the text.NancyHeise (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The beliefs of other Christian denominations differ from those of Catholics in varying degrees - this sentence has little informational utility.
The sentence right after this one explains what those differences are. We have to consider prose and not hit the reader with so many facts one right after the other without some nice transition. This sentence provides transition. NancyHeise (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter. It's bad form to have sentences that don't really mean anything. You could replace "Christian demoninations" and "Catholics" with pretty much any combination of similar nouns, and it would be just as true, and just as meaningless. All people of every kind everywhere have beliefs that differ from each other in varying degrees. If a sentence doesn't itself communicate something useful, it's needless verbiage. If you mean for it to communicate something useful, it needs to be reworded. "Transition sentences" are not a part of proper formal writing, as high quality prose does not need them. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The sentence has gone. Xandar (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Church believes that this savior was Jesus, whom John the Baptist called "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". - what does the John the Baptist quote add? What does the Nicene Creed quote afterward add?
I changed the text a bit to make this clear. This comment is being written after the comments that follow so this comment has been addressed. NancyHeise (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not clear why the quote, or those two sentences at all, are here. 1/8 of the paragraph that constitutes the entirety of this article's coverage of Jesus' theological importance is devoted to this quote - If it's really so important for some reason, it needs more elaboration on why. Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are all explanations about Church belief. The Nicene Creed, the central statement of Catholic faith, is sprinkled throughout in each area that explains that particular section of the Creed. This was a much liked arrangement agreed upon by many editors and reviewers in this and previous FACs and on our talk page.
Since you presumably know the significance of those quotes, I'm sure you do see their value. My point is that the reader (who is presumably reading this article because he doesn't know much about it) has no way of understanding why these quotes are important. I think it's already been established that Catholics believe Jesus "takes away the sin of the world", so why give this particular quote about it, with no explanation of what this quote is intended to illustrate to the reader. I'm fine with giving all or a portion of the Nicene Creed in this article. But it's not proper to start a section with a quote, because that doesn't communicate to the reader what the section is about. Nobody will understand why the Nicene Creed is relevant until they read the subsequent sentence. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TufKat, the Nicene Creed quotes sprinkled throughout the Beleifs section was an arrangement that was agreed upon by many editors after a lot of back and forth discussion, in the last FAC, peer review and even into this FAC. We used to have the entire Nicene Creed quoted in a box in the opening paragraph in Beliefs. Its presentation first was central to helping reader understand what was being discussed in each of the sections that followed. That was not acceptable to many FAC reviewers so we compromised and eliminated the entire quote, mentioned its importance in the Beliefs opening para and sprinkled it throughout the sections that discuss each part of it. This arrangement met with wide acceptance among our reviewers - everybody loved it. I do not understand how, after all of this, you are asking me to do something that sounds like what we had before. Please understand that we sometimes can not please everyone and we have to go with what will please the most. NancyHeise (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with nancy that the John the Baptist quote is quite necessary where it is. It provides a concise way of explaining that Jesus's role as saviour is to take away the sins of the world. The quote adds colour to the text, which a more prosaic eplanation of this point would not. I think this is a stylistic point. As far as the use of the Nicene Creed goes. The fact that the Creed is the core statement of Catholic belief has already been explained in the lead and again in the main body of text. Its use in this manner is the result of a consensus decision taken after a lengthy debate over the past two FACs on the article, so we do not want to breach that consensus. Xandar (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked over the last two FACs, and I don't see any consensus, or discussion at all, that each section must begin with a quote from the Creed. I don't have any opinion on whether the Creed should be quoted at all, and I have only a vague idea of what the Creed is. It doesn't matter. Starting with a quote is always inappropriate because the first sentence explains what the topic is. Thus, the quote inherently replaces Wikipedia's neutral point of view explanation of the section's scope with another source's explanation, and/or, the quote simply doesn't provide
  • I'm not sure about the sectioning. If you have a section entitled "Eucharist and liturgical year", it needs to begin by stating what a eucharist and liturgical year are, then probably go into why it's important and where it comes from. I don't think that section ever really explains what a liturgical year is.
This has been moved, please see all the changes we have made in the text to comply with all of TufKat's comments. NancyHeise (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Liturgical year is the last paragraph in that section. Eucharist is the first part of the section. please see my explanation of sectio arrangement after your first comment. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the last paragraph is about the liturgical year. I've read it a number of times now, and I still don't know what exactly a "liturgical year" is, but I see that there is a paragraph about it. And aside from some vague hand-waving about consensus among those editing this article, I don't see how you've responded to my concerns about sectioning. I haven't even told you what they are, and you've already dismissed them. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your right, I improved the first two sentences to make that clear and I think this was a good comment, Im sorry I did not answer it right away, I have been very busy today. NancyHeise (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The centrality of the Nicene Creed is discussed in the opening para on Beliefs, its presentation in the subsequent paras is based on its importance and proper introduction to the subject matter. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Thanks for your comments. I can not change the things you want me to change and I do not feel there is a need to especially when you are the only reviewer to bring this up in Beliefs. The consensus of opinion regarding wording supports present text if we consider the past five or more months of FAC reviews and Peer reviews and MoS edits. I am sorry I can not comply here. NancyHeise (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A better introduction to the Liturgical Year paragraph is under construction. Re Nicene Creed, see my note above. Xandar (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tuf Kat, another editor, Xandar, is going through and addressing some of your comments here. I am fine with whatever he decides in this matter. NancyHeise (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the Nicene Creed is being quoted because it is itself worthy of special notice, not because it is informative. As a compromise, would you consider putting it in a box, such as using Template:Quotebox? (See Batman_(1989_film) for an example in action.)
The most recent discussion of a related topic in the archives appears to be Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church/Archive_16, The talk in the previous FAC and the most recent talk archive is both about the presence of the Creed reproduced in full, apparently as the full content of the "Beliefs" section (maybe). In any case, I don't see any discussion on including quotes from the Creed at the beginning of each section. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The quotebox was actually used for the Creed up to the recent change. I actually preferred the quotebox, but the consensus of editors were against me on that. The decision to use the creed as the basis of the beliefs section won approval from reviewers. On sections, it might be more logical to include Liturgical Year with Liturgy of the Hours rather than Eucharist. But other than that, we do not want to start a major revamp of sections now. What do others think of the Liturgical year suggestion? Xandar (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding from the previous discussion was that the Creed was reproduced in full in one box, (maybe as the entirety of the beliefs section?) which is not what I'm proposing (each piece of the Creed in a box next to the section in question). In any case, my real suggestion is just to not start each section with a quote, and I still don't see where there's been any discussion at all on that point. Please point me to it. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am very happy with Xandars edits to respond to TufKats FAC comments. I think the article is improved because of these changes. Regarding the liturgical year going into Liturgy of the Hours - definitely it is fine with me and is not a major change. If you want to make the edit, Xandar go ahead. Regarding the Creed quote going back in - there is no way we can possibly even consider doing that - it has been thoroughly and almost heatedly discussed over and over in depth, the current version is the result of MUCH discussion and consensus - please see where consensus was asked for and reached both on the talk page (after the second peer review and during this FAC process) and on the first page of this third FAC process. We have three separate sections representing consensus for current presentation of the Nicene Creed - we would be in violation of this well documented agreement by deciding now to change it between just the three of us. Please, lets respect other editors opinions on this matter. NancyHeise (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me to the previous discussion on the matter. I see a lot of discussion on presenting the Nicene Creed in a single box, but I don't see any mention of why each section must begin with an out-of-context quote from the Creed. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tuf-Kat. I note that you have added a note to your "oppose", changing it to "strong oppose" and accused editors of not interacting with your comments. This, despite all of the clear attempts made by editors to discuss them above. Editors have been very reasonable in discussing all your points, and several changes have been made to the article in line with some of your comments. However your response is entirely negative. Discussion of an objection does NOT mean accepting all of an objector's ideas and notions without debate, especially when style and aricle-arrangement issues are involved. If changes you prefer have not been made, the reasons for this have been explained. We cannot ignore consensus decisions taken on matters under discussion long before you came to the article in order to accept one individual's views. The reasonableness of objectors and objections is a matter for consideration in this process, and I would therefore repeat that editors are here and willing to discuss genuine concerns, but there has to be give and take, and demands must be reasonable. Insisting on describing the bible as the "collection of sacred books", or speaking of the Church being "inspired by one of the manifestations of God" and similar round-about phrases, is unreasonable imo. I did ask you to bring any phrases forward you thought were too jargon-ridden, for consideration. So far you have not done this. If an objector refuses to take up the offers to participate in the FAC process, the validity of such an objection will come into question. Xandar (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently begun making serious attempts at meeting my objections (or at least, it seems that way, I don't have time to check now) - at the time I wrote that, Nancy had responded very cursorily to my comments, such as by dismissing my concerns about sectioning when I had only vaguely alluded to them, so she didn't even know what my concerns were. For the record, by nominating the article here, all prior consensus decisions are inherently reopened for discussion (they're never really closed, even outside of FAC, but especially not here) - the whole point of FAC is that reviewers are double-checking everything, and you can not dismiss objections just by invoking prior discussion. If you think the prior discussion is relevant, point directly to it and explain why and how.
I've already pointing to two sentences I'm concerned about, and that I don't think you've changed (could be wrong). I did not insist on discussing the bible as a "collection of sacred books". I offered an alternative phrasing for one sentence that uses that phrase. In any case, I frankly don't know the best, neutral formulation. I don't mean to be rude, but it's not my job to come up with one.
To clarify then, I'm objecting on the basis that this article uses Catholic terminology without sufficient context or clarification. This amounts to poor writing, breaches the manual of style and effectively presents the Church's views in a biased manner. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On use of Catholic terminology without sufficient context or clarification. To some extent the use of catholic terminology is unavoidable. This is the same with all articles that cover specialised subjects, faiths, sciences etc. See your own Featured article; Timeline of prehistoric Scotland, which unavoidably makes use of specialist terminology, with terms such as "neanderthal", "interglacial", and "pleistocene", unclarified in the run of text. So there does exist necessary flexibility with regard to this. However, I can recognize that in the subsection "Beliefs" there may be places where presentation and explanation can be improved, and I will have a look into the prospect of simplifying and clarifying the text over the coming 24 hours Xandar (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TufKat's comments have all been addressed including changes to the text as indicated above. I do not consider this an actionable oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "neanderthal" and "interglacial" are really too specialized, and they are, at least, much more easily defined and explained through linking than religious terminology. In any case, I think you've much improved the article. Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This article is very bias and one sided. I think there should be a criticism section. The actions and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church have been criticized by many secular thinkers. I think some criticism of the Roman Catholic Church should be included in the article. Masterpiece2000 04:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- :Thank you for your comment, per Jimbo Wales recommendation, we placed all criticism throughout the article instead of having it in a separate section called Criticism because he says these tend to become "troll nets". Which items in the text do you consider biased? Are there any factual inaccuracies that you can point out for us? Any ommissions of notable events? NancyHeise (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will show you some examples. Masterpiece2000 04:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think the views of secular thinkers about the Roman Catholic Church should be included in the article? Masterpiece2000 04:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose? Please give us your ideas. NancyHeise (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not include the views of secular thinkers such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins? Dawkins is critical of Roman Catholic attitudes to family planning and population control. He states that leaders who forbid contraception, and "express a preference for 'natural' methods of population limitation" will get just such a method in the form of starvation. The article says nothing about the Galileo affair, in which Galileo Galilei came into conflict with the Catholic Church over his support of Copernican astronomy. The article says nothing about Catholic Church's support for creationism. The article is one-sided. Masterpiece2000 05:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I'm not sure of this at all. In particular, the RCC is far from explicitly supporting creationism. See theistic evolution, George Coyne and the main article Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relata refero, the RCC may not explicitly support creationism, but, they do support creationism/ID. Make no mistake about it. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The RCC does not support intelligent design in the way most people take the term to mean (God/gods directing the development of the world instead of letting natural selection run its course). The Church will of course say that God is the ultimate creator of the world. But in terms of how the species came to be as they are today, it absolutely does not oppose evolution by natural selection. 72.205.14.47 (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would be going way off-topic. Dawkins etc. have a beef with all religion and any form of organized Christianity. Starting a discussion on rationalism versus religion and spirituality is not the purpose of this page. Maybe it might find a place under Christianity or rationalist versus deistic viewpoints, but it is not relevant to a specific article on the Roman Catholic Church.
As for Galileo. It may deserve a mention, but it would need to be set in context of the many Catholics who were important scientists. Galileo is often used to argue thst the Church has been anti-science. But the affair was more complex than often presented, and was a pretty isolated event. Xandar (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used to have Gallileo in the article but after going through talk page discussion and GA there was consensus (from both Catholic and non) to remove mention of him for many reasons including Xandar's stated above. There is an article discussing in detail the many different arguments against Church doctrine, see Roman Catholic theology. In this RCC article, we make mention of the fact of the criticism, and provide both Church response and wikilink for reader who wants to know more. In the case of Galileo, he is discussed in the wikilink to Inquisition which is listed in the article text where we discuss the issue. The Theology wikipage is listed in the See Also section. NancyHeise (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tough decision. I will make my final decision tomorrow. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relata refero, the RCC may not explicitly support creationism, but, they do support creationism/ID. Make no mistake about it. You have got to be kidding me. The RCC officially supports "creatianism" not "creationism". There is a difference you know. And the ID movement is basically a stalking horse for biblical literalism, which the RCC has categorically rejected for centuries. Except for one letter in the NYT that turned out to be ghostwritten by the Discovery Institute that was signed by a member of the RCC hierarchy, there has been no support for ID from the RCC and in fact several well-publicized articles and letters from others highly placed in the church explicitly rejecting ID. There are of course small lay organizations inside the church that unofficially lobby for creationism and ID and our article Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church lists a few of these that I dug up (I am sure there are more, but I did not want to spend too much time on it). Where on earth are you getting this from?--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fill, are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't support creationism? You have got to be kidding me. I can show you several reports from several Humanist organisations that suggest that the Roman Catholic Church supports creationism. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fill, actually, you are right. The RCC officially supports creatianism not creationism. I did some research and I found that the RCC is not known for its support for creationism/ID. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly; there are thousands of Catholic schools in the UK and elsewhere and as far as I know none teach creationism or have any problem teaching evolutionary theory. Much to the surprise of Darwin, and the disgust of the rabidly anti-Catholic Thomas Huxley, even in the 19th century Catholic opposition to evolution was the dog that didn't bark. Nearly all the opposition came from evangelical Protestants like Bishop Samuel Wilberforce. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the various political categories in that debate, the Catholic Church officially (per Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI) would probably best fit with theistic evolution. Gimmetrow 06:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I now see we have a rather patchy & indigestible Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church, which however makes the main point that the Church (rather surprisingly perhaps) noticably never came out against evolution. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did actually link it above... --Relata refero (disp.) 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very hard to swallow the claim that over half of all Christians belong to the RCC.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that on the article talk page someone once said that this number counts all people who have been baptized Catholic; it does not take into consideration those who later leave the church. Karanacs (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well you better get some sources for all this. The numbers I am familiar with are so far away from this as to be laughable.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are the United States Government CIA world factbook and Zenit News Agency, it is also in the book Saints and Sinners by Eamon Duffy and was recently mentioned in all worldwide news services when the Vatican announced the the religion Islam now has more members than the Roman Catholic Church. In our Demographics section we also have it referenced to this USA Today article [21]. It is not just compiled from Catholic Church baptismal records, it is confirmed through census' of various countries and compiled by research centers like the one used for the USA today article. NancyHeise (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, is there any specific description in the sources of how those numbers are compiled? A brief mention of what exactly this is measuring might help address this concern. Karanacs (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs, the CIA world Factbook has its own very nice Wikipage that gives this info here The World Factbook and the Center for Applied Research is a function of Georgetown University. What do you think of having a sentence that just says "according to the [[[The World Factbook]] and the Center for Applied Research (ref) the Catholic population is...." The person who wants to know the off topic information of how the info was compiled can then click on the World Factbook site. NancyHeise (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On further consideration, this is really off topic for our article. All anyone has to do is click on the reference and see them. NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the relationship between the Western and Eastern Church(es) I find highly doubtful. I do not think the Eastern Orthodox Church considers itself to be an Eastern Catholic Church, if that is what is being implied here; it was not clear to me.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Eastern Orthodox Church is not the Eastern Catholic Churches, it is a separate entity, not in communion with the pope of Rome, they are led by a patriarch. I'll see if we can word this to make it clear, we dont want people to be confused - I guess the use of the word "Eastern" is confusing to some. NancyHeise (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. But the article is not written very clearly.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your right, I made an edit to make this more clear. Thanks for your good comment. NancyHeise (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I fully understand that it's not my place to suggest any course of action to the nominators, but I will do so nevertheless. This was always going to be a difficult gig, for all sorts of reasons. Even though I still support the article's promotion, it's also clear that the attempts to bring everyone on-side have fractured the prose and the flow somewhat. I'm reluctantly of the opinion that a period of consolidation away from the glare of the FA spotlight may be what's needed now. Just my 2p worth. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flow is a relatively minor thing to address and adjust, I am reading through the article now. I will make any changes needed. No removal from FA spotlight is necessary. Thanks though, I appreciate all of your help through this FAC process very much. NancyHeise (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changes have been made to the text per discussions with opposing reviewers (see article edit history). For comments that we are not able to address, we have posted our valid reasons why. As of this writing, all comments on this page have been addressed. NancyHeise (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the elephant in the corner is shouting Strong oppose. Try looking for another FAC that passed after a similar strong opposition. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tuf-Kat's point has not been addressed, in my opinion. Quite a few terms are used vaguely. For instance: "They are vehicles through which God's grace is said to flow into all those who receive them with the proper disposition.[47] The Church encourages individuals to engage in adequate preparation before receiving certain sacraments.[48]" "Vehicles of grace" is not specific enough to explain what a sacrament is, and how it's different from, say, an icon or a relic. "Engage in adequate preparation" and "proper disposition" don't explain much, either. Gimmetrow 01:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my latest response to Tuf-Kat. These matters are being looked into, but it will take up to a day to produce something. Xandar (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am answering TufKat's question regarding where the consensus for removal of the Creed was discussed. Please see the conversation that begins with the second comment from the top of this page here [22] and on the RCC talk page here [23], also in the second peer review as one of Karanacs comments that another editor agreed with her on here [24]. I responded to her comment by stating that I was going to put the discussion on the article talk page, which I did and there were several responses in favor of removing it. Xandar and I were intensly against removal of the Creed blockquote and argued against it to the exasperation of the others. We would be very happy to put the whole quote back in the block and remove the sprinkling of the Creed throughout. How can we do that after all this discussion that reveals so much consensus? If there is some higher authority who can make a final decision on this, we are willing to comply with TufKat's recommendation. NancyHeise (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to the issue with the Creed, but to the use of religious language. "Proper disposition" is a codeword that means something to Catholics; if it's important to say it should be explained or linked. Alluding to some aspect of doctrine without a pointer to its meaning doesn't seem very informative. Gimmetrow 03:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would really appreciate if you would help Xandar and I in our efforts to comply with this FAC comment and a list of the words in the text that we need to redefine would really help us. It is not necessary but it might help us understand what non-Catholics find confusing. NancyHeise (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also reworded the "proper disposition" item. NancyHeise (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[25] I guess it's my fault, but this is not what I'm getting at. I think some parts of the Beliefs section try to allude to too many things. If the sacraments are important, then it's a given there will be some preparation for them. I was thinking more about focus on the key points: "Sacraments are visible rites which Catholics see as providing God's grace ex opere operato, and are thus central to most individual Catholics' approach to God." Gimmetrow 04:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I used your version a little without removing my ability to still use the ref at the end of the sentence. Rereading your comment above again, are you suggesting we eliminate mention of "engage in adequate preparation" or do you think we should explain it? NancyHeise (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of those discussions are relevant here. I suggested moving the Nicene Creed out of the first sentence of each section. The prior consensus is that the Nicene Creed should not be reproduced entirely, but there does not appear to be any consensus, or indeed discussion at all, that the quotes must be in the first sentence of each section. Tuf-Kat (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TufKat, I have just gone through again and made changes to the areas of concern to you that I think will meet to your satisfaction. Xandar has also addressed a couple of points and Gimmetrow has been a tremendous help here as well. Please take another look at the particular areas of concern you have listed because we have made changes to each area you tagged in your comments. Thanks for your comments, I apologize if we were a little slow and reluctant to make changes, our fault. NancyHeise (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<Commentary moved to talk page> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note from Nominator - The opposes on this page have been addressed in depth with many changes to the text and concessions to reviewers wishes. Some of those wishes were not conceeded based on valid reasons which were provided. At this point, I consider all of them unactionable. Things are pretty quiet around here now. NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose The article is too unweildy, while I understand what it is attempting to cover, it is doing so in a slipshod manner, not giving enough attention to certain areas and dwelling too much on insignificant ones. (I guess I'm the only one appalled that excommunicants and heretics get more mention than Saints and Doctors of the Church, itself). None of the Post Vatican 2 Controversy is dealt with. There are NPOV issues with regard to the Novus Ordo Missae and no mention at all in the Eucharist section on how the modern Mass' translation of the Consecration is a corruption of the words of Christ. There is no mention how after Vatican 2, mass attendance by Catholics plummeted to abysmally low levels due to modernizing the Mass and watering down dogma. There is no mention of why Vatican 2 was needed or how it was a continuation of the First Vatican Council. There is scant mention of the Bureacracy within the Church, how Latin is the Official Language, or the Church's impact beyond the middle ages. There are also numerous sourcing problems and I fail to see how summary works are used to source such a rich and diverse topic. It's not like there are not sources critical of the Church out there. I say this as a practicing Catholic...who attends Mass several times a week and one who graduated from the Seminary. The article has made vast improvements, but it is not ready for Featured Status, yet. The prose is weak in most places; it needs more polish, to promote it in its current state would be a huge disservice to the Church, itself.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • (I guess I'm the only one appalled that excommunicants and heretics get more mention than Saints and Doctors of the Church, itself).
We can add Saints and Doctors, which ones do you suggest? NancyHeise (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis of Asissi, Thomas Aquinas, John of the Cross, and Theresa of Avilla for starters.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Please see the section for Thomas Aquinas in first para of High Middle Ages and others in the Counter Reformation section of Late Medieval and Renaissance. NancyHeise (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the Post Vatican 2 Controversy is dealt with.
Please see the history section under Vatican II and Beyond. NancyHeise (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are NPOV issues with regard to the Novus Ordo Missae and no mention at all in the Eucharist section on how the modern Mass' translation of the Consecration is a corruption of the words of Christ.
That is an issue that is dealt with under the wikilink Traditionalist in the Vatican II section of history. "corruption of the words of Christ", a Traditionalist POV, is not a notable controversy. NancyHeise (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[26] I guess if someone is ignorant of Faith, Language, and Tradition they could make that point.
That is your POV, per your source, "“Indeed,” the cardinal continued, “the formula ‘for all’ would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).” Nonetheless, while “for all” is, “an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis,” Arinze said, “’for many’ is a faithful translation of ‘pro multis.’” " Mike, this argument is no not noteworthy to include in this summary article of the RCC. This is a quibble, not a war and I will argue with you based on what your own source says that the words used in the Mass are fine. NancyHeise (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But still not the words in the Bible as said by Christ.
  • There is no mention how after Vatican 2, mass attendance by Catholics plummeted to abysmally low levels due to modernizing the Mass and watering down dogma.
The Vatican II controversy discusses these issues in history section. I added more per your comments here. NancyHeise (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no mention of why Vatican 2 was needed or how it was a continuation of the First Vatican Council.
Added. NancyHeise (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is scant mention of the Bureacracy within the Church, how Latin is the Official Language, or the Church's impact beyond the middle ages.
All of this is already in the first para of Church organization and community including Latin as official language. NancyHeise (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You lumped all of what you call "traditionalists" into one group? Not only is that factually inaccurate and misleading, it borders on slander and calumny.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I didn't lump them, we have a wikipage on them. The article provides the wikilink and the reader goes there to learn more. Would you like some sort of elaboraton on Traditionalists? NancyHeise (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article that covers 2000 years of history and much else besides. Traditionalists and Liberals are given DUE WEIGHT in this summary account. There are wikilinks elsewhere for people interested in that aspect of Catholic controversy. I know these things are of greater importance to those involved, but there is not a way that we can cut something else out in order to detail various traditionalist and Liberal groups, man of which are very small. This is not the article to do that. Xandar (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also numerous sourcing problems and I fail to see how summary works are used to source such a rich and diverse topic. It's not like there are not sources critical of the Church out there.
What sources do you suggest are not OK? Are you saying we dont have critic sources? We do, Duffy and Bokenkotter are considered critics. NancyHeise (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say this as a practicing Catholic...who attends Mass several times a week and one who graduated from the Seminary. The article has made vast improvements, but it is not ready for Featured Status, yet. It needs more polish, to promote it in its current state would be a huge disservice to the Church, itself.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can polish it right now with FAC comments. That is why we have brought it to FAC, to make a decent article. We thought we were there after our second peer review - we followed all protocol before bringing this up again. Mike, as a Traditionalist Catholic, you have a certain POV that you want to have presented in the article but that POV is already mentioned and I might add that it is an extremely minority POV. There are not a lot of Traditionalist Catholics, they are a schismatic group, a radical group with an agenda to push. We can't use the RCC article to do that. I will address your valid points. Thanks for offering them. NancyHeise (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I am not a schismatic and will not tolerate such personal attacks. I am not SSPV or SSPX or pushing any POV. Read your Bible and tell me in which Gospel Jesus said "For All" and not "For Many". Christ's words are retained in the Tridentine Rite, they are absent from the Novus Ordo, but you'll never include that in this article because of your blatant POV pushing.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that while some of your points are valid, you're pushing a POV supporting the Tridentine Mass and the pre-Vatican II church. Please note WP:NPOV. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that when the subject is not even broached in the article? Where have I made any such POV edit pushing? Do you see what I mean?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, he's the only reviewer here with a POV?? Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what they say when they're open minded and I'm just a stupid jerk  :) --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your word choice lends itself to a POV, whether it was inadvertent or not. Again, you do have valid points, and yes, naturally we do all have a POV. I'm not criticizing you, I'm just noting that some may construe your complaint as a POV-push. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered all of Mikes comments making additions in the text per his very good commments. No offense is intended by my comments about Traditionalist groups that are schismatic. It is just a fact that this exists. I did not know to which group you belonged but I am happy it is not the schismatic one! Peace. NancyHeise (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, again. I don't know what you are talking about. The only "group" I belong to is in Communion with Rome. It is just called the Roman Catholic Church...what this article is about.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, many traditionalists are in groups. I have some sympathy with some traditionalist points. However this is not the article for arguments on the precise wording of the mass etc. On sourcing, there are not actually a huge number of over-all histories of the Catholic Church that cover the whole course of events in depth. You will find that even the Encyclopedia Britannica article uses some of the books that we use, including Duffy and the Oxford illustrated History, as sources. There is nothing wrong with these sources. Xandar (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a mischaracterization. There are some "extremists" in certain "societies", but that's the exception and not the rule, it does not exclude personal attacks and slander by insinuating that because someone has a love for the Latin Mass that they are a schismatic. There are plenty of over-all histories of the Church. Richard Mc Brien's Catholicism comes to mind, but it was excluded from the article because the nominator did not like the author(a liberal Roman Catholic Priest). It may not have a Nihil Obstat, because it was never sanctioned by a Bishop, however it is used as a textbook in many seminaries.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the article to link Traditionalists and schismatics, although there are one or two fringe groups have broken away. The section on Tradionalist Catholics links to a detailed article on that subject. As for your suggested History text. if you read through this FAC page and the previous ones, you will find most of the reviewers who object to some of the books used a sosurces, are objecting to the use of books written by Catholics. To have a source such as Fr Mc Brien, which is used as a textbook in catholic seminaries would not help with this problem. Xandar (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No those vile repugnant comments and innuendos were made by the nominator on this very talk page and a while back (maybe the first FAC) before I stopped trying to fix this article. The article contains a gross misrepresentation of the facts when it comes to that and to be honest, it's just laughable the way it is written. As for your other point...they seem to object to nonscholarly works(as do I). McBrien is a priest, true, but a very liberal one. Despite his personal views (he's everything "traditionalists" like me hate but the modern church embraces: pro women priests, pro married clergy, hold hands during the Our Father, altar girls, liturgical dancers, etc) his book is spot on dogmatically and even his harshest critics mention this. I think this type of author, one who has been critical of the church and criticized by the church is precisely the type of balance that is needed. I would never receive the sacraments from him or go to one of his Masses, but his book is 100% dead-nuts accurate with regard to history and dogma(but then again, even satan can quote scripture).--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The book of which you speak is not a history, but rather very much a Theology work, viewing from a particular perspective. There is a brief historical section, but the work is certainly not suitable as a historical reference. Xandar (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: Further threats and abuse on my talk page concerning this nomination will be removed immediately. TONY (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further unwarranted allegations by yourself. There have been no threats and abuse on your talk page, merely a request that you apologise for your earlier allegations against editors and reviewers that have been proven to be false.Xandar (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could future reviewers and those still holding objections please look at Featured Article Candidate London on this page. There you will see an example, (one among many,) of the most useful way to make objections to an article. Most objections are itemized, are specific for clarity, are bulletpointed and refer to specific sentences or paragraphs complained about. Following this format will make objections easier to see, identify, quickly address and acknowledge. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I dislike the use of Church euphemism in the article. "...married persons are expected to be open to new life in their sexual relations"; "They usually live in community"; and the deferential "...led Pope John Paul II to issue two documents to explain Church teaching." I think it is crazy that defensive statements are present in the paragraph about sexual abuse of minors. The defensive statements about the Spanish Inquisition also are defensive and out of place. Tempshill (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how these sentences make the article Non-FA. But please bring forward your suggestions for amendments. On so-called "defensive" statements I'm afraid BOTH sides of an argument or debate have to be presented in Wikipedia articles. Not just one side. Xandar (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The church euphemisms you identify in your oppose are in sections describing Church belief, practices or community. These sections are stating the Church belief or teaching on particular issues. The wording in each of your cases pointed out here is factually correct. The statement "led Pope John Paul II..." is not deferential, it is a fact that is referenced to Bokenkotter and the actual Mulierus. Sexual abuse and Inquisitions provide all points of view as required by NPOV. NancyHeise (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note The following three opposes are restatements of earlier opposes at the top of the page (they are not new opposes). I asked all opposes to please come back and strike their comments that we have addressed. These are their responses to that request. NancyHeise (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Continued Oppose. (Note, I have added "continued" oppose in response to repeated attempts to change my comments on this page, plus comments on my talk page of which I think rather poorly from one of this article's latest defenders: I've made my view about this clear here. It's sad that, just as the nominator was, in my view, doing rather better at working with reviewers, as I commented here, other supporters should rather undo her good work. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)) I have been trying more or less to keep away from this FAC, and certainly from the article. Prompted (most appropriately) by NancyHeise to revisit it, I decided that I would take a paragraph almost at random--I say almost, because I decided I wouldn't take a paragraph from the "History" section, with which I know I have problems, and which I know has raised much controversy. I looked at the TOC, clicked on Church organizatoin and community, and found myself with the following:[reply]
The spiritual head and leader of the Catholic Church on earth is the pope. He governs from Vatican City in Rome, a sovereign state of which he is also the Head of State.[125] He is elected by the College of Cardinals, composed of bishops or priests who have been granted special status by the pope to serve as his advisors.[126] The cardinals may select any male member of the Church to be pope, but that person must be ordained as a bishop before taking office. The Church community is governed according to the Code of Canon Law. The Roman Curia assists the pope in the administration of the Church. Although the official language of the Church is Latin, Italian is the working language.[127]
There are numerous problems with the above.
  • The words "on earth" need to be explained. I presume the point is that the Church considers God (or Jesus?) to be its absolute head; but without that explanation, the insertion of "on earth" is confusing and distracting.
I added some wording to clarify for you.
  • Vatican City or "the Vatican City"? (I may be wrong here, as elsewhere, of course.)
Vatican City is correct. In Italian, they use "del" in front of Vatican but not so in English. NancyHeise (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third sentence is illogical, as it seems to suggest that the pope is elected by people whom he himself has already chosen.
Added clarifying language, thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the fourth sentence, "by the pope" is redundant." Probably so is "as a."
eliminated, thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply stating that "The Church community is governed according to the Code of Canon Law" is unhelpful without at least the briefest of explanations of what is meant. (I know that this is a long article and editors are undoubtedly loathe to add more content, but there are plenty of redundancies, as I've just suggested, and other opportunities for further concision.)
Code of Canon Law is wikilinked for reader who wants to know more. For summary style considerations we have to limit what we decide to expand upon and make use of the many wikilinks available to us. Stating that a world community is governed by a certain law, providing a link to that law is enough. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. there's not really very much you can say about Canon Law other than that it is a list of regulations, which already seems explicit in the words "Code of Law".Xandar (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a whole, the paragraph simply does not flow. Connectors are missing, and so for instance its last three sentences are short non sequiturs. At best, therefore, the prose is clunky.
  • The sources are not really appropriate. I would have thought that all the above could and should be sourced by statements from the Vatican itself, as they detail its internal organization and functioning. This is not an instance where third-party sources are needed or even especially desirable. And yet we have a BBC Country profile, a Catholic News Service article, and an NYT article. I'd have thought that if wanted to know (e.g.) how the pope is elected, I would look first for some Vatican statement on the matter.
The Beliefs, prayer and worship and community sections are heavily referenced to self published sources like Code of Canon Law, Catechism and Vatican statements. Other references used are three third party books written by university professors whose books have Nihil obstat and Imprimatur declarations from the Church. Karanacs wanted to see some more third party sources so we have included newspapers as well. The references sourcing all of these sections meet WP:RS as top sources per WP:Reliable source examples. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The principle of citation is also rather random. I'm not necessarily one of those who demands a footnote after each paragraph, but here I can't see why some statements have notes (e.g. the issue of the Church's official language), but others (e.g. the role of Canon Law) don't. There's no consistency here.
WP:Cite Does not require us to cite something that is an obvious and generally undisputed fact. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph is not egregiously bad. It could fairly easily be fixed. But I would want a paragraph chosen at random (indeed, chosen to avoid picking a very controversial paragraph) from a Featured Article to be much better.
Overall, I continue to think that the POV in this article is problematic: at best, it is written in quotation marks; at worst, it reflects a very particular view of the Church, which is especially conservative, and which confuses the Church (as a global sociological phenomenon) with the way in which the Church officially sees itself.
I can not act on this comment, it is too inspecific. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that there are problems with structure, and that the "Demographics" section is particularly weak, not least because it contains a misplaced sub-section on the technical criteria for membership.
I disagree that the membership section is misplaced, it is a vital piece of information to help reader know what makes a person a member, part of the discussion on Demographics. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And all this is without even touching on the way in which this FAC has been conducted. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I am sorry for any imperfections in my ability to conduct an FAC. I appreciate the help of the helpful editors out there who have been working with me to meet all opposing reviewers demands. I appreciate your bullet point summary here, JB. Peace. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still opposing—However, it is not a legitimate part of the process to require reviewers to restate their opposition: that opposition remains as the default until it has been shown to have been resolved. The continual refrain from nominators that resolution has occurred is most unconvincing. In addition, I'd like to echo JBMurray's conclusion that the article is written from the narrow POV of a certain establishment part of the RCC. The treatment of certain issues contains subtle angles that many catholics and non-catholics would disagree with. Again, I must ask nominators here not to post aggressive statements on my talk page in response to this. They don't intimidate me; they're just a nuisance to have to deal with. And if you want to impugn my character or behaviour, please do it on the assigned page overleaf, not here. TONY (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)+[reply]
Actionable opposes need to be capable of being addressed. Vague implications of "POV" even if posted by more than one editor, do not therefore qualify without specific indication of the sentences and paragraphs at fault, and what should in the view of the objector be done to correct the perceived fault. Some people seem to be forgetting that the purpose of this process is to help articles forward to FA status, not to be an excuse to try to apply a personal veto hrough unresolvable objections. The POV of the article is similar to that of Britannica and most other encyclopedia coverage. It may not take radical off-centre viewpoints, but that is not its purpose. Xandar (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Xandar. We have worked extensively to eliminate any POV. What we have left are bare notable facts. We can not act on opposes that do not specify anything in particular. Prose is a point of personal taste, a minority of FAC reviewers here have a problem with the prose even though it has been extensively reworked by experienced editors. This should not prevent FA. NancyHeise (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator message to FA Director I posted a note on the talk pages of each opposing voter [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] asking them to please come see our responses to their comments, almost all of which have been answered by making changes to the article text. Afterward, Awadewit summarized her oppose by making statments that the editors of the article have not addressed all of her points, that we have a pro Catholic POV tone in the article and that other opposing editors share her view. Johnbod, another FA reviewer and article supporter (not an editor of this article) wrote this to respond to Awadewit:

"Just to point out that it was not only editors responsible for the article who disputed your objections here (not all of them in my case, but several, not all commented on). If all the suggestions by those you mention above had been followed, I for one would be likely switch my position to strong oppose until balance had been restored. Likewise for Mike's objections below (is it?). Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you have written here, Johnbod. Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems clear enough to me - not all suggestions of objectors (generally)) would improve articles, and there are many here that would not. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)"

Further, Mike's oppose accuses us of not being Catholic enough in our POV. We editors have been constantly accused of POV violations of one sort or another even as we have constantly sought to eliminate any perception of POV. Gimmetrow was helpful with this. Tempshill states that he thinks its crazy that we have defensive statements in sexual abuse paragraph and inquisitions para. We are required by WP:NPOV to include these facts. We have dealt with many reviewers on this article, some have knowledge of RCC but many do not. All have contributed valuable comments and almost all have contributed comments that, if we were to act upon, would result in grave violations of Wikipedia policies or factual inaccuracies. We have not been breezing by everyone's comments, blithly ingnoring valuable perspective. We have had to distinguish between what would bring the article up and what would destroy it. When we have decided against incorporating someone's comments, we have then been accused of being unresponsive or combative. In addition, Tony's oppose just above, accuses us of posting personal threats on his talk page. Wackymacs makes the same accusation. Please see his talk page, we have not posted any such thing. NancyHeise (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never said any POV, much less yours, was not Catholic. Stop putting words in peoples' mouths. I said certain elements had POV issues. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I answered all your comments by adding text (except your instance on the words in Mass controversy which I gave a valid reason for not changing). You have not even seen my changes to cross off your comments. You crossed off Thomas Aquinas. I added a lot of text on saints to comply with your wish - remember you stated that you had a problem with an article that talked more about heretics than saints? Please see Late Medieval and Renaissance toward the bottom in the Counter Reformation section. All of the textual additions are pointed out to you in my answers to your comments. All you have to do is go to the article and see them. Also, I can not act on an oppose that states a POV issue but does not specify or identify an sentence that is POV. WP:FAC requires opposers to be specific. NancyHeise (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick rejoinder to your claim about one of my several objections: Tempshill states that he thinks its crazy that we have defensive statements in sexual abuse paragraph and inquisitions para. We are required by WP:NPOV to include these facts. This is a misreading of NPOV. In an article about a person accused of murder, it is not necessary under NPOV to point out that several hundred thousand other people have also been accused of murder. Stating that the Church was accused of X, found guilty of Y, and paid Z does not at all need to be balanced with any other statement. I must assume that the reason you have the statement in there is to defend the Church, not to satisfy NPOV. Perhaps I'm wrong and you're honestly trying to be NPOV, but from the general tone of the article, I doubt I'm wrong. Tempshill (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you state precisely wording objected to, it helps a lot, rather than having editors have to guess or mind-read what your objection is. It appears now that your specific objection is the sentence relating to percentage sex-abusers in the Catholic Church and the percentage among US teachers. I happen to think the information sets the issues in context, and I do not see why you would object to readers having this referenced information. However there is certainly room for discussion on the wording.Xandar (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the news reports about the Public School abuse, including the Washington Post article reference we used, made the comparison between the sex abuse in the schools and the Catholic Church. This is a notable fact that give significant context to the priest abuse scandal in the US, especially when the institutions dealt with it in exactly the same manner. It is NPOV to include the whole story. This is an important part of what makes this article particularly FA and is why it is a useful piece of information. NancyHeise (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought I'd revisit the article. Spot-checked one small portion of text. Eeuuuw, didn't like this:
    • "Church, works of mercy, and Anointing of the Sick". Why the alphabet soup? See MOS on caps in titles. Why not the anointing, since "the" wouldn't be the first word of the title?
"the" would be improper use. Catholics dont call the sacrament "the Anointing of the Sick" but "Anointing of the Sick" like "Baptism" is not called "the Baptism" but unlike "the Eucharist" which is used. Also, Anointing of the Sick is one of the seven church sacraments. MoS requires us to cap when referring to a proper noun, thus all the sacraments and the word Church, when referring to the Catholic Church are capped. We had quite an extensive discussion on this. We offered to lower case if MoS folks decided they wanted it the other way - we dont care. NancyHeise (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Catholic social teaching is based on the word of Jesus ...". Bit of a stretch, that, when the word of the man has been filtered through linguistic, cultural, historical, and institutional veils, and not just thin veils. To use WP to assert that the hardest-line doctrines, such as the bans on abortion and homosexuality, hark back to what he said or thought, is on the extreme end of POV. I can't countenance an article on the RCC that seeks to make such universal, black-and-white statements that cannot be proven; this article needs to be carefully expressed in terms that are clearly not in-universe.
Thank you for pointing that out, I added words of clarification and expanded a bit on what that social teaching is. The controversy over abortion is discussed in the history section under Vatican II. The Church does not ban homosexuality. It is considered adultery and the church does not distinguish between heterosexial adultery and homosexual adultery, it is all adultery in their eyes, equally sinful for homosexuals and heterosexuals, no discrimination there. I would like to add that before any other church organization was ordaining homosexual men, the Catholic Church opened its arms to them, especially in the US until the latest church crisis which is a great shame for the many homosexual men who never violated their vows and lived very holy lives. NancyHeise (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Catholic social teaching ... commits Catholics to the welfare of others." Well, it may commit catholics to what it sees is the welfare of others—or to what some people in positions of power in the institution see as this. I certainly know that the sect of nuns up the road don't view it quite the way the Vatican does, and were roundly told by Rome to shut up and back off about four years ago WRT one particular issue; again, it's an in-universe statement masquerading as a universal truth. This is unacceptable in a WP article, which must minimise the risk that readers will dismiss it as conveying POV. At stake is the credibility of the whole project when it comes to ideological matters. TONY (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the nuns: yes, there is disagreement within the church and that is discussed in the history section under Vatican II, a manner of dealing with controversy expressly recommended by Jimbo Wales. Regarding Catholic social teaching, I changed the sentence to reflect your comment and expanded to include how the Church defines that teaching. Here's the new sentences: "Catholic social teaching is based on Church interpretation of the life and work of Jesus and commits Catholics to the welfare of others.[12] The seven main themes in this teaching are to encourage respect for human life and the dignity of each person, to strengthen and encourage the family unit, to encourage respect for the rights and responsibilities of each person, to care for the poor, to promote the rights and dignity of the worker, and to encourage the solidarity of all humans as one family.[12] " I dont think that WP is going to be considered a reliable encyclopedia if it prohibits all religion articles beliefs sections from actually stating those beliefs. Even Encyclopedia Brittanica has a section on beliefs. If we have to get shut out just because FAC reviewers have personal negative opinions about the religion, that will really make WP look ridiculous and unprofessional. The purpose of the article is to provide a definition of the church, it is not a blog or commentary. We provide the facts of what the church is, what it believes, who comprises the community, what their prayers and practices are and what they have done (history), all notable controversies are covered - completely scientific and professionally done. NancyHeise (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. This page purposely, frequently, and without apology calls the Roman Catholic Church the Catholic Church, which is totally POV and tantamount to calling the Roman Catholic Church the one & only church. Please fix this.--Carlaude (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. While other church organizations in the world call themselves "catholic", no other church organization in the world offically calls itself the "Catholic Church" except for the Catholic Church (which does not call itself the Roman Catholic Church except in discussions with other Christian denominations to be polite). The official name of Catholic Church is a referenced fact in the very first sentence. One of the refs gives a very good explanation of this situation. It would be factually incorrect and against Wikipedia policy for us to remove our referenced fact in response to this oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, Nancy, Carlaude has a point: you have to be very careful in avoid in-universe POV when using WP as a mouthpiece. one and only needs to be clearly marked as a dogmatic phrase that has a stylised reference point. I'm not at all convinced by your response to my two POV objections above, which were mere examples (taken at random) of a broad problem in the article. For instance, saying that such and such is "discussed elsewhere in the article" does not prevent the POV angle from coming across there and then, towards the top of the article. TONY (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
? The phrase "one and only" does not appear in the article; what is "a stylised reference point" anyway? I fail to see how using the name of an organization amounts to "in-universe POV when using WP as a mouthpiece". Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this alluding to the name Catholic Church, Use of the name the Church calls itself by, and has done for 1800 years, cannot really be POV. And of course all examples of alleged POV may be entered below... Xandar (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term "one and only" does not appear in the article text. No action can be taken regarding that comment because it is a comment made in error. Tony, the Beliefs section makes clear to reader right away in the title that it is a Beliefs section, not a Universal Truth section as you seem to allege. Almost every single sentence in that Beliefs section begins with or includes the phrase "Catholics believe" or the "Church teaches.." or "The Catechism states...", etc. More than that would make the whole section ridiculous and unreadable. We can not assume that the reader is so unintelligent that they don't understand that these are a compilation of Catholic Church beliefs. You are asking us to do a severe "dumbing down" of the article to address what you call POV that is clearly not framed as POV but as the beliefs of this particular church. I made the change you suggested to the sentence you identified. I am willing to make any more changes that are reasonable. Our criticisms are addressed in exactly the manner suggested by Jimbo Wales, if you have a better idea then maybe you can write an instructive article too. I have made use of the instructions currently recommended by the WP community and followed their advice. NancyHeise (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. I would ask that every new Roman Catholic idea presented begins "Catholics believe" or the "Church teaches.." or "The Catechism states..." (not almost every).
(Under "Jesus, sin, and Penance" that article states "Since Baptism can only be received once..." as a known fact.. which it is not. It is POV.)
AND...
2. I would ask that every paragraght with a Roman Catholic ideas presented begins "Roman Catholics believe" or the "Roman Catholics Church teaches.." in the first sentence.--Carlaude (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note well--
Apart from anything else, there are many official documents where the Roman Church does use the term Roman Catholic Church of itself, eg ARCIC, several dioceses in England and Wales use the term on their websites and so on. (Quote of David Underdown)
Together this indicates that the RCC is apt to use the the "Catholic" name in documents to it those within and the "Roman Catholic" to those outside-- such as on ARCIC and websites. Which form do you think Wikipedia should take?--Carlaude (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note also-- The phrase "one and only" does not have to appear in the article-- it is the constant use of "Catholic" in the article that is objected to. This is an "in-universe POV" because RCC use that name for themselves, but no mater how consistently this is done it is still POV.
Note also-- the Roman Catholic Church can not be said to call itself the Catholic Church for 1800 years (not that this would make it NPOV) because 1800 years ago the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Catholic Church were the same church. They both-- however-- did call themselves the catholic church 1800 years ago-- and both still do.
I am copy and pasting this from the article talk page since your discussion was posted there and also here. These are two responses to your demands.NancyHeise (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many don't feel that referring to it as the "Catholic Church" implies Wikipedia's belief that it is the only legitimate church on Earth. I suppose a better example than Macedonia would be the article we have on the Eastern Orthodox Church. After the title and introduction, that article repeatedly refers to the "Orthodox" church and the beliefs of "Orthodox Christians", yet we readers understand that not everyone believes the church in question is the most correct or truthful. Or even the United Church of Christ. Examples of churches whose names claim exclusion are near infinite, but we still use their names. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article provides references to support the article content stating that the official name of the Church is the Catholic Church. While other churches claim to be "catholic", no other church in the world calls itself the Catholic Church. I agree with BaronGrackle and there is ample consensus on this talk page to support current wording. I do not understand the POV charge when we are simply calling the church what it calls itself. Also, the Church uses the term Roman Catholic when discussing issues with other Christian denominations in an effort to be polite (as with ARCIC). It does not sign its official documents Roman Catholic Church unless it is an document signed in conjunction with another Christian denomination. There are many legal documents around the world that use the term Roman Catholic (only in English speaking world) but in the US all legal assets of a diocese are owned in the name of the presiding bishop - yet the name of the Church is not the name of the bishop - so we cant go by legal documents of English speaking countries! Please read the references before making any more claims of POV [36] and [37]. Also, please provide references to refute our presentation if you continue to pursue this issue, so far you have provided nothing to prove that our text is incorrect while we have referenced facts and talk page consensus. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the issue of posting "Roman Catholics believe" in front of every sentence, please see my responses to Tony above. The Belief section is clearly marked as a "Belief" section. It is thus not a violation of NPOV to state the Church's beliefs under such a heading without a constant "Roman Catholics believe" even though we have sprinkled this phrase liberally throughout, it would be bad form, ridiculous logic and poor prose to have it there any more than we do. In regards to your comment about Baptism only being received once - all Christians who hold the Nicene Creed as their basic statement of faith (which is almost all Christians regardless of denomination) believe that you only recieve Baptism once. As a person baptized in the Episcopalian Church, I did not need to get re-baptized when I converted to the Catholic Church, they accept one baptism no matter where that baptism took place. NancyHeise (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NancyHeise, you are just making this stuff up, re: "posting 'Roman Catholics believe' in front of every sentence" Re: Nicene Creed and Baptism, I do not see Baptism even mentioned on the version on the Nicene Creed page... maybe you are thinking of a later creed... in any case not every church is going to interpet the phase "there is one baptism" the same way as you.
The Anglican church and all churches who use Nicene Creed to not require converts from other churches to get re-Baptised (Im not making that up!). NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(and vice versa). NancyHeise (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note, the Catholic Church considers the Eastern Orthodox Church the Catholic Church too, the long lost sister with whom they are desperately trying to reunite. This has been a great desire of the Church ever since the split. NancyHeise (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have a website and a church published source as references to support "official name", for added measure I have also included a reference to a book written by a university professor and originally published by Harvard University to support current text that states that the official name of the Church is the Catholic Church. I included the quote in my ref but you can see it directly from the book here [38]. Thus, I do not consider Carlaude's an actionable oppose since compliance would require insertion of factual inaccuracies and violation of Wikipedia policies. NancyHeise (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?--Carlaude (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the one-sided quotes and comments above I provide these...--Carlaude (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...I guess I just don't understand how a self-identifying term such as this that enjoys such wide usage is any more POV than using, say, "Macedonia" to describe the name of that country. Do we need more information stating that the Church is more prone to use the term "Roman Catholic" when speaking to people living in England? As for your other points (using "Catholics believe" or "the Church teaches"), I can't really say, other than hoping the article doesn't become halting or redundant. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...
A claim that one church body is "orthodox" does not say that others are not orthodox, but a claim that one church body is "universal" does say that others are part of the universal church.
The United Church of Christ has never made any claims to universality, nor has any other church. What is more we do not confuse "united" with "universal." No one ever claimed or confused the United Kingdom with a sort of universal kingdom-- nor confused the United States of America with all states of America.--Carlaude (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link to ewtn.com
  • 1. it begins with reference to the Creed that
"speaks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church."
So right off the bat it admits that the pushing the term "Catholic Church" is part of the claim to be seen as the only church -- the only and true church referred to in the creed. You cannot deny this.
  • 2. It spends most of the text claiming the name "Catholic Church" for the Roman Church.
  • 3. Again at the end of the document written by Mr. Whiteheadit shows again his point of view of the true church being the Roman Church all along by stating:
"By the time of the first ecumenical council of the Church, held at Nicaea in Asia Minor in the year 325 A.D., the bishops of that council were legislating quite naturally in the name of the universal body they called in the Council of Nicaea's official documents "the Catholic Church." ...And it is the same name which is to be found in all 16 documents of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Church, Vatican Council II.... for the name of the true Church of Christ has in no way been changed. It was inevitable that the Catechism of the Catholic Church would adopt the same name today that the Church has had throughout the whole of her very long history."
Of course this shows the term "Catholic Church" is used to claim that the Eastern Church split from the true Western church (and not the other way around, or split from each other with equal legitimacy.) All clearing showing the POV of the "Catholic Church."
The Rolling Stones call themselves The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World but it would be POV for Wikipedia to use it of the band in that way.--Carlaude (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article provides references to support the article content stating that the official name of the Church is the Catholic Church.... NancyHeise (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not really matter how "official" it considers the name now. I am not claiming that "RCC" is more official, but that RCC is NPOV. It does matter that:

  • The name "Catholic Church" is highly POV (as we can see from the Roman Catholic ewtn.com link), and used to support there view of church history and theology.
  • Using "Roman Catholic" once a paragraph does not destroy the readability.
  • We can see that the Roman Catholic Church does not repudiate the label, (like say the way Oriental Orthodoxy does the label Monophysite, in favor of Miaphysite.) --Carlaude (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not violating WP:NPOV by using the official name of the Church in an article about the Church, especially when that name is also recognized popularly by the average person on the street. When people talk about the Catholic Church in conversation, no one assumes it means the Methodist or Baptist or Anglican or any other Church. I used to be Episcopalian and no one refers to that church as the "Catholic Church" in casual conversation. However, it would be considered by Catholics as a POV statement to use RCC throughout the article since it has, in the past, been used by Protestants in an effort to make a POV statement about Catholics as revealed in two of the three references used in the text to support use of the word "official name". These references are a Catholic source here [39] and a Protestant source here [40]. Thus, it would be considered more of a violation of WP:NPOV to adhere to Carlaude's suggestion than what we currently have in the article text. I would also like to point out that I have provide WP:RS references to support my position here and Carlaude has provided none to support his position. NancyHeise (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is certainly not POV to use the name that the Church calls itself in the article. This is akin to saying that "United States" is POV (in lieu of "United States of America") because there are other states that are united in some way. This is absurd. In fact, a much stronger argument can be made that the article should be titled "Catholic Church" instead of "Roman Catholic Church" as the Catholic Church is composed of both a Latin/Roman rite (a particular church) and 23 Eastern rites (independent particular churches, who are part of the Catholic Church, but independent of the Latin/Roman rite.). Carlaude's objection to this is not only absurd, but also, erroneous, and irrelevant. Move to strike. Lwnf360 (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 12:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

  • Image:Cristeros Caídos.jpg is likely non-free. The copyright term in Mexico is unusually long - life of the creator plus 100 years. The image page has no evidence to back up the public domain claim.
  • Image:PapalMass1.JPG seems suspicious to me, copyright-wise. It has been up for deletion before, and was kept on AGF grounds after minimal participation in the debate. Yet the uploader has only uploaded three images, and the other two included a PD-self claim, but also gave a website link. The description is disturbingly vague for a self-taken image. I would replace this with an image of more certain copyright.
  • The other images are beautifully sourced for the most part.

Kelly hi! 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping us with the pictures. I replaced the Cristero war pic with Miguel Pro but I am going to keep the picture of Benedict XVI celebrating Mass because it survived its attempts at deletion which means it is OK. NancyHeise (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Miguel Pro.gif will need a fair use rationale for this article...also, a copyright holder needs to be specified for the image per WP:NFCC#10a, as I don't believe the copyright for this image belongs to Creighton University. An alternative would be to move the original image from Commons to here and use it under non-free content rules...it would need to have the copyright holder identified also, though. Oh, and the papal mass picture I was referring to was not the Benedict one (which is Agencia Brasil and is fine), but the John XXIII picture. Kelly hi! 03:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I really appreciate your help on this, I am not a picture guru, I can upload but the copyright thing is a fog. I replaced the two pictures you mentioned. Please see the new pics, I think they had solid copyrights but I need your help to determine that. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Das Schwarze Korps Eugenio Pacelli Judenfreund Feind des Nationalsozialismus.jpg looks OK to me. Image:P6orthodox.jpg is unfortunately problematic - it has an obsolete license tag, and has permission claimed with no documentation. Image:Pro-life protest.jpg is probably OK - there is no OTRS ticket (I think the upload predates the OTRS system) and the copyright holder's statement is a little ambiguous in that they said "You may use the image from my Web site for your "Pro-Life" article..." and did not specifically agree to the GFDL license, though that is implied. For a featured article, I would look for something a little more solid from Commons:Category:Pro-life movement - for example, Image:March for life 2007.JPG or Image:UK Pro-life demonstrators.jpg. Regards - Kelly hi! 04:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly, I changed the pro-life rally picture but the other picture Image:P6orthodox.jpg does have a GNU free license copyright, it is just a little further down the page after the alert tag. Can you take a look and tell me if that is a valid copyright, I dont mean to try your patience but I am not sure you saw that tag. NancyHeise (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took another look - I'm afraid the main problem is that there's no evidence to support the license claims (either PD or GFDL), and I think the claim is pretty dubious. The uploader has been notified at Commons but the image will likely be deleted at Commons in a week or so unless permission is forthcoming, which I think is unlikely. Kelly hi! 05:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I keep the present picture and just let it get deleted if it doesnt get its permission? I don't really have to have a picture in that section and it really goes well there. Is this something that will prevent FA if I dont remove it? NancyHeise (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection - so far as its affect on the FA nomination, I'm not sure. I was just recruited by SandyGeorgia to help here at FAC based on my experience with image policy and copyrights - today is my first day. :) Kelly hi! 05:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And they should use you again - you did a great job, I am very grateful for your help in this area. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section title "Beliefs" doesn't absolve the text of the responsibility to present every statement, at the time (not later), in a NPOV way.
  • In other sections, it may be OK to ascribe official beliefs to "the Church", or to say that "The Church teaches that ...", where there's little or no disharmony within the Church, but I see beliefs ascribed in some places to "catholics", that is, individual people. For example, "Catholics believe that God is the source and creator of nature and all that exists." I think one might allow individual Catholics a little leeway to see it their own way; and on a different matter, don't all christian churches teach this point? The statement can't help but imply that catholics are distinctive in this teaching. I think this is assuming one monolithic, ideological homogenous fact; but you readily agreed that it's not that kind of organisation in reality, in response to my example of the nuns (the laudable Sisters of Charity, who've battled church officialdom, including entrenched sexism, for almost 150 years to do good among the poor, drug addicts and the like). It's an irksome fact that you'll have to face up to that some people who call themselves catholics—among them, priests—don't privately believe in a god, or in papal infallibility. WP shouldn't take on the role of nailing their personal ideology by framing belief as monolithic. TONY (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made changes in the text to address all of these comments. Please see and let me know if you are satisfied. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see the one fundamental problem with most of the comments I've read is that the article attempts to present what would be called a global perspective. When dealing with an organization which counts one-sixth of the global population as members, there are unavoidably going to be serious disagreements within the group itself, particularly given the different social and economic conditions which are found today. While those differences are certainly notable, I think most parties would agree that it is all but impossible to expect one single, comparatively short article, to convey all that information. This is particularly important considering that the church as a whole contains within it several smaller groups which are free to interpret the phrasing of the official policy in almost unlimited ways. Although I can see how many of these differences are encyclopedic, I also see that it would be functionally impossible to have "although groups of Catholics disagree", added after virtually every statement of general RC belief. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all the editors of the page are in agreement on this issue. What we have done is make mention of notable controversies and provide wikilinks to their own pages for the reader who wants to learn more. At present, we have a whole paragraph in the history section under Vatican II that describes the two polarized groups of liberal Catholics (with wikilink) and conservative or Traditional Catholics, (also with wikilink). They get the same treatment as all other controversies throughout the article. Thanks for your commment. NancyHeise (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered this below next comment. Thanks NancyHeise (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Phrasing of "Although the historical record reveals his words and efforts were clearly against the Nazis, his actions continue to be a source of debate" appears contradictory. Use of "clearly" is editorializing and, given the presence of continuing debate, does not appear to be true (i.e. the record is, indeed, not clear). The interaction between Pius XII and the NS-Regime was controversial and reasonable people on both sides can disagree. Generally this section addresses the issue well, but this sentence does not seem to properly acknowledge that several "words and efforts" were, at best, ambiguous. Removing "clearly" and rephrasing of, for example (although not necessarily optimal), "Although aspects of the historical record reveal...", would resolve what I perceive to be a neutrality issue. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the word "clearly" even though the reference itself uses the word "decisively" in conveying this message. Regarding use of the image - it is significant to illustrate that Pius XII was not considered a friend to the Nazi's even by the Nazi's. This cartoon was one of many but existed in a newspaper no longer in existence. Because we have omitted a significant amount of material on WWII due to summary style considerations and the conflict over Pius XII is so notable, this image is particularly important to this article that deals specifically with that issue. It is particularly important per WP:NFCC "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." - this image does exactly this - it is a picture worth more than a thousand words and is the subject of the material in the article. I dont know how to make the picture use less of the image which I think would suffice if you would rather, I would appreciate your help in this matter, thanks.NancyHeise (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the cartoon with a low-res version. indopug (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The low-res, high-res issue is still a foggy issue to me. Thanks for stepping in and taking care of that. NancyHeise (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would ask that the FA director and other editors take note that:
a) this is the article's 4th FA nomination
And? I've seen articles which have been at FAC more than 4 times. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: incorrect, third nomination. The third item that was added to articlehistory was a restart of this same nomination. Also, do not alter other editors' declarations. Comments can be added below other editors' posts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my implied thesis: this article will never achieve FA status if vague objections from individuals pushing POV against Catholicism or religion in general are considered. This article does exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and it is being held to an unfair high standard by individuals who would likely prefer there be no neutral or positive article about the Church. I freely admit that I have a pro-catholic POV. However, I have not pushed for true statements like "the Church believes that all protestants are heretics whom stand little chance at salvation," to be included in the article. That would be over-the-top POV. Statements in the article being opposed here on POV grounds about the beliefs section such as "the Church believes that baptism can only be conferred once" (I paraphrase) are POV agenda pushing. Stating what the church beliefs about baptism under the beliefs section of the RCC article does not introduce POV--it is a statement of fact. It is my belief that certain individuals in the community wish to blackball this article from becoming featured. As I said, the article is not perfect--but take any featured article on any day and prove to me with specific concrete examples and logical argument that it meets FACR better than this article. Lwnf360 (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is conspiracy theorizing. I see little if any evidence that people are opposing on anti-Catholic, still less anti-religious, grounds. Meanwhile, you seem to have difficulty identifying POV. The problem with the statement you give ("the Church believes that all protestants are heritics whom stand little chance at salvation"), beyond its obvious grammar and spelling issues, is not that it's "over-the-top POV"; rather, it is that it is unsourced. Should you have a source that verifies this "true" statement, then it could quite happily go in the article. As it happens, however, the article at present states instead that "the Church acknowledges that the Holy Spirit is active in diverse Christian churches and communities, and that Catholics are called to work for unity among all Christians." The reference given for this statement seems impeccable. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
b) the majority of the opposition is coming from individuals who either admit to being, or exemplify the position of:
-Anti-theists (those deeply opposed to all religion)
-Atheists (those indifferent to religion)
-Protestants (those groups who have been in schism for centuries)
-Schismatics (those who have been declared or are de facto in schism)
-Traditional Catholics (many of whom are borderline schismatic)
-Progressive Catholics (many of whom are borderline to de facto heretics)
Perhaps you might make it clear, for everyone's benefit, which opposes you align with each of these particular groups? I'd be particularly keen to learn where I fit in, in your judgement. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to make it obvious, either by your comments themselves, like several traditionalist Catholics here, or by a userbox, as others have, or like TONY, who has a clear statement on his user page: "Pet hates: Supernatural religion". I don't think there is anything wrong with editors of any views contributing here, but reviewer POV has clearly become an issue. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that the article has such a spectrum of critics--all of whom have inherent POV bias. It shows in their vague objections. An article that upsets such a range of critics must have something going for it.
This is not to say that I do not have POV bias either--I am a devout catholic with extensive knowledge of this subject. I want to see the Church portrayed in an accurate and unbiased i.e. neutral light. E.g. rambling on about the priestly abuse scandal without noting that the abuse rate among priests is roughly half that of the general population, introduces a biased slant against the Church.
It is my view that this article is being held to an unfair higher standard compared to other FAs. Pick any FA on any day--prove to me how that article is beyond the WP:FACR when compared to this one. I submit that you can't. Because this article--though imperfect--meets or exceeds the FACR. I apologize for editorializing in this forum, but these points should be noted with respect to this nomination, given the history. Feel free to agree or disagree with me below. Best regards. Lwnf360 (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have struck my oppose, but I am not supporting this. Xandar themselves said thousands of edits have been made to this over the past six months. Hundreds have probably been made since this FAC nom started. I think both of these facts show that the wrong approach is being taken. Please discuss here. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lwnf (I wish you had an easier username): I'd like to see a reliable reference for your claim of half, and with it the knowledge of which "general population" priestly sexual abuse is compared with. And supposing it were the case; the main point is that priests are in a position of significant power over their flock, perhaps more than even doctors or school teachers. Sexual abuse is at its most damaging where there's a disparity in power between victim and perpetrator. In addition, priests are representing a moral system that stands against such abuse. Indeed, it's at the heart of their raison d'etre, whereas doctors and school teachers have a much less explicit and powerful role in the upholding of a system of morality. So half the rate of the general population, whatever that means exactly, is frankly appalling. TONY (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I disagree with Tony here. And, indeed, with Lwnf. Both are, essentially, engaging in what WP calls original research. The point, rather, is to document the scandal (which is clearly an important one) and the church's reaction, which should in turn be given due weight. In fact, I think that the article at present leans towards OR in this paragraph: at least, it gives that impression, albeit that a look through the footnotes suggests that it could be fixed fairly easily. I'll take this to the article talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On the talk page, I have suggested a partial re-write of this paragraph that deals with OR issues, as well as grammar, readability, and attribution problems. It is still probably over-referenced, but there we go. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot check on prose and MOS. I took the shortish lead to one section and found a high density of problems. While these might easily be fixed, the point I'm making is that I shouldn't be able to randomly pick small portions of text at this stage and find them wanting. (Aside: the POV issues do seem to have been addressed in the parts I complained about earlier.)
    • " Each pope is elected for life by the College of Cardinals: a body composed of bishops and priests who have been granted the status of Cardinal by previous popes." Ah, comma instead, please.
added. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Head of State"—lower case, according to MOS.
done. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The cardinals, who also serve as papal advisors, may select any male member of the Church to reign as pope, but that person must be ordained bishop before taking office." Seems contradictory: why make a claim and then show it's false. "Any male member" seems redundant.
What's the problem here? What false claim? "Any male member" is far from redundant, as most people think only cardinals, bishops or at least priests can be elected, though I suppose that popes have to be male is well-known. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not sure what is being shown as false. If cardinals pick an abbot of a monastery (which has happened in the past) canon law requires them to ordain him a bishop before they can then make him pope. The sentence is factual. I am willing to make it more clear if you like. Let me think about it first. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The basic administrative unit of the Catholic Church is the diocese each of which is led by a bishop. Each diocese is further divided into individual communities called parishes, which are usually staffed by at least one priest"
      • A comma is required after "the diocese".
done.NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the grammar's wrong, anyway (singular/plural clash); why not remove "each of which is"?
changed. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why "further"? Have we already been told about how diocese are divided?
done. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Usually"—I thought more than half of the diocese were not staffed by a priest, because of a worldwide shortage.
I expect you thought wrong then. Is this a prose or MOS problem? Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, you are incorrect in your assumption. The sentence is factual and the priest shortage is addressed in the Demographics section. If there is no priest to staff a parish, there is no parish. There may not be a resident priest living there but it is always staffed by a priest since only priests can perform certain sacraments. About 25% of parishes do not have a resident priest living there but all parishes have priests staffing them. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The official language of the Church is Latin, however Italian is the working language of the Vatican administration." This statement is like a shag on a rock, here. Doesn't seem to belong to either para. Any ideas on where it might be better located? TONY (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a better idea. The working language of the church is referring to the Vatican administration which is the subject of the paragraph in which that sentence is located. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
“While similar to the national flag that is used today, the eagle in these arms is not holding a serpent in his talons and a crown has been affixed to the head of the eagle to signify the Empire. Variants of this flag that appeared in this period also included a naval flag that had the tricolor pattern, but only contained the eagle with the crown above its head. The military also used a similar, square, flag, but the eagle was larger than on the national flag. The national flag was officially decreed by Agustín de Iturbide in November 1821 and first officially used in July 1822. This flag was no longer used upon the abolishment of the empire.”
  • ” While similar to the national flag that is used today, the eagle in these arms is not holding a serpent in his [its] talons and a crown has been affixed to the [its] head of the eagle to signify the Empire”
  • “Variants of this flag that appeared in this period also included a naval flag that had the tricolor pattern, but only contained the eagle with the crown above its head.” The pronoun/antecedent issues are so bad that I would rewrite it:
”A naval variant of this tricolor flag also appeared in this period, but it only contained the eagle with the crown above its head” – Even then, the meaning of this sentence is confused. This sentence describes the exact same thing that the previous one does, but it seems to be here to indicate that the naval variant was somehow different. This isn’t merely a poor prose issue—it is a meaning issue.
  • ” The military also used a similar, square, flag, but the eagle was larger than on the national flag.” –Confused meaning. Is the national flag also square, or is it rectangular and the military flag is instead square? Also contains comma errors.
  • “The national flag was officially decreed by Agustín de Iturbide in November 1821 and first officially used in July 1822.” –How can flags be “decreed?” I would rewrite it:
”This design was decreed to be the national flag by Agustin de Iturbide in November 1821, and was first officially used in July 1822.”
  • ” This flag was no longer used upon the abolishment of the empire.” Awkward and I believe improper use of “upon.” Better as:
”This flag fell into disuse after the empire was abolished.” or some other such construction.

There you have it TONY: a random paragraph from a random featured article which has grammatical errors in every sentence. I am confidant that I could extend this exercise across all other featured articles. But I think I have made my point: unfair high standard. Lwnf360 (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Mexico became an FA in 2006, when the FA standards were lower. As you can see, yes, the standards have risen considerably—for the better. As such, new FAs need to meet the current 2008 standard, not the 2006 standard. Lwnf, if you are concerned about other FAs, there's always WP:FAR where they can eventually be delisted. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, needs to be FAR/Ced, although a whole-article assessment would be necessary before doing that, and an attempt to get the article's guardians in there improving it, which probably wouldn't happen without the incentive of FAR/C, damn it. Lwnf, are you going to hang around this room and review nominations? We'd love you to do that: there's a shortage of reviewers and it's a large, continuous task. TONY (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A sub-point of mine, which you seem to repeatedly fail to grasp--I thought at this point I was being blunt enough--is that the word "perfection" or any such synonym does not exist in WP:FACR. I did not want to name names, as it is impolite and in poor taste, but you, TONY, are one of the several individuals who by your own admission are opposed to organized religion. Lo and behold you are nit-picking grammar issues that are minor and beyond the standard in FACR, in an attempt to keep this excellent article from becoming FA. Lwnf360 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, FAC people like you need to consider that article builders do not have forever to spend bringing an article up to FA (We have spent six months on this). If you want to fail this FAC because of some errors in punctuation then you risk eliminating the article builders. If you really wanted to help Wikipedia bring an important article like this to FA (which you have stated that you don't) then you might consider taking about five minutes to go through and actually read the entire article making a list or correcting yourself the (few) errors of punctuation that you see. If this article fails FA because you can not spend any time to help it get there, and I have to go through someone like you to bring up another FA - I will not waste my time doing so ever again. I think that the comments of Lwnf360 are right on target. This article is being held to standards that are currently unwritten in the FAC criteria. If Wikipedia wants to help article builders, it needs to update FAC criteria or provide some helpful editor at the top of the process who will help with prose - you don't seem to want to be that person. NancyHeise (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is asking you to do all the work. I still don't see why you haven't consulted the help of a few external editors to copyedit this. There are lists of copyeditors at both Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members (Don't submit to LOCE, just contact a few individual editors). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 13:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have consulted - the article was reveiwed by the editor of a journal who has a yale.edu email address, who is also a former seminarian with a graduate level degree in Theology (which means he knows a lot about church history). I know his name but I do not have permission to give it here. He supported the article. In addition, before bringing the article to FA this time, it went through a second peer review and we posted a message on the article talk page and at LOCE inviting editors to come and go through. Several did come and made changes directly or posted messages on the talk page not on the tag. NancyHeise (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also would like to point out that Johnbod and Lwnf are not editors of this RCC article in the sense that Xandar and I are. They are FAC reviewers who have supported the article. I respect their opinions and I appreciate their support and help. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing Tony's comments, I went through the article again to check for any punctuation, MoS, or errors in prose - now completed. NancyHeise (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment From my point of view, the article has still following issues:

  • It looks "overreferenced" - I know that it is an unintended result of edit wars, but it means on some places that it is hardly readable and perhaps goes into very deep details
This is not a FAC criteria. There is no violation of Wikipeida policy for having more rather than less references and we have good reason for having more as there are various points of view to consider we must have these references to meet FAC criteria 1c "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge,". We have eliminated useless references all others are necessary and some added in response to FAC reviewers comments on this page. NancyHeise (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other side, many of the references are not exact enough. For example the 3rd sentence "The Church looks to the Pope, currently Pope Benedict XVI, as its highest human authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance." is backed by a long Constitution without saying where exactly (= a page or a paragraph) is the theme described. (Moreover, the wording is not exact: In fact, the "highest human authority" is/should be Jesus, the same as in all other Christian churches; they probably mean the pope as the highest purely human authority.)
The wording is factually correct and encyclopedic. The Church belief that Jesus is its highest authority is covered in the section on "Church" and first paragraph in "Community". NancyHeise (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the sources are not of highest quality/authority. For example Duffy, Saints and Sinners is a book intended for general public, not a scientific/theological study. There are better sources that can be used instead of it. Especially it is not good to use it as a source for dogmatical things (eg. the role of the Pope), because it is about history.
Duffy's Saints and Sinners is one of the most highly respected sources in the world. It is listed as a reference for the Encyclopedia Brittanica article (see above). NancyHeise (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intro: "From at least the 4th century, the Church has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilization." - Should be mentioned, that it was the old unified church, containing roots of both today's RC and Orthodox churches, and not the RCC as defined above in the article.
The "Western" covers this I think; the unified church contained more than "roots" of the RCC. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johnbod, the lead makes no secret about the split - it is enough. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the Western civilization was written also in Asia, Africa and East Europe in the time. But even if we stay in West Europe, the Church was still one, without the Roman/Orthodox distinction. Which is not as it is understood in the most of the article.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The schism is clearly discussed - I disagree that more clarification is needed here. Regarding the history of Western civilization part, this sentence is referenced. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intro: the Great Schism "largely over disagreements regarding papal primacy" seems oversimplified; it was also a cultural, political, liturgical and theological (Filioque!) schism.
The lead can not be required to discuss all details. The Great Schism sentence uses clarifying language "largely over disagreements..." - reader can know all the details by reading the history section. The purpose of the lead is to lead the reader into the article which is what we have done. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intro: "the Church engaged in a substantial process of reform and renewal, known as the Counter-Reformation." Too soft wording from a Middle-European perspective - in my country, the Counter-Reformation was also a mass expulsion of Protestants, wars and uprisings, executions and forced Re-catholisation.
This is all discussed in the history section. No notable events have been eliminated or glossed over. The Counter Reformation regarding the Church organization is properly presented in the lead. The article is about the organization Roman Catholic Church, too often, FAC reviewers have expected us to cover all of European and world history without remembering that we are trying to give reader a definition of the RCC. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without wishing to minimize the Czech experience at all, it was provioked by a political/dynastic struggle, and began many decades after the start of the counter-reformation, when it was winding down in much of Western Europe. But some mention of the Thirty Years War should be made. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but both Reformation and Counter-Reformation were very heavily influenced by politics since their beginning. And it is not only about Czech Kingdom, but also about other countries - France, the Nederlands... The point is that the Counter-Reformation was not only a spiritual renewal, as mentioned in the article, but also a bold political (and consequently military) move. RCC played an important political role, both on its own and as a part of the politics of the European Powers.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is extensively covered in the history section. We can not adhere to FAC criteria if we are to be expected to go into historical details in the lead. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand the idea of the Counter-reformation. The counter-reformation was a movement in the Church which was principally a reforming process. This is how you will see it described in most history texts and in other Encyclopedia articles such as Britannica. Wars occurred during the 16th and 17th centuries in which religion was one factor - but the wars were not a part of the counter-reformation process. They arose from dynastic and other considerations, and often found Catholic nations such as france and Austria on opposite sides. The thirty years war is specifically referred to in the text. The main war the Catholic Church was specifically involved in at the time was the defence of the West from the Turks, re the battles of Lepanto and Vienna - which we have not had space to include. Xandar (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intro: "The Church teaches that it is called by the Holy Spirit to work for unity among all Christians—a movement known as ecumenism" - sounds a bit strange - in fact the modern ecumenism originated in Protestant churches and RCC is not even a full member of the World Council of Churches. It sounds as if the RCC were the main originator and sponsor of the ecumenic movement.
The sentence is factually correct. We are giving reader a definition of RCC. It is very POV to say that RCC is not a main originator and sponsor of ecumenical movement. Catholics might disagree with you on that. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intro: "opposition to its pro-life stance" - should be more clear that there is also a strong internal opposition of the pro-life stance - that is, a better wording would be something like "conflicts about its pro-life stance".
"Opposition to its pro-life stance" correctly includes both internal and external opposition without needed to state both. Also, this is expanded upon in the history section under "Vatican II and beyond". NancyHeise (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chapter Origin and mission: The Origin is worth to be singled out as a separate chapter. From the historical/theological point of view, almost no mention about the different meanings of the word ecclesia (church) in the early Christian literature and about the evolving structures of the early Chriatian community is given here. - Moreover, there is a lot of duplicity with the starting section of History below.
Disagree that there is any duplicity - the only thing that comes close to an overlap is mention of Pentacost as origin of Church. Also, mention of early Church history including evolution of Church structure is covered in History section. NancyHeise (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chapter Origin and mission: It looks like an undue weight on the side of charity. But RCC is a church, not a charity, and the aspects of Word and Sacrament should be stressed more.
Other FAC reviewers thought we did not have enough to say about charity and wanted more. We could not provide more even though charity work is a major part of Church life. We are going to do a separate page and wikilink it in the future because present Wikipedia policy does not allow us to compile our own or translate statistics and this is what we would have to do in order to create a section like this for this article. NancyHeise (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beliefs: The starting sentence "The Catholic Church's beliefs are detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." is not well placed. It souds like if someone would start the definition of democracy with the statement "The rules of democracy are detailed in the Robert's Rules of Order." The Catechism is not the original or full/comprehensive source, but a contemporary try to summarize the most important beliefs in an authoritative way. It should be mentioned very early, that the two main sources of beliefs are Bible & Tradition, plus Magisterium to explain it, and define them.
Disagree. The article is an encyclopedia article and takes an encyclopedic approach to this issue. The reader who wants to know about RCC beliefs is directed right away to the most important book that compiles these beliefs. Thereafter, the article discusses what those beliefs are comprised of including extensive mentions of Bible, Tradition and Magisterium. NancyHeise (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The catechism is the current authoritative manual of catholic belief. This section is not concerned with the history or origins of belief, which are dealt with later. it simply states where authority on present day belief can be found. Xandar (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the New Testament writings found in the Codex Vaticanus..." As far as I know, the Codex Vaticanus has no special place in the RC definition of the New Testament.
This sentence is referenced to Dr. Alan Schreck's "The Essential Catholic Catechism" a Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur declared third party source written by a professor of Theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville. The reference provides reader with the exact quote which includes mention of Codex Vaticanus. NancyHeise (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sacred Tradition consists of those beliefs handed down through the Church since the time of the Apostles." In fact, it consist of those beliefs believed to be handed through the Church since the time of the Apostles. There are very few sources from the time of the Apostles other than NT. Therefore it is impossible to prove that the said beliefs really come from the time.
Added clarifying language to make this clear. NancyHeise (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Magisterium includes infallible pronouncements of the pope..." Seems like a misleading wording; as far as I know, the Magisterium includes both "infallible" and "normal" pronouncements of popes and other bishops.
Again, this is a referenced fact to Dr. Shreck's Nihil obstat book.

NancyHeise (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not every pronouncement of a Pope or bishop are part of the Magisterium. Some bishops were heretics. Xandar (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is alluding to the "extraordinary magisterium" and the "infallible ordinary magisterium". I don't think this article needs to deal with such a subtle point of doctrine. Gimmetrow 03:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the Catechism, Jesus instituted seven sacraments" - a strange statement, the Catechism has no special place in the development of the teaching about sacraments, it only repeates a stable teaching. The number 7 is far earlier, it comes from the Middle Ages.
This is a referenced fact coming directly from the Catechism. If you click on the reference it takes you directly to the Cathechism and gives you paragraph number so you can read it for yourself. I just checked it and the article text is correct. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again you seem to be confusing an overview of CURRENT belief with a historical treatment of how such beliefs came to be. The main purpose of the beliefs section is to state what the Church believes and teaches - not how beliefs arose, or theories about the same.Xandar (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Others are the Byzantine rite, the Alexandrian or Coptic rite,..." Should be indicated, that the list of rites in the sentence is not complete (eg. there is a Mozarabic rite, an early form of the Latin rite not mentioned there).
This sentence comes from the Catechism - it is referenced and if you go there you will see that all releveant rites are mentioned. It would be factully incorrect for us to include Mozarabic if it is not even mentioned in the Catechism as one of the those in communion with Rome. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the Mozarabic rite, like the Use of Sarum in England, the Gallican rite, and other early liturgical variations was liturgical within the Roman Catholic Church; it did not have it's own bishops/patriarchs as the Eastern rites do. The Celtic Church is a different story, but I don't think the article can cover everything. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but the sentence should not look like a full list.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a full list of the groupings among the current Eastern Catholic Churches, is it not? Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a referenced fact that is factually correct and complete and comes directly from the Catechism. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • God the Father, original sin, and Baptism: The title sounds strange - God the Father is not responsible for the original sin in the Catholic belief.
The title is not saying that - it gives a list of what is discussed in each section as evidenced by the comma between each item. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • God the Father, original sin, and Baptism: The content of the paragraph should give less weight on the biblical story of Adam & Eve ("figurative language" even according to the Catechism) and explain more the sense of baptism - it is deeply connected with the Jesus' death and resurrection, which is not mentioned here.
Jesus death and resurrection is directly connected to original sin - we tell the story from the beginning. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jesus, sin, and Penance: Again a strange title - per Catholic teaching, Jesus was without sin.
Remember the comma separating each item. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds not very logical to describe the crucifixion before John the Baptist
We organized each section of Beliefs according to the sacraments since the sacraments are very identifying marks of the RCC. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why there are no mentions of the Jesus' key concept Kingdom of God, understood as the basis for the life of the Church? The whole paragraph looks too much concentrated on sins and not on other important concepts (Salvation, Resurrection...).

:Again, we organized by sacraments please also see discussions of Communion of saints and Body of Christ which also wikilink and cover Kingdom of God. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about this comment and after doing some research I added a couple of sentences to Jesus, sin, Penance section to address this. I think this is a good point and I am glad you brought this up, it really rounds out that section well. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the priest administers absolution, formally forgiving the person of his sins." - According to RCC, it is God who forgives here, not the priest.
I did some research on this and added some text to the Jesus sin and penance section. According to my nihil obstat source, Jesus conferred special authority to forgive sins in God's name upon the apostles. I added wording to this effect and the reference. NancyHeise (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Ego te absolvo.." is (was) I think the phrase - "administers" and "formally" carry the meaning here, but perhaps too obscurely. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an interesting tidbit, the first-person form of absolution is attributed to Thomas Aquinas. (Can dig up a ref if desired). Gimmetrow 03:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Penance helps prepare Catholics before they can licitly receive the sacraments of Confirmation and the Eucharist." Of course, but is it really so important? It can help to other sacraments as well and on the other side, it is not its principal purpose to support other sacraments.
Penance is a major part of the preparation process in the Catholic Church for those preparing for Confirmation and First Holy Communion. It is very appropriate for us to mention this here. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The penance is described in the "modern" (=post-Middle Ages) version; it should be perhaps a bit more general.
No, this section is not the history section, it is intended to give reader a current view of Catholic beliefs and practices, not a history of. Reader has the wikilink to penance if he or she wants more info. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy Spirit and Confirmation: "Through the sacrament of Confirmation, Catholics ask for and receive the Holy Spirit." Is should be more clear that they believe that they receive the Holy Spirit. It is a matter of belief, not a matter of empirical science.
I added clarifying language to this sentence to respond to your comment here. NancyHeise (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to read further, sorry for my bad English.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with most of the points, but have put some quibbles above. Maybe more later, but I keep getting edit conflicts.Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dweller

This page is suffering a very bad case of WP:TLDR, so it could be I'm raising points already mentioned above. However, if I am, it's because they're still outstanding, so...

Object based on:

  • Article cites one scholar as suggesting the Catholic church was founded by Jesus. Now, I'm now religious expert, but I'm sure there are fairly hefty ("notable") opinions that disagree. Fine to include this one, but needs to be balanced. The balancing opinion doesn't need to be lovingly dissected (or rebutted) but omitting it means POV
The article provides the best scholars opinions on all views of the foundation of the Church. Norman, McManners and Duffy are the most respected scholars of various viewpoints - omission of Norman would make the article POV as he represents a significant point of view. The balancing opinion is factually portrayed. McManners is not a church apologist and his view supplements Duffy's lengthy piece. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed the opposing view. I'll review. --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see the problem. That paragraph opens with an opinion about the foundation of the Catholic church, but then goes on to dissect various views of when the Pope's role may have begun. If indeed the institution and the office are one and the same, it should be clarified. If not, the article needs more work than that. --Dweller (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fall of Man / fall of man?
Per WP:MoS we are supposed to capitalize certain religious events like the Exodus or the Great Flood - the Fall of Man falls into that religious major event category thus we capped it. NancyHeise (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I was unclear. I mean that I saw it with both usages in the article. --Dweller (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The messianic texts of the Tanakh make up a small minority of the Christian Old Testament, as a matter of fact, given that the vast bulk of the Tanakh is made up of texts irrelevant to the issue and even in the few arguable texts like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel etc, the messiah is not overtly mentioned and is alluded to occasionally only in the Hebrew text.
You are incorrect on this point. The article text is correct. The Tanakh comprises all the books of Moses, the propets and more - this is the majority of the Christian Old Testament. The sentence does not state that the Tanakh "is" the Old Testament and the clarifying language allows us to use the actual wording. NancyHeise (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it seems I was unclear. Sorry. What I mean is that the vast majority of the Tanakh is not even by the most generous of interpretations, "messianic texts". Yet, because of an ambiguity in the text, it seems that the article is saying the opposite. I thank my stars English has no nominative and accusative suffixes, but in cases like this it would be helpful. You need to reword to show that the subject of the sentence is the Christian OT, not the Tanakh. --Dweller (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that supposed bulk of the OT, the article claims that "God promises to send his people a savior." The claim is referenced, but some verses should be cited. I for one would like to be educated on this point. Again, I think you'll find that this interpretation of a handful of verses is disputed. Describing it as "much of" the OT and and implying no conflict is POV.
    FWIW, I disagree with this point, and hence with Nancy's recent revision. The sentences could perhaps be re-worded, but the point is that messianism is also a Jewish belief: it's not simply Christians who claim that God promises a savior in (um) the messianic texts of the Old Testament. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a wikilink to a very nice wikipage that will help educate anyone who wants to know more. For our article I think it is sufficient to state what Christians believe and not try to add language about what other religions believe. Why? Because we are going to attract a lot of hate mail if we try to make observations about what all the different types of Jews believe in the RCC article - not a good idea! :)NancyHeise (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wikilink is perfect - and very educational to this ignoramus to boot. Struck. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Penance section could do with a link to an article about Confession. No mention made of the Confessional box.
No mention is made because in many churches they don't use a confessional "box". A priest can hear a confession anywhere, no box required. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if not universal, is it not a notable element in the Catholic approach to Penance? --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No because in many churches the priest just sits in a pew and people will come up to him for confession. There are more churches without them in the world (Africa, Asia, remote Latin American churches and those in very poor countries) than with them - you guys watch too many movies. NancyHeise (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If it ain't notable, it ain't notable. Struck. --Dweller (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ensure citations follow punctuation - an example at current number 95
  • This article implies Eucharist and Mass are not the same thing. The Mass article implies they are. Can you help?
The Mass is composed of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Eucharist part of the Mass. The Mass article needs to be changed not ours. I will be happy to work on it after we get through this one. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Struck. --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have great concerns re WP:SIZE. This article crashed my browser. Long articles are excusable (I'm about to nominate one myself) but this is massive and needs a careful but effectual prune, most particularly of the overly long history section. Yeah, it's a long and important history, but summarise it and point people to the daughter article(s) Credit where it's due - I think the authors of the article have handled a number of negative issues sensitively and NPOV in the History section.
The article would be worthless if it gets chopped - no one wants to see that happen. We tried it once already in the last FAC. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's hyperbole. Are you seriously suggesting that not a single sentence could be cut without rendering the article "worthless"? I have to disagree. Strongly. --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that each sentence has been argued over for months - yes I think it would not go over too well with the rest of the community. NancyHeise (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree on the WP:size point. This article is massive. I feel that its size, or rather breadth of content, is justified. However, any change that reduces length without substantially short-changing content should be pursued. Lwnf360 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On size. the article was far shorter before the FACs. You will find, reading the above, that most editors want matter adding. That is why the History section in particular is so large. In order to maintain Balance and DUE WEIGHT, we have to give each historical period and each important event a fair amount of coverage. So if people want extra sections on Latin America, the Reformation, Inquisitions, Liberal and Traditionalist movements, these must be added without reducing the Due Weight given to other notable events. Material is added as concisely as possible, in keeping with fair coverage of the issues. However on many issues there are controversies that require significant detail and which would quickly gather objections if we attempted to gloss over them or redirect to another article. So there is extremely little that could be cut without removing important information or unbalancing the article. Things such as missions, monasticism and architecture may not be as sexy as the Crusades, but they are every bit as important to the history of the Church. Xandar (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article truly cannot be reduced in size to any meaningful extent, then (gasp) perhaps it is one of those articles that just cannot reach FA quality? We can't espouse as the highest possible quality an article that crashes browsers and is much larger than the suggested maximum in our own guidelines. Please can someone calculate the readable prose size of the article at present? --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With thanks to The Rambling Man, who's pointed me in the direction of the nifty tool apparently on every FAC page, which hasn't stopped me from <ahem> not noticing it ever! It's 74K readable prose, which is less than I thought it'd be, but still pretty long according to our guideline. I feel a little less strongly about this now that I realise it's some way short of 100K readable prose (can't believe there's as much as 70K+ that's not, but there you go). Interested in the opinions of others; I'd be prepared to strike this element of my objection if persuaded (as ever) and I'm eminently persuadable now that it seems less of an egregious problem than I thought. --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are those particular titles selected for further reading? Erm... is the bibliography too short?!?
I did not add the titles to the Bibliography but I kept them out of respect for the non-Catholic editor who added them since I felt that maybe these books helped them in some way.NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be easier if I deleted them for you? --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Struck. --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In short, this is a terrific piece of work. Huge, impressive and... not FA quality yet. I may well have made some errors above, especially where my lack of erudition comes in, but, I suspect I've hit at least some bullseyes. --Dweller (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (cont. by Ioannes)

  • Holy Spirit and Confirmation: "To be licitly confirmed, Catholics must be in a state of grace, in that they cannot be conscious of having committed a mortal sin. They must also have prepared spiritually for the sacrament, chosen a sponsor or godparent for spiritual support, and selected a saint to be their special patron and intercessor." - As far as I know, only the first sentence holds. As the following sentence states, in some rites it is possible to be licitly confirmed as a smyll child without spiritual preparation. Moreover the first sentence is too narrow: not only Confirmation, but all other sacraments except Baptism and Penance should be accepted in a state of grace in RCC. I would drop both cited sentences.
I disagree that your suggestions would make the aritcle more factually correct. The article expressly states the differences between Eastern rites and Latin rite in each section of the article. Small children in Eastern rites have their sponsor or godparent and patron saint chosen for them. They are assumed to be in a state of grace already as small children dont often commit mortal sins. This section is just below the description on Latin rite so there's no confusion. NancyHeise (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment about all sacraments requiring state of grace (except Baptism and Penance), this is discussed in Beliefs opening paragraph with a wikilink to help reader understand what this means. We have mentioned this expressly for Confirmation and Eucharist for purposes of emphasis (because the Church itself emphasizes this) and gentle reader reminder. NancyHeise (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Infant baptism in the Eastern rites is immediately followed by the reception of Confirmation and the Eucharist." In fact, it is each and every baptism in the Eastern rite, regardless of the age. With exception of emergency baptisms, as in all rites.
I clarified this in the text by making this clear. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Church, works of mercy, and Anointing of the Sick: "In its apostolic constitution, the Church acknowledges..." There are many apostolic constitutions, should be cited by name.
It now reads "its apostolic constitution Lumen Gentium..." - thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The part about the Catholic social teaching sounds too general and without detailed information. It should be shortly mentioned, who started it, when and why and how it developed.
Those facts are addressed in the history section. The Beliefs section is a summary of Catholic beliefs. Catholic Social teaching is part of those beliefs and is wikilinked for reader to learn more right away - all history is in the history section. Please see additional text added per your next comment. NancyHeise (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Church is known for its staunch opposition to ... capital punishment": The Church State itself administered capital punishments till 19th century, not to speak about the so called Catholic countries. Should be written in a historical perspective. A similar case is the environment, mentioned at the end of the sentence: Only too recently they (and most of us "civilized people") started to think about it in this way. Even the importance of abortion & euthanasia in the RCC propaganda is very recent, it is hard to find these words in the 100+ years old Catholic books .
The sentences are factually correct. They are connected to the discussion about Catholic Social Teaching which is not only wikilinked so reader can learn more right away, it is also discussed in the history section so there is no confusion about when this teaching emerged. I will consider adding a date of foundation in the beliefs section - working on wording. NancyHeise (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::I added wording to clarify that this teaching emerged in 1891 as a result of Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum and provide wikilinks for reader. Also, the article text states "Modern application of Catholic social teaching ..." before going into abortion opposition etc. the text does not hide the fact that it is recent so I dont think the second half of your comment here recognizes that. Regarding Catholic Church administering capital punishments till 19th century - please read the history section. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph in [41]] doesn't seem right. Rerum Novarum is mostly known for the "living wage" philosophy, and its related support for private property and guilds. Notions about the dignity of each person and solidarity of all humans as one family are rather more developments of Pope John Paul II. Opposition to capital punishment grew considerably during his pontificate, too. Gimmetrow 00:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per your comment Gimmetrow, I elimiated my last edit, it is too problematic and off topic to explain the history of Catholic Social Teaching in the beliefs section. If we have explained it in history section, I dont see the need to do it again in Beliefs, especially when it is wikilinked and we state "Modern application of this teaching ....". NancyHeise (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[42] That's better. It was reading as if Rerum Novarum laid out seven themes. Does the article say anywhere that contemporary Catholic opposition to capital punishment is largely based on John Paul II's theology? [43] Gimmetrow 02:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added two new sentences to the second to the last para in Vatican II and beyond to address your comment here. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, enough for today, good night from Europe.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restatement—As I've said before in more than one place, I'll not be intimidated or put off by the rankling and accusations of the supporters of this nomination. Lwfm, whatever it is, you should know better than to call, in effect, the faulty sentences I cited in my latest mini-review, of "professional standard". Have a good look at them, please. And those who think small glitches in prose are not worth worrying about would be the first to complain if there were editing glitches in a movie they'd paid to see. Even micro-glitches.
I expect that'll be TONY above. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Regarding the huge size of the article, I'd recommend significantly trimming the quotes in the references-- my MS Word counts 48000 characters in the section, which I think is some 46 kb; a quarter of the article. (Probably even significantly more than this since it doesn't count the undisplayed, text such as web-addresses.)
  • Check out the Kenneth King link.
  • There's a stray "January 22, 2002" without links: be consistent. Since the article is not American, shouldn't international dates (! January 2008) be used?
  • all–male/all-male?
  • "best reflected in Pope Paul VI's statement"--who says its "best reflected" in that statement?
  • Could those two stubby sentences/paras in the Lay members, Marriage section be merged with the ones preceding them? Looks/reads better.
  • I'm not sure this article addresses the very lay reader (me) yet: The first mention of anything related to the Bible is "founded upon Jesus' biblical command". Yet nowhere before this is it explained what the Bible is supposed to be, nor is it linked (anywhere throughout the article).
  • Link Peter first time
  • Any reason why the Spanish Inquisition is told largely from Edward Norman's viewpoints? The references point to many scholars but both quotes following the intial statement are from him.
  • That paragraph uses the word "inquisiion" eight times in nine sentences, by the way.
  • Why do some of the books in the Bibliography have GoogleBooks links? We aren't advertising them you know. indopug (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:57, 12 June 2008 [44].

Alzheimer's disease

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has undergone a massive copyediting, review, fixes to references, discussions, and MOS fixes. It meets the criteria for WP:MEDMOS, is well-written, comprehensive, utilizes verifiable statements from reliable sources, is neutral and has been stable for two or three months. It should be a Featured Article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Patients will ultimately not be able to perform even the most simple tasks independently. Finally, deterioration of muscle and mobility will develop, leading the patient to become bedridden[38] and to lose the ability to feed oneself[39] I think (per MOS?) that references are supposed to come after punctuation.
  • I also see two {{fact}} tags that need rectifying.
  • Is there meant to be a {{citeweb}} template in the middle of this sentence? "An example of such a vaccine under investigation is ACC-001[190]Study Evaluating Safety, Tolerability, and Immunogenicity of ACC-001 in Subjects With Alzheimer's Disease.." naerii - talk 23:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "for which there is currently no known cure" - you can drop the "currently", it's assumed
  • "with a behavioral assessment and cognitive tests" - "with a....(plural word)" needs a grammar fix
  • The last para of the lead is kinda short... and there isn't much on Social effects. You could beef it up a bit with that.
  • Not sure there's much else to say. That part of the article is so small that I think the lead represents it sufficiently. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the lead. I'll try and get some more done as I get the time. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Hm. Is Heathlink put out by the University of Wisconsin? Might want to put work=Heathlink and publisher=University of Wisconsin for those references.
  • Current ref 47 "Families shed light on likely causative gene for Alzheimers" is lacking last access date and publisher, plus any other bibliographical information.
Can we nominate Pubmed for godhood? (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that would be outside of Wikipedia recommendations, so you would have to do it off-wiki. Sorry.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 99 the Alzheimers Association page "Vitamin E" is lacking a last access date
  • I'm deleting this reference, and the statement. I've done a search on PubMed, and I'm just not finding anything that supports this statement. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 107 "Long-term use of ibuprofen may reduce the risk.." is lacking last access date
  • Same for current ref 108 "Ibuprofen linked to Reduced Alzheimer's Risk Washington Post"
  • Current ref 156 "Study Evaluating Safety, Tolerablity and..." is lacking publisher and last access date at the least, as well as any other available bibliographical information
  • Current ref 169 "Neurological disorders Public Health Challenges" is lacking a last access date
  • Same for current ref 174 "Water sanitation in health..."WHO
  • Current ref 182 "The MetLife Study of Alzheimer's Disease..." is lacking publisher
  • Current ref 189 "Pauli Michelle, Pratchett announces he has Alzheimers'.. is lacking the publisher
  • Current ref 190 "Pratchett, Terry and embuggerance" is lacking last access date
Sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Normally it's good form at FAC to let the person leaving the comments/concerns strike their comments when they feel they have been addressed. But I'm not that picky about it, it looks like you took care of these. Just the first one, which is more a suggestion than a requirement. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, (for now): I have made some minor edits,[45] Please check that I haven't introduced any errors.

  • There is no mention of 24 million sufferers in the body of the article.
  • often initially thought to be caused by aging or stress by the sufferer Is "by" the correct preposition?
  • The second paragraph of the Lead could be split into two sentences.
  • The cause and progression of Alzheimer's disease is not well understood Is it correct to treat cause and progression as singular?
  • Possible causes and potential cures of the disease Cures "of" the disease?
  • before a person fulfills clinical criteria of diagnosis I was tempted to put "the" before "criteria" and in some other places, is dropping them US english?
  • There are some difficult words: visoconstructional, subcapacities, could you help the reader out with these?
  • In the last stage of Alzheimer's disease all human behavior is likely to become entirely automatic. - I'm not sure what is meant by "automatic".
  • Plaques are made of a small peptide (39 to 43 amino acid residues) called beta-amyloid. - Should this be Plaques are made of small peptides, or is there just one per plaque?
  • I wasn't sure about batteries - does it mean "range of tests"?
  • This is hard to understand At present contradictory results in global studies, incapacity to prove causal relationships between risk factors and the disease, and possible secondary effects indicate a lack of specific measures to prevent or delay the onset of AD.
  • drugs commonly given to Alzheimer's patients with behavioural problems are modestly useful in reducing aggression and psychosis, but are associated with serious adverse effects, such as cerebrovascular events, movement difficulties or cognitive decline, that do not permit their routine use. - Is there a contradiction here?
  • This sentence adds nothing to the article: There are also many basic investigations attempting to increase the knowledge on the origin and mechanisms of the disease that may lead to new treatments.
  • The role of metals needs more explanation.
  • The word patients is overused, could we have some more people?
  • There are lots of empty DOI= , (but this is only a minor issue). GrahamColmTalk 15:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments regarding images:
    • Image:Auguste D aus Marktbreit.jpg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.
      Would uploading the version of the picture from Figure 3 of a reprint of a lancet article ( http://alzheimer.neurology.ucla.edu/pubs/alzheimerLancet.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)) work? -Optigan13 (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Memantine.png needs a verifiable source.
    • Image:Alzheimer's disease - MRI.jpg - the policy pages referenced in {{PD-USGov-NASA}} address only information hosted on JSC (Johnson Space Center) and JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) websites. This image is from a GSFC (Goddard Space Flight Center) website (I didn't see an equivalent policy for this prefix). The notice page for this tutorial explicitly indicates that some images are not in the public domain. The tutorial does not appear to claim to be a work of NASA; indeed, the forward introduces the primary author as "a former NASA Goddard employee" (emphasis added). Where is the basis for the claim that this image was created by NASA? Why would the National Aeronautics and Space Administration be creating images pertaining to Alzheimer's? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I'm afraid. In March, I reviewed the epidemiology and left comments on Talk:Alzheimer's disease#A review. The numbers simply don't line up with the sources; the article fails WP:V. I won't repeat that review here but I've checked, and apart from the addition of one sentence and some minor copyediting, none of the facts or sources have changed since then. The problems start with opening sentence of this article, which cites a source I have now been able to get hold of (I didn't have it during my earlier review). The article beings "...Alzheimer's, is the most common cause of dementia, afflicting 24 million people worldwide." The highly respected paper that is cited gave a prevalence figure for dementia. The paper's authors state "We combined the sexes, and focused on dementia prevalence rather than subtypes such as Alzheimer’s disease because most prevalence data was neither gender-specific nor distinguished by subtype." Alzheimer's is the most common form of dementia, vascular dementia is second (though that WP article and this web page says vascular dementia is first in parts of Asia). This is only one of several issues I found with the epidemiology.
In addition to these sourcing issues, I also noted that the article didn't help the reader locate Alzheimer's within the various forms of dementia (the relative prevalence of each kind, different symptoms, different causes, etc). One other warning-sign is the number of sources cited only within the lead. This can indicate the lead is not merely a summary of the body, but has been written independently. That 24 million figure isn't repeated in the Epidemiology section, nor is the global prevalence paper cited later. Colin°Talk 13:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Use en dashes, per WP:DASH, for page ranges, such as at "pages=527-532", "pages=686-694", many in the "The components of a..." paragraph, etc.

Gary King (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • "Short-term memory", a key concept in this topic, is linked to in the lead, and nowhere satisfactorily explained in the article, IMO. The STM article that is relied on opens with this:

"Short-term memory, sometimes referred to as "primary," "working," or "active" memory, is said to hold a small amount of information for about 20 seconds. Estimates of short-term memory capacity vary – from about 3 or 4 elements (i.e., words, digits, or letters) to about 9 elements: a commonly cited capacity is 7±2 elements. In contrast, long-term memory indefinitely stores a seemingly unlimited amount of information."

    • I thought "working memory" had become the more acceptable technical term over the past 15 years.
    • Where did they dredge up the 20-second bit? It's not referenced in that article, and further down there's mention of 30 seconds. I'm more comfortable with a much shorter time-span in defining WM, and there's increasing evidence in any case that the boundary between WM and LTM is rather fuzzy.
    • Miller's 1956 "seven plus or minus two items" notion has been not so much debunked in the past five years as shown to be simplistic. That is, the number depends on quite a few variables.
  • Prose: I'm afraid it doesn't pass muster. Not nearly. Here are my musings from part of the lead.
    • "Gradually the sufferer loses minor, and then major bodily functions, until death occurs." The last three words are odd, and "occurs" is the most redundant part of this phrase.
    • "Although the symptoms are common, each individual experiences the symptoms in unique ways"—Here, "common" means shared across sufferers, I presume. It's going to be taken as meaning "frequent" my many readers initially. And what about "many individuals experience a unique set of symptoms".
    • "The duration of the disease is estimated as being between 5 and 20 years.[6][7]"—What does "is estimated" add when you've provided the refs that contain the estimate? "as being" --> "at".
  • "memory-loss"—unsure that this needs a hyphen. Same for "less-prevalent".
  • "the physician or healthcare specialists will confirm the diagnosis with behavioral assessment and cognitive tests, often followed by a brain scan." Not in Burma or Zimbabwe they won't. Why is one singular and the other plural? A little prescriptive, the "will".
  • "The cause and progression of Alzheimer's disease is not well understood, but is associated with plaques and tangles in the brain." I don't like the "but".
  • This sentence is bad for four reasons: "Possible causes and potential cures of the disease have been conjectured, with varying evidence supporting each claim." TONY (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, ok, needs some work. I will try to copyedit what I can as I go, unless there is something which needs discussion. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In australia, physician usually refers to an Internal Medicine specialist (eg what neurologists, gastroenterologists, respiratory phsyicians etc. are). Dx would be confirmed by a geriatrician, psychogreriatrician or neurologsit here too, and we should note that somewhere. Not sure if it is the same in the US. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would consider withdrawing this FAC, but it won't get attention otherwise. I know there are a lot of comments from Tony, Colin and yourself, but I think they are actionable items, which can be fixed. It deserves to be an FA article, and I think with a week or two of focus from me, you and anyone else I can beg or bribe to help, we can get it close to FAC. In my experience, if we get it close, Tony and SandyGeorgia usually sweep in and do the final tune-up. I have to get my fingernails dirty. If you can help, I'll eat a mushroom. But only one. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok ok, I will try to get in there a bit. Got a nasty cold currently, wet and cold winter here...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images (apologies for any overlap with comments above)

Kelly hi! 00:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:57, 12 June 2008 [46].

Charing Cross, Euston & Hampstead Railway

Self nomination. This article is a sister article to the City & South London Railway article that I successfully nominated for Featured Article status in November last year. Unlike the previous one I haven't taken it through a Good article review first as I have followed the recommendations made for that article in the creation of this. DavidCane (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 55 needs a last access date and the publisher doesn't need to be linked. (Photograph of Euston Road Staton...)
Done --DavidCane (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for current ref 56 (1908 Tube map)
Done --DavidCane (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for current ref 81 "Photograph of Lord Ashfield..."
Done --DavidCane (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a self-published source, I suppose that this is not reliable in the sense defined by Wikipedia, but the quality of the information contained on the site is high and it is produced by people with the first hand experience of working on the system. --DavidCane (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. It really needs to meet the guidelines and policies. Any chance of replacing with another source? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 71 "Clive's Underground line guides ..." is lacking a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable source?
I've changed the ref 71 links to ref 57. The information was available from both, but I was separating date information from name information by using two sources. the CULG site is also self-published but is very highly regarded in the WP:LT as a source of detailed information on-line. I have also linked to it in refs 1 and 46 as it leads to so much other information on the tube that readers may find interesting. --DavidCane (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay. I was unable to check links with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link checker tool does not seem to like punctuation and ampersands in page titles. --DavidCane (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until copy-edited. Particular problems are (1) at the sentence-level—how ideas are integrated into some of the sentences, how commas are used (not enough), and unwieldy snakes, and (2) redundant wording, as pointed out by my colleague above.

  • "The company was established in 1891 but construction was much delayed while the necessary funds were raised and many variations of its route were proposed before work began." This second sentence reads poorly: a comma would help the reader (1891,); too many ideas jammed into it, particularly the last one—its very close relationship to the earlier ideas is unclear.
  • "The inspiration for the promoters of the HStP&CCR was the initial success of the City & South London Railway (C&SLR) which had opened in November 1890 and which had seen large passenger numbers using its trains in its first year of operation." Comma before the first "which"; remove the second "which" as an ellipsis. The old "noun plus -ing" problem: see these exercises in how to fix it. Perhaps here, just change "using" to "on". No, better, just remove "using its trains", since it's redundant.
  • "Although the company had obtained the permission it needed to construct the railway, it still had to raise the capital with which to fund for the construction works." TONY (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't want to sound like Tony's pet parrot, but this article is hard-going. Often two, sometimes three, unrelated ideas are squashed into one sentence and please, where are the commas? Tony is possibly too modest to suggest that you read this: User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Eliminating_redundancy. GrahamColmTalk 19:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Done --DavidCane (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I am the author of both of these and have tagged them as such. The reason they are not currently in SVG format is that I have had major problems getting a properly formatted output from my software in this format. It is something I intend to look into. --DavidCane (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Yerkes002.jpg should have its border removed. Also, it's not clear who the author of the work is or when/where it was first published.

Kelly hi! 22:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The image page gives the source as Catalogue of paintings and sculpture in the collection of Charles T. Yerkes, New York, 1904. It is probable that it was taken from a catalogue published by Yerkes as he intended to leave his collection to the city of New York to establish an art gallery. As it is dated over 100 years ago and is in the public domain in the US it should be acceptable to use it. --DavidCane (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (for the moment):Comment: A few general observations before some specific points.

  • The multiplicity of acronyms is off-putting. Encountering some of these late in the article, I found I'd forgotten what they mean, and had to keep referring back. It's difficult, I know, but there is a real readability issue here.
I agree there's no easy way to get around this, particularly with the complex history of ownership of the line. I've been following the general principle that having to read "Charing Cross, Euston & Hampstead Railway", "Great Northern, Piccadilly & Brompton Railway" and "Underground Electric Railways Company of London Limited", and similar, multiple times throughout the article was tiring. I will have a look through the article and see if any acronyms that haven't been mentioned for a while should be restated in full - assuming that this does not breach any style guidelines.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commas, usually lack of them, is a real problem which again affects readability. Can you get a red-hot punctuation expert, preferably one of those who unfailingly home in on my articles, and get them to do a full scale comma audit? I’ve listed some instances below, but there are more.
  • I was surprised that the article ended where it did, 70 or 80 years ago. I would have thought it worthwhile having a brief section bringing the story up to date. The line still exists – I frequently travel on it – and it has in recent years attracted nicknames such as the Misery Line because of its overcrowded and dilapidated state. It would be useful, too, to have some comparative passenger figures for today.
Like the City & South London Railway article which got FA status last year, I ended the history at the formation of the LPTB in 1933 because the CCE&HR effectively lost its individual identity then. It could be argued that the article should end in 1910 when it was merged into the London Electric Railway or in 1926 when it joined with the C&SLR. There is a separate Northern line article which is linked in the lead that continues the story. I have added a for later history see Northern line at the bottom of the article.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's useful, but I still believe that the article could be better rounded off by a transitional sentence at the end, instead of the present rather abrupt ending. Also, re-reading, in the first line of the article you say "CCE&HR....was a deep level..." etc. This implies it no longer exists. The name has gone, but the line remains, so, surely: "...is a deep level".... Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a legacy section which takes things a bit further including that fact that the Northern line is the busiest on the Underground. I don't think the "is a deep level tube railway" works. From a start as an independent company, it is now completely absorbed within the Northern line from a route point of view and within the Underground system from an administrative perspective. The last sentence of the lead does state that it is now part of the Northen line, so I think it is clear that it has continued as part of that.--DavidCane (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ending is definitely neater. Having, though, introduced the "Misery Line" tag, I suppose you have to cite it! (or quietly drop it). I strongly disagree with you over retaining "was" in the first line. The immediate impression is that the line doesn't exist any more. The article is about an existing, on-going railway that has passed through many phases of development and ownership, but it's still there. It's something which, in terms of the overall presentation of the article, I recommend you reconsider. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Misery line refs added.
But the CCE&HR does not exist any longer. As a company it is defunct in the same way that the Great Western Railway or British Rail are, notwithstanding that the infrastructure remains in use today. I have reworded the introduction to differentiate between the company and its infrastructure. --DavidCane (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you have handled that well. I have struck the oppose & will re-read the article tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to more specific points:-

  • Lead:
    • In an article on a British railway line, miles should be the primary measurement of distance, not kms
    This was discussed in the FA review of the C&SLR here. The reason distances are given in kilometres first is that is what the Underground uses as its native format. --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Northern Line first mention – Line needs a capital letter
    Personally, I agree, but there has been a major debate about the capitalisation of "line" here and here. As a result, in accordance with London Underground style, all the Underground lines' articles are named in the form "XXX line" rather than "XXX Line". --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case, see last word of lead, and your note/references [1], [67], [84] Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Changed to lower case. Thought I'd got all of those.--DavidCane (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The expression "Underground Group" needs explaining – I’ve not met the expression before. The sentence should continue "were (not was) taken into public ownership”
    Done. The Underground Group is another name for the UERL including the buses. I have changed this to UERL.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last sentence of the lead needs clarifying/simplifying
    Done--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Establishment
    • The sentence "On the branch, stations were planned for Euston and Kings Cross" repeats information given a couple of sentences earlier.
    I have merged the two sentences on stations so it's not such a repetition. I want to keep a full list of the stations originally planned here because the subsequent developments in the route add and omit from this. --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Parliament should be capitalised when it refers to the institution. It's OK to say "parliamentary session", however
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comma alerts: needed after "parliamentary session" and "deep-tube railways"
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deciding the route
    • Two sentences for reconstruction:-
      • "On 24 November 1894 notice was published of a new bill seeking…"
      Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "On 23 November 1897 notice was published of a bill to change…"
      Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hampstead Heath controversy
    • Remove definite article from section heading
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I presume "tress" is a typo?
    Damn. Yes. Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The para beginning "A second railway company…" is over-detailed. It isn't necessary, for example, to record that Edgware was in Middlesex but is now in the Borough of Brent. This is irrelevant to the railway.
Shortened. Need to keep some of this in as the E&HR comes up again later.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Construction
    • By now I've forgotten what UERL is, so a reminder would be handy
    • Work continued below ground "for a while". Not encyclopaedic
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More comma alerts: required after "December 1905" and "Lots Road Power Station"
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A semi-colon needed after "MDR". Delete the "and", and continue: "the proposed Chalk Farm…" etc
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comma needed after "construction" in penultimate sentence
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opening: "Gate-men" doesn’t warrant a capital
It was their job title so I have left it in. There was an anachronistic payment of "Gate-man's allowance" made to tube train guards until the 1970s to compensate them for not carrying out that role. --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Embankment 1910-14: awkward use of bullet point here
I have presented it this way so that the creation of a new station stands out from the text and is consistent with the lists of stations in the opening section and the subsequent two sections.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hendon and Edgware: The sentence beginning "With war-time restrictions…" definitely needs dividing into two. It also contains "war time" in both hyphenated and unhyphenated form
Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kennington
    • full stop, not comma, needed after "parliamentary session"
    Done. --DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • acronyms needs sorting out in last para
  • Move to public ownership
    • Morrison deserves a better description than (later MP). He held lots of Cabinet posts in WWII and after.
    I have added that he was Transport Minister which is probably most important for this article as it was he who introduced the LPTB bill. --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • LCC needs direct referencing to London County Council
    Done. --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After several years…" is vague - can it be tightened?
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last sentence: do you mean "From this date" or "On this date"?
    I do. Done. --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article tells an interesting story, but needs considerable polish before FA. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:57, 12 June 2008 [47].

Last of the Summer Wine

Nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel the article is the best quality now it has ever been in and I can think of no further improvements that can be made to further bring it to FA standards. Redfarmer (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The authors of the book source are Morris Bright and Robert Ross. Thus, the abbreviated citation should be something like "Bright and Ross", not "Bright & Morris". BuddingJournalist 13:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • Capitalisation needs to be fixed in the headings, for example "History and Development" needs to be "History and development" and "Supporting Characters" needs to be "Supporting characters". This needs to be fixed throughout.
  • Fixed
  • Overlinking in the infobox. Roy Clarke, James Gilbert, Bernard Thompson, Sydney Lotterby, Alan J. W. Bell and Ronnie Hazlehurst are all linked twice in it.
  • Fixed
  • Single dates like 2008 should not be linked if they are on their own.
  • Fixed
  • Ref 110 isn't formatted properly.
  • Fixed
  • I'm not sure that Amazon is counted as a useable source.
  • I'm more than willing to remove these references; however, are they invalid as a source to the DVD release dates? Redfarmer (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, I can see where you're coming from on that. Fixed. Redfarmer (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Awards and nominations" could be prosified.
  • Done.
Aside from this it looks pretty good. Gran2 14:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
The character section is far too long, and has many unsourced statements. I'd suggest renaming Recurring characters in Last of the Summer Wine to List of Last of the Summer Wine characters, and splitting off some of the character stuff from the main to that list. The table of recurring characters seems excessive and unnecessary when it already has a main list. The DVD release table is also unnecessary, the dates are already in the episode list where they belong. No need to repeat in the main, let the prose standalone. See also section violates the MoS as it repeats multiple links already wikified within the article. The third paragraph of the "Casting" section is missing a citation. The template for this series seems extremely excessive and unnecessary. Everything already wikified from the main, so its just cluttering the bottom of the article. Ditto on the ELs, several of which are already used as sources. The ref section needs tweaking, as Notes are really refs while Refs is also a single ref being used a bunch of times. Refs 12, 36, 76, 84 and 89 all appear to be being used as references, when they are unsourced notes that do not provide actual referencing for their respective statements. Also could use a copyedit. The lead has a rather large run on sentence, and there are some other minor prose issues. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've completed all the suggestions you have given and will continue to look for possible copyedit violations. If you have further suggestions, please let me know. Redfarmer (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still a few statements missing citations: last paragraph in "Filming"; last paragraph of "Documentaries"; last part of the first paragraph of "Spin-off"; the last two paragraphs of "Other media"; . Some other ref problems: Ref 101 - IMDB is not a citable, reliable source. Another source needs to be found. Ref 91 is missing publisher info. Ref 24 is missing date and author information. Ref 7 is missing format note (since it is a Word document). Ref 93 was improperly formatted, but I fixed that one cause I couldn't figure out how to type out what needed fixing and have it make sense. :P All cite books should be using the "ISBN" field not "ID=ISBN" where the ISBN is included, and book citations should at least have the month of publication if the full date isn't available.
  • Nothing wrong with filming; everything referenced from the reference at the end.
  • Documentaries fixed.
  • Spin off fixed.
  • Other Media fixed.
  • Ref 101 replaced with more reliable sources.
  • Ref 91 fixed.
  • Ref 24 fixed with date. However, BBC did not publish the author info for this obituary.
  • Ref 7 fixed.
  • ISBN fixed (that was added by a newbie the same day you did the review :P)
  • Dates fixed. Redfarmer (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few minor MoS issues left as well, particularly in "Other media" where several sentences have the citation before the full stop instead of after. In the minor nitpicky department, where there are multiple refs, they should be in numerical order (so [4][19] instead of [19][4]). :) Has the article been copyedited yet, as both of those should have been caught in that process.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed Other Media. These were done by the newbie the same day you reviewed the article. He's adding good information; he just needs to be coaxed on formatting.
  • Fixed ref ordering. The one you specify was the only one I saw. Redfarmer (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In the filming section Holmfirth is referred to as a village while the linked article indicates a small town. Need to check which is correct. Keith D (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • In the real real real picky department, shouldn't it be "Reference" since only one is listed? (Normally I'd have changed this myself, but wanted to make sure there wasn't some MOS reason or something, just making sure I'm on safe ground here.)
    • Fixed.
  • What makes http://www.summer-wine.com/indexbackup2.htm a reliable source? Looks like a fan site to me.
    • Not a fan site. Official site of the Summer Wine Appreciation Society. Its president, Clive Eardley, has had quite close connections to the show for almost two decades. Eardley and other members of the society have, over the years, received full cooperation from Roy Clarke and Alan J.W. Bell, been granted exclusive interviews with the cast, been the first to receive news on Summer Wine, and been granted exclusive on-set access during filming. They have often been the only source of news for what is happening on set during filming.
Okay, so it's a official site of a fan club? Still, we need something a bit more to show it's reliable.Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The story of the society can be found here. Clive Eardley is used as a source by the Huddersfield Examiner here and here. The society is given coverage by the Summer Wine Exhibition, a project supported by cast member Tom Owen here. The late Ronnie Hazlehurst trusted them with the production and distribution of a "best of" collection of his Summer Wine themes[48], which was distributed in commercial shops for a time. Not only are all of the cast members of the society, but the BBC asks the society for advice in filming new episodes. These are the guys you go to when you want information on Summer Wine. They're the ones who get the exclusives from the cast and crew (such as interviews with Tom Owen, the late Brian Wilde, Peter Sallis, Norman Wisdom, and Robert Fyfe, because they're trusted. Redfarmer (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.phill.co.uk/index.html a reliable source?
    • You're right on this one. Replaced with a more reliable source.
  • Current ref 11 "British TV Comedy: Last of the Summer Wine" is lacking a publisher.
    • See above.
  • What makes http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/index.htm a reliable source?
    • Once again, you're right on this one. I'm removing the information this referenced for now since I can't find a more reliable source.
  • What makes http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/ a reliable source?
    • TVShowsonDVD.com is a news source for DVD releases and is quite accurate. They originally garnered attention when their pressure--both from them and their readers, was largely responsible for causing Fox to release Family Guy on DVD (back after it was canceled the first time). They now have connections to many of the major distributors. Redfarmer (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, I should add, they were recently acquired by TV Guide.
that works. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay. Links all checked out with the link tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the feedback. Please let me know if you see anything else. Redfarmer (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion I am not sure in how far this is necessary in the first place, but I'd like to see the same refs combined into one via the <ref name=bright_ross_24>Bright and Ross (2000), p. 24</ref> and <ref name=bright_ross_24 /> way. This would cut down on a lot of redundance in the Reference section. – sgeureka t•c 15:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only problem with this is that almost all of the references are referring to different page numbers in the book, making this impractical and impossible. Redfarmer (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've simplified what I could, which is not much. Redfarmer (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've done exactly what I meant. I'll give the article a closer look over the next couple of days as time permits. – sgeureka t•c 17:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose for criterion 1a (prose). I encourage you to read the awesome User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (it was a big help in my first FAC), because redundancy and awkward prose including comma overuse are the weekest point of the article. Still, take everything I noted below with a grain of salt; I happen to mess up at times too. I have only read through the intro, the production section and the characters section, but I'll review the rest as soon as the article got a copyedit throughout, which will probably take you a few hours but it's worth it (i.e. the prose issues are not unfixable).
– sgeureka t•c 05:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Intro: too many "and"s in the first sentence (better make it two sentences); I don't know what the MOS guideance is for a hyphen between "National Television Award" and "winning". Being totally unfamiliar with this show, I'd also like to see a mention in the first sentence that the show has been ongoing since 1973 (or whatever) just for context (moving the last sentence of the first paragraph there could solve this).
    • "a trio of older men, the lineup of whom has changed over the years, but originally consisted of the scruffy..." -> "a trio of older men, whose lineup has changed over the years. The original lineup consisted of the scuffy...."
    • "Although the cast was originally centred around a handful of people, it has, since the 1980s, grown to include an ensemble" -> "The cast has grown from a handful of people to an ensemble... since the 1980s"
    • "and by members of the British Royal Family, many of whom have admitted to enjoying the show.[8]" -> "Many members of the British Royal Family have admitted to enjoying the show.[8]"
    • History and development: "doing a sitcom, which Clarke readily agreed to." -> "doing a sitcom, to which Clarke readily agreed."
    • "The idea Clarke was presented with from the BBC was of a programme centred around three old men. Clarke initially felt no enthusiasm for the concept and, at one point, almost turned it down." -> "Clarke felt no enthusiasm for BBC's idea of a programme centred around three old men, and, at one point, almost turned it down."
    • "Clarke wanted the title of the series to be The Last of the Summer Wine to reflect the fact the characters were in the summer of their lives as opposed to the autumn, even if, for them, it was the last of the summer." -> "Clarke chose the title The Last of the Summer Wine to reflect characters being in the summer of their lives as opposed to the autumn, even if, for them, it was the last of the summer."
    • "Shortly before production began, Clarke reverted to his previous idea of the show being titled The Last of the Summer Wine.[4] The title was shortened to Last of the Summer Wine after the pilot.[12]" -> "Shortly before production began, Clarke reverted to his initial idea for the show title,[4] which was shortened to Last of the Summer Wine after the pilot.[12]"
    • Filming: "Eventually, under Alan J. W. Bell," has the word "completely" twice
    • Music: "The theme for the series was composed by..." contains the word "compose" and its variations three times
    • "Although normally played instrumentally..." contains the word "although" twice
    • Characters and casting: the first paragraph has Sallis's name too often, and I guess some sentences and subsenteces can be combined
    • "It was James Gilbert's idea..." contains the word "idea" twice
    • Guest appearances: "the original dialogue packed discussions" -> "the original dialogue-packed discussions"
    • "and a need was felt to bring in guest actors to give the trio new situations to respond to." -> "and guest actors were brought in to interact with the trio in new situations."
– sgeureka t•c 20:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented all of your suggestions and have been proofreading based on the article you suggested. Thanks and cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck the oppose for now as the changes/improvements seemed significant, but I'll need to read over the article with a closer eye before I can support. – sgeureka t•c 11:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last batch of comments
    • Plot: Mention the names of the trio again in the first sentence. Some people (like me) who don't know the characters and like skipping around in the article need the names for context.
    • "The focus of Last of the Summer Wine is the trio of older men..." -> "Last of the Summer Wine focuses on the trio of older men"
    • "attempts at carrying out an affair without Howard's wife, Pearl, finding out" - too many commas, very confusing grammatically
    • "and their theories of men and life they discuss over tea" - the last four words don't really fit with the flow of the sentence
    • Episodes: "Series 28, which concluded in September 2007, had ten episodes." - why is this sentence important? The article already says "Each series of episodes has between six to twelve episodes."
    • "A 29th season is currently in production to air in 2008." - the "currently" can be dropped
    • Specials (this whole subsection needs a little more copyedit attention): "This was followed up with Christmas specials in 1979 and 1981. " -> "Other Christmas specials followed in 1979 and 1981." or combine with the former or the following sentence.
    • "Some years specials are the only new episodes made when a new series is not ordered." -> Awkward sentence. Maybe write "Specials (may) constitute the only new episodes in the years without an order for a new series." or something else
    • "In 1995, the first New Years special..." - put the year at the end of the sentence. Also, something must be wrong with the year since it "aired on January 1, 1995."
    • "One additional New Years special would be produced. It was broadcast in 2000..." - combine the sentences
    • Films: "The BBC, however, had never commissioned a film based on a comedy series before for original broadcast on television." ->(?) "The BBC, however, had never before commissioned a film based on a comedy series for original broadcast on television." (move the word "before")
    • "The network initially displayed skepticism of the idea. They were eventually convinced and commissioned..." -> "Despite initial skepticism, they commissioned..."
    • "The plot centered around the marriage of Seymour's niece, Glenda (Sarah Thomas) to Barry (Mike Grady). " - either put a comma after "(Sarah Thomas)" or move Barry before "Seymour's niece"
    • DVD releases: "(for example, series one and two are grouped together, series three and four, etc.)" is not necessary I think, or you can add "consecutive"
    • "and a fourth is in production." - comma before that
    • "The third collection, Last of the Summer Wine: Vintage 1976, was released in 2008, focuses " - one "was" too much
    • "A fourth release, Last of the Summer Wine:..." has the words "release" and "released" in it, which is a little awkward
    • Spin-off: "First of the Summer Wine was not filmed in Holmfirth like its mother show. " - then where?
      • Not fixed. No one knows. There's not a lot of secondary sources on FOTSW, so any mention of filming locations other than it not being in Holmfirth would, at this point, be OR. Redfarmer (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "New supporting characters were added to round out..." ->(?) "New supporting characters rounded out..."
    • "it has been broadcast internationally[82] and on UKTV Gold.[80]" - I'd switch UKTV Gold and internationally
    • "The series was cancelled after only two series of thirteen episodes in 1989." - think about removing the word "only" to avoid POV
    • Stage adaptation: "The plot of Howard and Marina was based, in part, on an early subplot..." -> "The plot of Howard and Marina was partly based on an early subplot...". This also seem to be a run-on sentence, so consider splitting, and maybe combine with the following sentence
    • "Despite their efforts, he trio were well aware of their affair." - typo
    • "In 1985 the show was once again" and the following sentence both use the phrase "once again"
    • "Waller did not return, and Robert Fyfe was recast as Howard." -> "Since Waller did not return, his character Howard was recast with Robert Fyfe."
    • "It was not believed the new characters would be carried over to the television series. This changed when Roy Clarke included the new characters in four of the following six episodes of the 1985 series." -> "Although the new characters were not intended to be carried over to the television series, Roy Clarke included them in..."
    • Other media: "The novel... The novel... The novel..."
    • "Clarke later adapted The Moonbather into a stage play by Roy Clarke, and was first performed by the Scunthorpe Little Theatre Club from October 7 to October 11, 2003.[87]" - Clarke was performed?;-)
    • "The CD was released under the name "Last of the Summer Wine: Music from the TV Show".[90]" -> the title should be this, not "this".
    • Reception: "The BBC has wanted to find a reason ..." uses the word "appeal" twice
    • The Reception section has two very short paragraphs (or actually sentence-paragraphs) that should be combined with other existing paragraphs. The section currently has a little bit of a trivia feeling
      • Fixed the short paragraphs. I agree it sounds trivia-ish, but these are things the media has covered with regards to LOTSW. Omitting them would be omitting a part of secondary source coverage. Redfarmer (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • General: You should run a spell-check over the article for American and British English. For example, the article says both "centres" and "centers". The word "philosophize" may also need to be changed to "philosophise", or "favourite" to "favorite" etc. depending which English standard gets used in the end
    • When you start a sentence with "In 19xx", decide if you want to put a comma after it or not
    • The article uses a passive sentence structure followed by "by" quite often ("The cat was killed by me"). This can sometimes be improved by turning it into an active sentence ("I killed the cat").
    • Some people prefer to have refs like this[1][2] instead of[1] this.[2]
      • Question: Is this a must? There are some points in the article where references could get very cluttered if this is adopted. Redfarmer (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a must(?), and I personally don't care. I however know that other editors care, but I can't speak for them since I haven't found anything in the MOS or related pages. This was just one of the things that I've repeatedly seen brought up in other FACs(?). – sgeureka t•c 07:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't check the sources, but the article makes several evaluations by saying that something "proved a success". I'm just saying in case this is OR.
      • Not Fixed. Not OR. This is only stated where the source backs it up. Redfarmer (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
– sgeureka t•c 23:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless stated above otherwise, all suggestions have been implemented. Redfarmer (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although the article still has half a dozen or so prose hickups (which I was not able to fix for various reasons), I think the prose is now good enough for FA status. It can't hurt to ask another editor for a new copyedit though. – sgeureka t•c 20:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink dates in references so they are formatted, per WP:CITE/ES
    • Which refs are you referring to? The only ones I can see where the date is not Wikilinked are books, which have specific instructions on the template page not to Wikilink the release dates. Per the instructions: "date: Full date of publication edition being referenced, in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 2006-02-17. Must not be wikilinked." Redfarmer (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Starring" in the infobox, what do the --- represent? Perhaps replace with either just a line break or an em dash?
    • Done. The dashes represented the three different screens the credits are listed on during the opening credits. I can see where this would be distracting so I've taken your suggestion and formated using breaks instead. Redfarmer (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove extra space in " Wine [28]"
  • missing a period in "Burt Kwouk[4]"
  • Ensure spelling is British. "ization" is American. So is "traveled". So is "anymore". And "skeptic".

Gary King (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—Sorry, poorly written. This needs thorough surgery before resubmission. Here's just one portion as an example, with a multitude of issues I could analyse:

In 1972, then-head of BBC Comedy Duncan Wood watched a programme called The Misfit, written by Roy Clarke. Clarke impressed Wood with his ability to inject comedy into the script at the same time since The Misfit was supposed to be a drama. He approached Clarke and inquired about his interest in doing a sitcom

TONY (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Could you be more specific about what you don't like about this paragraph? I wouldn't be here if I could see what you're seeing about the article. Redfarmer (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly hi! 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks for the catch. Redfarmer (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, there are lots of issues with the prose. I realize you may not readily identify the current issues, but frankly, that is the primary reason for a substantive peer review before coming to FAC. Additionally, my random source spot-check was not promising: You can't use a primary source for a statement like "... the longest-running sitcom in the world." Random prose issues:
    • "Brian Wilde replaced Bates as the quirky war veteran Foggy ..." Illogical, since Bates did not play Foggy.
    • "The cast has grown from a handful of people to an ensemble ..." A handful of people is an ensemble. Your description of the show from the start is the very definition of an ensemble cast.
    • "Although reception of the series is mixed, with some feeling ..." Avoid the "with <noun> <verb>-ing" construction.
These were just in the lead; Recommend withdrawing to work with a copy-editor and get a good peer review. --Laser brain (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I've tried to get peer reviews and copy edits before with absolutely no results, so you can understand if I'm a bit skeptical of the peer review system. I've plead with editors to help me the past six months and only recently have I had other editors making substantial edits to the article. I've opened two peer reviews in the last six months only to have both closed, one with no comments and the other with only an automated bot list. I've received more feedback from this FAC then I have from any other method in the last six month. Redfarmer (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might find peer review improved since you last tried it. There is now a volunteer list where you can locate people interested in reviewing/editing by topic. I do empathize, but FAC is not the place to bring articles up to par. I recommend you withdraw until it is ready. --Laser brain (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how is a documentary on the show a primary source? Redfarmer (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How would I know it's a documentary? You used the {{cite episode}} template but didn't provide much information so I assumed it was a special episode of some kind. If it's produced by the same company that produces the show, it's a primary source. --Laser brain (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to my reading of WP:PSTS, a documentary about the programme is a secondary source. It "draw[s] on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview" Bluap (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:06, 10 June 2008 [49].

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

previous FAC (19:18, 1 June 2008)


Self-nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has reached at least Good Article status, and I believe it meets the criteria for FA, including relevant images, and has clear well-written layout, and reliable references. I also believe I've done the necessary cleanup from the previous nomination in order to make this one more successful. --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Simply too many reasons. Poor prose, poor references, lack of information, poor layout, and so on. Please check the FA criteria and withdraw this to work on it. To be more specific, Google Books lists 225 books with limited preview (meaning you can freely read them online) that mention "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre'. For such an important film, you need to do lots of research using books. You can't rely on online sources for this type of topic. Since the movie is usually spelled "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", there are 630 books listed with preview. New York Times, one of the best sources available, has 114 results. There are many other sources you can use to expand this into what it should be. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The following images need correct fair use information: Image:TheTexasChainSawMassacre-poster.jpg and Image:Leatherfacenumber1.jpg
  • "by critics, [1] which" — space
    The above happens several times. Remove spaces before references.
  • "$83,532[7]" — missing a period?
  • "brutality" [11]." — reference goes after punctuation
  • An extra line before "Box office" section

This was rushed quickly back to FAC after it was withdrawn. Take your time and work on it. Gary King (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I'd like to see the article featured, but at the moment, it is not cut out for FA status, if only for the reason that it is too short. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose I say this reluctantly, as I'm a big fan of TCM and I'd like to see it become featured, but there is still a lot of work to be done. I recommend you look at the article for Halloween (1978 film), a featured article, and maybe you can try basing your work off this.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article has been re-nominated too soon and the comments made and advice given at its previous FAC have not been fully reflected on. GrahamColmTalk 20:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was this re-nominated only five days after it was archived? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - too little was changed from the previous nomination. --Moni3 (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Surely there's loads more info not in the article. The prose isn't very good. Wackymacs pretty much said it all. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not saying that this article meets FA status, can some of the above voters please clarify their reasons for opposing? Voters are meant to clearly identify why an article doesn't meet FA status, and only some have done so. I count four votes above I deem invalid, given their vagueness. To clarify;

  1. "I'd like to see the article featured, but at the moment, it is not cut out for FA status, if only for the reason that it is too short" - This vote is simply invalid at the moment. "Too short" has never been a valid reason to oppose an article, and it'd be great if FAC voters began to realise this. If we're judging merely by length, then both the songs I got to FA ("Eyes of the Insane" and "Jihad (song)") are "too short". The only reference to length in the FAC criteria is criterion 4, which states "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". To make this vote valid, it'd have to reference criterion 1b which says "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details", and then clearly identify which facts or details have been neglected.
  2. "There is still a lot of work to be done." - What work? What specific problems need to be addressed? What aspects of the criteria have yet to be met, and why?
  3. "The article has been re-nominated too soon and the comments made and advice given at its previous FAC have not been fully reflected on." - I'm not aware of any FAC criteria saying that an article being renominated too soon can be opposed for that reason. Also, this is a separate FAC, so which advice from the last FAC wasn't addressed? Prose issues? Comprehensiveness issues? Please be specific.
  4. "Too little was changed from the previous nomination" - And in making your oppose, which criteria are you referring to here? None whatsoever. In making your oppose, please state which specific criteria isn't met and why.

In future, can the above FAC voters please be specific, and actually say specifically what is wrong? You wouldn't want such vague comments at your FAC nominations, so please don't be so vague in other FACs. For FAC nominators, this can be rather tiring. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was, I thought, specific during the first FAC. It seems rather a waste of time to be even more specific if nothing is going to be changed and my requests ignored. But let me go into more detail now. This film is the first widely released, and perhaps most famous "splatter" film, one of the most influential horror films of all time. Though it had a shoestring budget and was panned when released, its impact on the history of moviemaking has proven to be influential by its use of shocking gratuitous violence, which allowed other horror films with bigger budgets to come after.
I just improved a film article to FA status: Mulholland Dr. I would say that Mulholland Dr. has a much more ambiguous meaning than Texas Chain Saw Massacre, but as of yet, not as great an impact. Therefore the majority of discussion in the article I edited is about the meaning of the film. The areas you would have to expand would be production, a full character description of Leatherface, and an entire section on the film's impact or legacy. Trips to the library are going to have to be made. Reading scholarly film journals will have to be done. Like I said in the previous FAC if you love the film, that shouldn't be a chore. --Moni3 (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for all you comments, you've been a great help. I'm basically doing work on this article on my own, and nobody really seems interested in helping me, so excuse me if one person cannot make all the difference. I'm trying my best to make it a great article, and hardly anybody seems to want to help me. If you want to remove this FAC again, go ahead. I will not dispute the fact that it could still use some work, but if it's only one person doing the work, I doubt it'll ever reach FA status. It would be nice if somebody could help me out. I've asked around, but nobody seems to be responding. Maybe I'll stick with the GA class, probably for the best. Who am I to give my opinion? Anyway thanks, for your comments, I'm sorry I renominated so quicky, I just thought I did a lot during that time. Obviously I didn't. Well, thanks anyway guys, --EclipseSSD (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can find useful tips for how to locate volunteer help at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:06, 10 June 2008 [50].

London

previous FAC withdrawn
previous FAC 2
previous FAC 1

Self Nomination Hi there, I've been working on this article for some time now, and also have had it gone through Peer Review, located here. I think it meets the FA criteria, and would be happy to make changes to it if you don't agree. The Helpful One (Review) 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename 'Sister Cities' to 'Sister cities'
  • move 'Further reading' to after 'References'
  • "# ^ [1] Green City Walks in London. Retrieved on August 17, 2007." — unformatted reference
  • Done Removed the sentence and reference bsrboy (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "^ London School of Economics and Political Science. London School of Economics accessdate=2008-04-28." — broken
  • "^ London in its Regional Setting (PDF). London Assembly. Retrieved on [[August 16, 2007]]." — bad link
  • In fact, the above happens to several references. Fix them please.
  • Placement of ref is incorrect at "Business Week's D-School list"
  • Done removed the paragraph as it doesn't add much useful information, nor is it correct bsrboy (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use en dashes per WP:DASH for numerical ranges such as page numbers, including "61-64"
This still needs to be done, if it hasn't already. Gary King (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "London , Kodachrome " — extra space
Where abouts is this in the article? bsrboy (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This must have been removed after I made this review. Gary King (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

  • "Demography" → "Demographics" per WP:CITIES Nevermind, I'm more familiar with American city articles, as you can tell. Gary King (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some more:
Not done yet. An en dash is this: "–", which you can generate using – or {{ndash}}. Gary King (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spaces needed for "1666.[40]This", "city.[41]A ", "Canary Wharf.[143]Soho ", and at least half a dozen other spots. - Done --The Helpful One (Review) 22:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gary King (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gary King (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capping comments. I made some minor fixes, also. Gary King (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: perfect article --Andrea 93 04:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adacore (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I've never written any comments on a FAC before, so forgive me if I don't do this right. I did a quick read through and seem to have generated quite a few mostly minor points...

  • The second paragraph of the lead begins "It is". I'd suggest changing this to "London is" then switch the usage of "London boasts" in the second sentence to "It boasts". Or, if you don't like having two consecutive paragraphs beginning "London is", how about "One of the world's leading business, financial, and cultural centres,[15] London's influence..."
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Rise of modern London", I'd prefer a word other than flattened to describe the WW2 bombing, perhaps destroyed. Just look at the picture - definitely not flat.
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Local government", I don't like "The administration of London takes place in 2 tiers". Suggest "is formed of two tiers". Note also that as a number less than 10, two should be written out.
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the detail on the British/European/Commonwealth parliamentary systems in the second paragraph of National government is relevant to an article on London.
Done -- Removed. The Helpful One (Review) 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really like the first line of Scope. It should be made clear that the geographic definition of London's boundaries is being discussed, not some other form of definition. It also says "the situation was once even more ambiguous", without making it clear that it is at all ambiguous now.
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in Scope, shouldn't it be "the Square Mile"?
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume that the second paragraph in the Districts section should start "The City of London" and some well meaning editor has changed this to just London, which makes the paragraph seem very out of place.
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The eastern side of London" doesn't sound right to me. Do cities have 'sides'? To me a 'side' implies a boundary, not a region. I suppose New York does, so maybe this is ok.
Done Changed to region. --The Helpful One (Review) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Demography: "...its wider metropolitan area has a population of between 12 and 14 million depending on the definition of that area."; drop "of that area." Perhaps change to "definition used."
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Ethnic Groups, why not simplify "by about six to four" to "by about three to two"?
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Religion, I'd say "Religious practice in London is lower" rather than just "Religious practice is lower" to make clear the article is referring to London as a whole, not one of the aforementioned Cathedrals or Abbeys.
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Economy, "London stock exchanges have had approximately 20% more initial public offerings in 2006." Remove "have", or update.
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Economy - as a tourist destination London is second only to Paris in what context? Most popular city in the world? This should be clarified.
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Parks and Gardens, I'm surprised that Regents Park makes reference to Sherlock Holmes and Madame Tussauds but not to London Zoo, which is, I would think, both the most relevant and the most important attraction nearby. I'd remove the Holmes reference, since it's mentioned in the Literature section.
Done The Helpful One (Review) 19:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leisure and entertainment says just "Selfridges" but "Harrods department store". I'd assume that if people don't know Harrods is a department store, they certainly won't know that Selfridges is. It should probably also say "London is home to designers Vivienne Westwood..."
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely certain that ballet should be in the Music section. Maybe it could be moved up to "Leisure and entertainment", perhaps mentioned alongside Covent Garden, where the Royal Ballet is based, with the Coliseum (but not Sadlers Wells) nearby for ENB.
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a similar theme, a seperate theatre section might be merited - West End theatre is certainly famous enough and at present there's only a passing reference. Alternatively it might be an idea to strip down the Music section and assume that people can follow the link to Culture of London.
Not sure if required/what you mean --The Helpful One (Review) 20:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Sport, why does Twickenham give a capacity while Wembley does not?
Done - and cited the addition. The Helpful One (Review) 19:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Sport, I really don't like "London Towers are the most recognisable name to experience the rise and fall". In fact, the basketball part in general seems far too extensive in the context of the rest of the article and the relative lack of the sport's popularity in the UK.
Done - Removed Basketball from Sport. The Helpful One (Review) 19:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Transport - possibly personal style, but I don't like starting sentences with "However".
Done changed the full stop into a comma. What about starting a sentence with "although"? bsrboy (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Railways, "Over three million journeys a day are made on the Underground network, around nearly 1 billion journeys are made each year." Drop one of "around" and "nearly", drop the second "are made".
Done, dropped "around" per the reference. Reference was for 2003, so it might have gone up (or down). A new reference would be great. bsrboy (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Air, "to the disapproval of residents near to the airport and to its take-off and landing corridors" doesn't scan well. Either rephrase or remove completely, I'd suggest removal.
Done Removed. --The Helpful One (Review) 20:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a bit of overlinking of universities in Education, and the paragraph about Imperial comes in before it is mentioned as an 'other university', then later on Imperial's leaving the University of London is mentioned. It generally seems a bit mixed up, I suggest a rejig of the whole section.
  • Also, education makes very little reference to the Primary and Secondary education in London and problems faced by inner city schools. Perhaps this isn't in the article scope though.
Not in required scope - AFAIK. The Helpful One (Review) 20:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, not exactly experienced at this, so if anything above is silly just ignore it. Adacore (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a hide to the done comments. --The Helpful One (Review) 11:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have unhidden these comments. Do not hide the comments of other users; allow them to decide whether you have addressed their issues. BuddingJournalist 13:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. --The Helpful One (Review) 14:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I think all my concerns (except perhaps the disorder in the universities part of the education section) have been addressed, I think the referencing/sourcing problems mentioned by others are too bad to merit a support, so I must regretfully oppose. I might have a look at fixing the referencing myself at some point if nobody else does it, but I can only really do that properly when I'm back in the UK, which won't be for a couple of months. Adacore (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Double check that all web site references (including pdfs) give a last access date and publisher - Done The Helpful One (Review) 22:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double check that all book references give page numbers and any other bibliographical details, including author, publisher, and ISBN when known. - Done The Helpful One (Review) 21:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double check that all website references give a title for the web link, not just a number - Done The Helpful One (Review) 21:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linck checker tool shows a few dead links. - Done The Helpful One (Review) 21:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When that's all double checked, I'll come back and check the sources for reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link checker tool still shows broken links. BuddingJournalist 13:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now, one link will work tommorow AFAIK, when the server comes back online. The Helpful One (Review) 14:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments about sources and references:

I'd like to point out the HEAVY reliance of this article on online sources, to the exclusion of much more reliable printed works. There are a number of printed histories of London that should have been used in preference to some of the websites for the history section. There is no requirement that everything be available online. We want reliable sources, and often times that means they need to be printed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on the sourcing. I don't think I've ever done this. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: please see the instructions at WP:FAC, remove the graphics, and refrain from breaking up or adding to someone else's post. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The second paragraph in Districts is more economy based. Some of this should be moved into the economy section. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks like a great article from where I'm standing --Thanks, Hadseys 11:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose I skimmed through some of the sources used, and what I found in my few minutes of looking is rather troubling.
Done, http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/english/ bsrboy (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, http://www.londonnet.co.uk/ln/guide/resources/history.html and http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/timeline/romanbritain_timeline_noflash.shtml bsrboy (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/English/EventsExhibitions/Permanent/medieval/Themes/1033/1035/default.htm bsrboy (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This reference is used 16 times, bsrboy (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/English/EventsExhibitions/Past/MissingLink/Themes/TML_themes_Lundenwic.htm
  2. http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/English/Collections/Onlineresources/RWWC/themes/1295/1288
I'm having trouble locating this within the article. Could you point me in the right direction? bsrboy (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the Districts section, first section, first sentence, directly after: "London's vast urban area is often described using a set of district names (e.g. Bloomsbury, Knightsbridge, Mayfair, Whitechapel, Fitzrovia)." The Helpful One (Review) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference gives a long list of places and their translations, so it doesn't really back up what the sentence says. Seeing as a reference is very difficult to find for this I propose we change it to "London's vast urban area has districts that are not technicaly districts in the England district system, but have special characteristics or are very well known." Something like that perhaps, although I question the need for this sentence in the first place. bsrboy (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, http://www.gardenweb.com/zones/europe/hze1.html.The Helpful One (Review) 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is a random unsourced map from a gardening website a reliable source? BuddingJournalist 19:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "London is a major centre for international business and commerce and is one of three "command centres" for the world economy (along with New York City and Tokyo)." Lacks page number. Sassen's classification is up for scholarly debate. Many would argue there are more than three "command centres" for the world economy.
  • "According to the dictionary definition[78] of 'the seat of government', London is not the capital of England, as England does not have its own government, however according to the wider dictionary definition[79] of, 'the most important town...' and many other authorities[80][81] London is properly considered the capital of England.[82]" So many problems in this odd and confusing sentence. The dictionary definition? Comma splice. And I'm sure a junior high school's web page is a great authority on this subject. - Done, made clearer and changed the reference to http://www.great-britain.co.uk/london.htm The Helpful One (Review) 18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncited statistics in the Demography section. - Done Cited. The Helpful One (Review) 18:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC) BuddingJournalist 12:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many problems with this article. Below are a small sampling of them. Fixing these alone will not bring the article up to standard. This is a large, complex subject that will require lots of effort and time to clean up. Since FAC is not a peer review, I'd suggest withdrawing this article for now and working with a bunch of interested editors to bring this up to standard. Go through line-by-line, examining prose and sources.
  • Oppose per Ealdgyth and BuddingJournalist; too many reliable sources issues at this stage (and the prose could do with more work too). giggy (:O) 01:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long are FAC's allowed to be open for? I know there is this sourcing issue, but how long are we allowed to keep the FAC open for to fix the problems?? The Helpful One (Review) 16:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:45, 10 June 2008 [51].

Pilot (30 Rock)

Self-nominator - I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have successfully brought this article to Good Article status. I feel that I have brought this article to an even higher standard since it became a Good Article. I have compared this article to similar Featured Articles (at their time of promotion), such as Pilot (House) and The Last Temptation of Krust and I believe that this article is of the standard of those similar article. If this article currently does not meet the FA standards, i'll happily make changes. Jamie jca (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see no major problems. Looks well written and referenced. Support. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comments

  • Numerical ranges need to use an en dash, per WP:DASH; an example is: "18-49"
  • "until August, 2006 when" — unlink lone months and years per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
  • "filmed in March, 2006." — same deal as above

Gary King (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Jamie jca (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Needs some polishing. Some examples of problems:
  • "Pilot" is the first episode of the first season of the American situation comedy 30 Rock, which premiered on NBC on October 11, 2006 in the United States.[1] It aired on October 10, 2006 on CTV in Canada[2] and October 11, 2007 in the United Kingdom.
Strictly speaking, it didn't premier in the US; it premiered in Canada (assuming those dates are correct).
  • Fey, as well as appearing as Liz Lemon, acts as the series creator, a writer and an executive producer for the series.
Awkward.
  • The continuity section is sloppy. It's just a list of unrelated ideas. It at least needs some sort of topic sentence, and better transitions.
  • ...and prior to the meeting Jonathan (Maulik Pancholy) tells Liz to "put on some decent cloths and go talk to them."
should that be "clothes"?
  • Her various characters were Greta Johansen, The Girlie Show cat wrangler,[4][11][12] Maria, a maid,[5] Elizabeth Taylor,[13] Blue Man, a hallucination who can only be seen by Tracy and Liz,[14] Pamela Smew, the leader of a sensitivity training group,[15] Barbara Walters,[16] Vlem, a prostitute,[17] Martha Blanch, an anti-Girlie Show protester,[18] and Dr. Beauvoir, Liz's doctor.
How many of these list items are just appositives? For example, is Vlem the prostitute, or did Dratch play a character named Vlem in addition to an unnamed prostitute? To make things clearer, you might want to use semicolons to separate one item from another.
  • Is it really necessary to quote all those reviews? A few insightful comments should be sufficient. I know the WP:FICTION crowd is serious about including real world information, but just because a review exists doesn't mean you have to quote it in the article. Zagalejo^^^ 03:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think i've address these comments. I've removed the continuity section because on re-reading the section, it does come across as sloppy and it is pretty trivial anyway. I also shortened the reception section. Does the section need anymore removing? -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that section needs more trimming, but it could use some smoother transitions between sentences. Keep in mind that my comments were just examples of problems. I haven't read every single sentence. It might be better to withdraw the article for now, and let a good copyeditor work his or her way through it. Zagalejo^^^ 18:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Needs a lot of work. Simple grammatical errors (note the missing apostrophes in the first paragraph of the lead, misplaced comma: "It introduces the character, Liz Lemon", etc.), repetitious sentence structure, awkward phrasing, informal writing ("various insane stunts"), and many typos tax the reader. Continuity section is a bunch of unrelated trivial ideas cobbled together, which have little to do with the show's continuity. Production section could surely be expanded. Reception is listy and ungrammatical. I'd suggest withdrawing this for now. BuddingJournalist 04:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll look into these problems now. -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've started to try and work on these. I'll keep trying. -- Jamie jca (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. I just noticed your post to Raul's talk page about withdrawing; if you'd like to withdraw this FAC, just post a note saying so on this page, and someone will come along soon to archive it. You can then work on the article at your own pace, and bring it back here whenever you feel the article meets FA standard. BuddingJournalist 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • One link (Arizona Republic) is showing up dead with the link checker and it is dead on clicking it.
  • Current ref 26 "D. Allen, Marc "Polished Rock Rolls On" is lacking a publisher.
  • What makes http://www.tifaux.com/ a reliable source?
  • While its not wrong to link to IMDb for Director's GUild awards, wouldn't it make more sense to link to the DG site itself?
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out (except for the one above) with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but i'm just looking to replace the TiFaux source. -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find one. Only another unreliable source. I've removed the paragraph. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done! Yay! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to withdraw this article from FAC please. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry for the delay; I'll withdraw it now. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template on the talk page until the bot goes through. I hope to see you back as soon as the article is ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:23, 8 June 2008 [52].

Star of Bethlehem

Nominator ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 07:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator does not appear to be in the top 10 (nor on the list of) editors who have contributed to the article. --Moni3 (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see on the talk page of the article any query about nominating for FA. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm responsible for most of the writing in this article and it's an unexpected surprise to it nominated. Kauffner (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FAC instructions, pls identify as significant contributor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for not informing the significant contributors before hand. That was a mistake on my part, still not entirely used to the FAC process. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

This FAC has broken every rule in the FAC rulebook. Anyways, on to comments:

  • Format references so all include title, url, publisher, and accessdate. For bible passages, I would suggest using {{cite book}} and {{harvnb}} instead.
  • Lots of MOS issues, such as ""astrologer"[9]) arrived" — see WP:FOOTNOTE
  • "Matthew. [8]" — space
  • for all date ranges, use en dash, per WP:DASH — same goes for all bible passages with dashes, I believe, and for all page ranges, too.
  • "(or 'wise men') " — use double quotes

These are only from a quick sample of the article. Gary King (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think {{bibleverse}} is the proper template for citing scripture, since it would be difficult to fill in a cite book template for the bible. And I believe the other issues listed here besides maybe some ndashes still and citing (which I will fill in when I come back from school tonight, if someone doesn't do it before hand) have been corrected. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Far too many prose issues.

  • No citation for the alternate names in the lead.
  • Footnotes as Gary said
  • Don't begin section titles with articles.
  • "The magi then went to Bethlehem, found Jesus and his mother, paid him homage, worshipped him, gave gifts, and then returned to their "own country".[3]" - very awkward sentence. Consider splitting up into several sentences.
  • "In modern times, astronomers have proposed various explanations for the star, including a nova, a planet, a comet, an occultation, and a conjunction (massing of planets)." - also awkward. What do they mean "including a nova"? If you mean they thought it could have been a nova, make that explicit.
  • Weasel word - "many". Also, that paragraph is too short; consider merging. In fact, there's many other short paragraphs that hsould be merged.
  • "Some writers have suggested Luke was referring to another event such as the mass oath taking when Augustus was given the title "father of the nation" (3-2 BC)" - vague, weaselly. Make "some" explicit.
  • "The magi may have decided to travel to Jerusalem when they somehow, "conjectured that the man whose appearance had been foretold along with that of the star, had actually come into the world", according to Origen.[22]" - I believe that the comma after the "somehow" is incorrect.

I may search for more later. In any case, I won't be able to support unless this is given a full copyedit by a pair of fresh eyes. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 16:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I think this is a great starting point for this article, but I also think that there is work to be done before it reaches FA. Here are some examples of issues (this is not a comprehensive list):
    • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, do not use calloutquotes.
    • A lot of the article is cited specifically to the Bible, with no supporting citation to a scholarly work. This is problematic, because it is original research to point to a certain Bible verse and say it means X or is representative of Y concern.
    • The article presents the statements in the Bible as historical facts. This is not an era in history that I have studied heavily, but I would think that there might be historical facts that dispute some of this. To me, the tone of the article feels a little like sermonizing.
    • There is nothing in the article about the legacy of the star and how it is viewed today (or even throughout history). For example, see Jeanne HAnson's Star of Bethlehem: The History, Mystery, and Beauty of the Christmas Star [53]
    • I would expect there to be more scholarly sources cited in the article. I did a quick search on Google Books and Google scholar and found many references that have not been consulted. Those that have been consulted seem to be only referencing one or two facts. It makes me wonder what else was in those sources that has been left out, making the article not as comprehensive.

Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as the issue of whether the Bible is history or not, this is addressed specifically the section "historical fiction." As for the other sections, mythology can be analysised for its own sake and on its own terms. Kauffner (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Many WP:MoS breaches and the prose is poor; some sentences are very difficult to understand:
The statement that Herod was "troubled" by what the magi said has told him implies that he was disturbed by their statement that the "king of the Jews" had been born, since that was his own title. GrahamColmTalk 18:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the "historical fiction" section - I'm pretty sure it should be renamed to "Historiography", which seems to be what the author intended. Raul654 (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Double check that all web site references (including pdfs) give a last access date and publisher
  • Double check that all book references give page numbers and any other bibliographical details, including author, publisher, and ISBN when known.
  • Double check that all website references give a title for the web link, not just a number
  • Link checker tool shows a few dead links.
  • External links is for websites, Further reading is for printed material.
When that's all double checked, I'll come back and check the sources for reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:23, 8 June 2008 [54].

Doggystyle

Self-nomination. I'm nominating this article because I have been working on the article for about a month now and I have made significant additions to the page. I put it through a GAN, which it passed after being put on hold, and it has also been through a Peer Review, which I have used to improve on the parts which needed a little work. I think the article now passes the FA criteria and deserves to be a FA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk • contribs) 21:52, May 15, 2008

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Ensure references are uniform. Some are using plain text, some are using {{cite web}}, causing some of the references to say 'Accessed on' and some to say 'Retrieved on'.
  • "I retains the" → "It retains the"
  • U.S. → United States — I would prefer this, especially at least once before using the acronym.
  • "as well as Rolling Stones "Essential Recordings of the 90s"." Looks really odd when the 's' is not linked together; it should also be Rolling Stone's
  • "contributions on Dre's The Chronic." → full name on first occurrence, so 'Dr. Dre'.
  • "hip". [1][7]" → Extra space?
  • "won't kill"[9]" — missing a period?

There are probably more; these are some comments on only the first section of the article. Gary King (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some are already clean-up. --Efe (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahm, who is Phillip Woldermarian? He should be identified. --Efe (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of those things have been taken care of. To do with Phillip Woldermarian, he was a member of a rival gang who was murdered. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woldermarian must be identified there. Reading that part alone will leave us hanging. --Efe (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • inconsistent "Dr. Dre" and "Dre". It should be the former.
  • Time is identified as magazine. How about NME and Rolling Stone? Please identify also The New York Times, and many more. --Efe (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are lots of subsections that are only occupied by a single paragraph. Maybe we can merge them? --Efe (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've used "Dr. Dre" throughout and added "magazine" to the publications that needed it. What sections do you think would be better merged together ? - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That subsections with only one paragraph. If its possible, you can merge them. --Efe (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/061024/A896.htm a reliable source? Looking at this site, I'm not seeing it supporting statments like "The record is regarded by many critics to be one of the most significant albums of the 1990s, and one of the most important hip hop albums released to date." or "Doggystyle is viewed by many critics and fans as a "hip hop classic" and is included in The Source magazine's 100 Best Rap Albums, as well as Rolling Stone magazine's list of Essential Recordings of the 90s."
The website accumulates the various "Best Ever" accolades bestowed on a song/album by different publications. indopug (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the album was included in The Essential Recordings of the 90s, Top 200 Albums of All time and The 90s Top 100 Essential Albums, I think that supports the view that "The record is regarded by many critics to be one of the most significant albums of the 1990s" and since it was included in the 10 Essential Hip-Hop Albums, Hip Hop's 25 Greatest Albums by Year 1980-98 and The 100 Best Rap Albums, I think that supports that the album was "one of the most important hip hop albums released to date". Also, basically the whole 'Critical Reception' section supports "Doggystyle is viewed by many critics and fans as a "hip hop classic". - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, and links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like Spellcast said before, DubCNN is ok because they did an interview with Snoop who explained about the album. HipHopDX is used for an interview. EveryHit seems reliable, but I'll remove it and the information extracted from it if other users believe it untrustworthy. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is an interview, doesn't mean it's reliable. We need to be sure that they transcribed the interview correctly, didn't introduce bias by not putting something in that he said, things like that. Generally, the discussion on everyhit.com hasn't concluded that it's reliable, but it hasn't concluded it's unreliable. It looks unreliable to me, but that's my opinion. I'll let others decide on that. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are still serious problems with prose, and also some of the claims made. Take the following almost random couple of sentences:
The album is considered as one of the first G-funk albums which many rappers duplicated in later years.[1]
Black culture
Doggystyle has considerably affected African American culture. Its influence on gangsta rap has lowered the status of women in black society.[20][14][41] Some publications have held the rap genre responsible for a number problems
  • The grammar of the first sentence is all over the place.
  • The claim contained in the second couple of sentences are far too ambitious, and completely unsupported by at least two of the three references cited (the third, I can't access).
  • The final sentence is missing a word.

I tried to do some copy-editing, but really the prose is a long, long way off. Here's another example: "This has been attained through the ability to communicate free of censorship, which has allowed hip hop culture to become a dominant style and ethos throughout the world." Not a good sentence.

As a whole, the article has a way to go. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I copyedited this yesterday (fixed redundancy, incorrect word choices, and other prose issues). However, this is still not ready. Please format all the references using {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} (or alternatively, use {{Citation}} solely). In addition, there are various parts of the article which represent ambiguity which I was not able to solve. I share the concerns of Jbmurray. The most problematic section is "Black culture" which continually says "This..." after sentences, and "It has also...". Please state who you're quoting and be specific to avoid confusion to the reader. Avoid usage of "This" to begin a sentence - restate what is being referred to. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to fix the 'Black culture' section, but it may need another copy-edit. Does an article have to use a citation template ? because I have just used plain text in the references throughout ? - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See both Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members and Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers for lists of copyeditors. See WP:CITE regarding the citation issue. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't have to use any templates; just be consistent throughout. indopug (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but at the moment there are already usages of Cite web in the article, from what I last saw. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article now uses plain text in references throughout. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I supported the previous nomination, and I still feel the same way. Well written, excellent references. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose. Prose is not of required standard; from lead alone:
  • "Released by the album's producer Dr. Dre's record label Death Row" - the use of two possessive apostrophes makes it hard to parse.
  • "while some of its musical stylizations" - "while" isn't accurate; "and" would suffice. It is not very clear about how the two albums are related.
  • "Snoop Dogg was arrested in connection with Phillip Woldermarian's death; a charge he was not acquitted of until 1996." - I'm no expert, but I don't think being arrested in connection with a death is a "charge" from which you can be acquitted. And the phrasing "not acquitted of until..." seems to convey an odd emphasis - surely "he was acquitted in 1996" would be more neutral and clear.
  • "one of the most" is repeated in the first sentence of the second paragraph, which would be better to avoid.
  • "Both" at the start of the next sentence is redundant; "introduced" should be "introduce"; "bring" should be "bringing". Using "West Coast hip hop" so close to "1990s hip hop" is jarring; can it be avoided?
  • "by 2003 it has sold seven million" - should be "had sold", year and number of sales both seem pretty arbitrary
  • "It was the fastest-selling hip hop recording in the U.S., only surpassed by..." - obviously ridiculous.
Article needs a lot of work. Trebor (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Just like my recent declaration at the previous nom page. TONY (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:46, 7 June 2008 [55].

Insane Clown Posse

The article has been successfully listed as a GA, and after a lot of hard work, I think that it's ready for Featured Article candidacy. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose

  • "Disney claimed that the boycott was not related to the company's discontinuation of the album, stating that their review board had "messed up" and that once executives learned of the album's "inappropriate" lyrics, they decided it "did not fit the Disney image." - Signs of redundancy in places, this is just one example. This sentence reads fine without "that" being used three times.
  • There are other examples of redundancy throughout the article - please get a copyeditor new to the text to go through it. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is good, but I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!
  • Links checked out fine with the link checker tool.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As shown by Laser brain and others, this needs another copyedit - but before that, I would suggest withdrawing this and working on it some more to weed out any POV. There are still sourcing problems, and problems with comprehensiveness throughout I'm afraid. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes http://www.livedaily.com/ a reliable site? I can't find an about us page.
  • Just a note, current ref 59 Williams Margo "Friends thought helping Gay Bar ..." is blocked by some ISPs, so I wasn't able to check it's reliablility.
  • I share the above concerns about Publicity Whore and MurderDog. I didn't see the others in the article, though, so no idea if I would have an concern with them or not.
Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — LiveDaily is a music news and concert ticket website. Although Publicity Whore and MurderDog are not well-known websites, the comments in their interviews with Utsler and Bruce check up with what the duo has stated in regards to the fued in video interviews. These links are the best sources I have been able to find for this information, aside from a series of YouTube videos uploaded by a fan, and I don't think that those would be allowed here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment — I removed the LiveDaily link in favor of a printed source. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose
  • Where are the Musical style and Influences sections? They are needed to make a band article comprehensive. (See R.E.M., The Smashing Pumpkins)
  • I have written a "Style and influences" section. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • No music samples?
  • None of those non-free pictures except the album cover seem to satisfy WP:NFCC #8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." indopug (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the Psychopathic Records logo, but kept the other images, as they illustrate significant information (their mainstream success and their live performances). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
AMG discusses the music of each album in reasonable detail; see if you can't pick common styles to all their records as well as how their music has evolved/changed over time (that "earlier work features a rawer, minimalistic hip hop sound, while their later work features a more rock-oriented sound." is a good start, but needs expanding). You can also see Radiohead for guidance. You should discuss their lyrics: "racist", "crass", "sexist", "juvenile" etc seem to be buzzwords. All-in-all, just go through what Rolling Stone, Allmusic etc have to say about their music, image etc and try to summarize. indopug (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to mention the guests who appeared into every album; that's unnecessary detail and is meant for the album articles. Eg: "which featured guest appearances from Ice-T, Ol' Dirty Bastard and Snoop Doggy Dogg." and "featuring appearances by comedians John G. Brennan, Harland Williams and Rudy Ray Moore, and punk band The Misfits". indopug (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, some basic work needed before this is ready. Before I can even review the prose, you'll need to fix your links to sources. All of the MTV news stories are broken links. The fair use images have to go—you don't have a good rationale for using any of them. --Laser brain (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I rewrote the fair use rationales for each of the images. MTV's website appears to be down for the moment, but these links were working the last time I checked them, and should be working again in the next day or so. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Okay, will check MTV again tomorrow. For the images, I should have been more clear: I don't think there is any rationale for using them. The album cover can be used in the article about the album only. The live images are replaceable with free alternatives. I would just remove them - insisting on fair use images in this article will quickly sink the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed fair use images. Added another Commons-licensed image from Flickr. Took my own picture of a shelf of Faygo and added it to the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment - Laser brain, the MTV links are working fine for me. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a sec - since when were fair-use album covers categorically not allowed in main articles? They are fine per policy "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." I got Stereolab to FA with plenty of album covers, with the necessary critical commentary in the text. - Merzbow (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: After reviewing the prose today, my opposition stands. It's not up to the professional standard required by FA criterion 1a. It's also not properly sourced per criterion 1c. I found issues in almost every sentence. In my opinion this needs further research, attention from a strong copy-editor, then a more substantive peer review (contact editors from the volunteer list). Suggest withdrawing to work on it and coming back when it's ready. Some examples follow, just from the first few paragraphs:
    • The lead is too short and does not summarize the main points of the article.
  • What else is discussed in the article? Check the lead on other musical article FAs. --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much of the History section relies on primary sources but includes more than basic facts (interpretation and POV). Primary sources are OK for basic facts like DOB and family but nothing else.
  • I don't see any POV or interpretation. I think the article does a pretty good job of detailing ICP's history, while remaining as neutral as possible, and offers some objective criticism of the individual albums and their style of music. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • You don't see it because you wrote the article. Need secondary sources. --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bruce and Utsler founded the independent record label Psychopathic Records with manager Alex Abbiss, which produces and distributes works by Juggalo musicians, in addition to Bruce and Utsler's own music." Poor organization and unfamiliar terminology.. what are "Juggalo musicians"?
  • That would be Juggalos who rap or play in rock bands (like Zug Izland or Motown Rage). Rewritten to read "which distributes music by hip hop and rock acts inspired by Insane Clown Posse, in addition to Bruce and Utsler's own music." (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • "Joseph Bruce ("Violent J") and Joseph Utsler ("Shaggy 2 Dope") met in a suburb north of Detroit and participated in various backyard wrestling rings, developing the skills and showmanship that they would eventually use during their careers." Lots of issues.. what is participating in a backyard wrestling ring? "Skills and showmanship" is POV sourced to a primary source. Need secondary sources.
  • Took out the "skills and showmanship" remark. Rewrote the rest of the paragraph for clarification. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • "... in the ghettos of Delray" Colloquial use of "ghetto" is incorrect and unsourced.
    • "Bruce, Utsler and Hill formed a gang, calling themselves the Inner City Posse." Why not "... a gang called Inner City Posse"? --Laser brain (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's GA, but it really needed more prose work before coming to FAC. Here's some stuff from one section...

  • Several of the quotes in the Style and influences section aren't attributed in text, and thus are rather awkward/meaningless.
  • "Insane Clown Posse's earlier work features a rawer, minimalistic hip hop sound, while their later work features a more rock-oriented sound." - Active voice would work better here.
  • 2nd para of this section has a few "also" one after the other.
  • "Insane Clown Posse has influenced similar acts, such as Twiztid, Blaze Ya Dead Homie, Anybody Killa and Boondox." - How? Says who?

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made a few changes here and there (removal of repeated uses of "also"), and fixed the part about acts ICP has influenced to correspond with All Music Guide. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comments

  • "music.[62][4] The word" — Refs in ascending order
  • "increased sales [14] and" — one extra space
  • "charts [36] and has" — same here, extra space
  • "various backyard rings." — link "backyard rings" otherwise we just think it links to backyard
  • "who had reportedly paid $1 million to buy" — first mention of currency, so use US$ per WP:CURRENCY

Gary King (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:02, 5 June 2008 [56].

Brazil

previous FAC

This comprehensive article provides a really good overview of contemporary Brazil. The writing is good and the facts are well sourced, I fully support its promotion to a featured article. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 04:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

Oppose There are several problems with this article; namely:

  • Several uncited paragraphs ("Within Brazil's current borders...", "In 1808, the Portuguese court", and the first four paragraphs of "Subdivisions"). If the nearest upcoming reference references all of the preceding paragraphs, then please still explicitly place those references in the preceding paragraphs so every paragraph has a reference. Shouldn't be too difficult.
  • I spot at least a few unreliable sources; hopefully I can save User:Ealdgyth some trouble here. The last time I checked, World66, for instance, was a wiki, and is used as a reference several times in this article. A few of the references are also unformatted (with only the title and URL). There are also a few dead links — about half a dozen.

I would love to see this article reach FA status, but these are only a handful of the issues that exist in this article, unfortunately. Gary King (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I've worked on the article and believe that it has the potential to be featured, but is not ready at the moment. There are issues with formatting (not all references are formatted correctly, I spot numerous MoS problems), reliable sources (as GaryKing has pointed out), and the fact that there is an ongoing debate about content on the talk page that should be resolved. --Kakofonous (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Refs need to state when they are in a non-English language. Numbers of them are.
  • What is IBGE?
  • I'm not sure what http://www.fundacaooscaramericano.org.br/eng/Collection/Colonial_Brazil/colonial_brazil.html is supporting in this statement "Initially Portugal had little interest in Brazil, mainly because of high profits gained through commerce with Indochina. After 1530, the Portuguese Crown devised the Hereditary Captaincies system to effectively occupy its new colony, and later took direct control of the failed captaincies."
  • Ref 10 is a journal article, correct? (JSTOR: Anglo-Portugese Trade) Format it as a journal article as originally published, not as a website with JSTOR as the publisher. ALL the JSTOR refs should be formatted as journal articles, since I'm assuming you read the whole article and not just the abstract.
  • THis source http://www.casahistoria.net/Brazil.htm#Colonial_Brazil is just a collection of links.
  • http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture34/lec34.html This source would work better if it gave its sources, although it probably passes muster (looks like a online course lecture notes for a college course?)
  • Current ref 15 "Reis, Jao Jose "Slave Rebelion in Brazil" is lacking a page number and publication date at the very least.
  • Current ref 17 "Brazil's prized exports rely on ..." is lacking a last access date.

Okay, I'm only this far in and there are that many references problems. Please go through and give page numbers for all printed sources. Languages for all non-English sources. Get the JSTOR refs into journal form. Web sites need publisher and last access dates at the very very least. If those get fixed, I'll come back and look over the sources for reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Back in 2007 we didn't have any of the aforementioned problems with references. That was the last time I worked on the article. I think since then while many editors made several small improvements, some people have been inserting things indiscriminately (although in good faith). Hence all the new reference problems. Perhaps we can revert parts of the article to older versions in an attempt to save a bit of time? Sparks1979 (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose1a. Here are random issues just in the lead.

  • Federative? No, translate it as "Federal".
  • So religion is important enough to be worth privileging right at the top? I'd have thought the lifestyle and ideology of many Brazilians was very very uncatholic; gives the wrong impression to paint it as a profoundly religious culture of a particular European brand.
  • Comma in 7,367 but not in the conversion?
  • "While Brazil is one of the most populous nations in the world, population density drops dramatically as one moves inland."—"One" is two entirely different senses jars here. And the second one is a MOS breach.
  • "There are currently 26 States and 5,564 Municipalities." Why is "currently" necessary? Is this particularly unstable?
  • "One of the ten largest economies in the world"—so which is it: the second-largest? The tenth-largest?
  • "with wide variations in development levels and mature manufacturing, mining and agriculture sectors"—with wide variations in mature manufacturing? Insert a comma as a boundary to stop this. It's still a heady mixture of notions in a single clause.
  • "Technology and services also play an important role"—so technology plays no role in manufacturing, mining and agriculture? Category problem.

Careful, thorough copy-editing required by fresh eyes. TONY (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Tony - fails 1a, poor prose. I am actually concerned about how well researched this article is. Only three of the 141 refs are books, the rest are online sources. I would think that for a subject as broad and important as Brazil, some serious research would have been conducted from reliable books. There are some good books listed under 'Further reading', but why haven't these been used as sources? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:02, 5 June 2008 [57].

Textual criticism

Self-nom — I have worked on this article since the last nomination, using the comments made there last year to improve it and look forward to feedback to so that it can make it there this time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments Some quick notes from a cursory glance:

Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please standardize your short-form book cites; I see the following variations:

  • Roseman, 1999: 73
  • Greg 1950, p. 21
  • Dunnett & Tenney; 1985: 150
Done ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check your dashes in page ranges: they should all be endashes.
Done ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add retrieval dates to your web citations.
Done ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Midsummer Night's Dream and Canterbury Tales need italics.
Done ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The See also section includes an awfully long list of people. Are there categories that would serve the purpose?
These are scholars that have worked/written on this particular subject. Most of them. if not all, are all in the Category:Textual criticism. Shall we remove them? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are only four people in Category:Textual criticism, and not many more in its subcat Category:Biblical criticism. When I clicked at random on people from See also, I found that most of them were in Category:Biblical scholars. I couldn't find relevant people cats for non-biblical textual criticism to go with it, but maybe you'll have better luck. Maralia (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the long list of people. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to give this a thorough readthrough soon. Maralia (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've hidden my resolved issues above, and elaborated on one. As an aside, {{done}} and other graphical templates are discouraged at FAC - in bulk, they make the individual pages and especially the main WP:FAC page unbearably slow. Maralia (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I have removed these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some short sections, and the one on "The Hebrew Bible" is a list: some expansion required. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded "The Hebrew Bible" section. Would that be enough for this article? That subject requires a full article; I may start such article in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The lack of in-line citations is a problem; there are many sections that are not referenced. There are too many long quotations that would benefit from précis and citation. The article loses direction in the middle becomes un-encyclopedic in tone and more like a treatise. The inclusion of a modern example would have been interesting, such as Joyce's Ulysses. I noticed some over-linking. I feel bad about being negative because I enjoyed reading most of the article, but it would benefit greatly from some bold editing to reduce the verbosity. GrahamColmTalk 09:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Prose/reference issues need addressing before I can consider supporting this:

  • The lead needs expanding to fully summarize the article as per WP:LEAD.
  • Short, stubby paragraphs throughout the Eclecticism section ruin readability/flow.
  • Unnecessary bold text at start of Overview section, see WP:MOS.
  • There's a huge list of verifiable books under 'References', but hardly any have been used as footnotes?
  • The current citations are disorganized, please go through them for consistency.
  • Serious lack of references, including many paragraphs throughout the article which are not referenced at all.
  • Current ref 46 needs publisher/author info - but more importantly, what makes earlychristianwritings.com a verifiable source?
  • Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for addressing prose issues, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Members and Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting for lists of copyeditors who can help you.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 3 "tanselle 1989" I don't see such an entry in the references
  • I think current ref 5 is missing a 9 at the end of the date?
  • Typo in current ref 8 Harting? Should it be Hartin?
It's ref 14 now, still with a g?
  • What makes http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html a reliable source?
  • Current ref 13 Mulken & van Pieter, do you mean Van Reenen and van Mulken?
  • Is it Rosemann or Roseman? Footnote says Roseman, references says Rosemann.
  • Are the following refs actually used in the footnotes? If they aren't used, they need to go in the further reading section.
    • Gaskell?
    • Hodges
    • Love?
    • Maas?
    • Robinson?
    • sober?
    • Zeller?
  • Actually, I see you're mixing citation styles, you're using parenthetical (Bowers, 1972 p. 86) with footnote. I believe it's supposed to be one or the other.
Links checked out. The sources seem okay, apart from issues noted above. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refs in footnotes fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • General question

Thanks for the feedback. I can fix most of the smaller issues, re citations, footnotes, etc. But for copyedit I will need to engage other volunteers to come and lend a hand, as that is not my strength. My question is: should I de-list this FAC, or keep it going while fixing these issues? Look forward to your response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment not sure whether to withdraw as yet. I have to work through it. Now let's get started...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Overview needs renaming. To me, overview means summary, which is what the lead is doing for the article anyway. Paras 1 and 2 of section are history, as is part of para 4. The rest is process and aim I guess.
In the lead - add one or two sentences to describe the three fundamental approaches for starters. I would be although fascinated I am a neophyte in the area.
Try to remove redundancy. See also material which is mentioned explicitly in text, remove. We can use CTRL-F keys these days.
OK. Will work on these next. Thanks for the feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scanning through it, the prose is good in places, and this is the most difficult piece of the puzzle at FAC, so maybe give it a bit longer and see how it pans out. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A copyeditor, User:Alastair Haines has expressed his interest in working on these aspects. This is great as this editor is knowledgeable on the subject. See User_talk:Jossi#Textual_criticism_2 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - oops. Missed that it was already at FAC. See my comments at Talk:Textual criticism#Comments in passing. Wouldn't support for FA status yet (I don't know enough to know if this is truly comprehensive or not, so it is more a "not sure" on that account), but it did teach me quite a few things. I would like to see more balance away from the Biblical and Shakespearean side of things, though. Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Only half way through, but first suggestion is maybe a more substantial lead. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Please be consistent in references. You've got "# ^ Greg; 1950: 36" and then "# ^ Bowers 1972, p. 86". I recommend using the latter format.

Gary King (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed format of all inline citations to Author year, p.# (e.g. Bowers 1972, p.86) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks a lot better now. However, add a space after p. so it is "Ehrman 2005, p. 46". Also, merge references that are the same, such as "Bowers 1964, p.226" (it is used multiple times), using WP:REFNAME. Gary King (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added space after p. ; will work on consolidating all dup refs soon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article has the potential to be quite fascinating, as it seems to map out mistranslations and misunderstandings in common knowledge. In short, the article is an example of what Wikipedia does (should do) in light speed. It's an abstract concept that should be illustrated concretely, and I found I was unable to follow some of it because I don't believe it is well-written. Of the things I wish I could read are:
  • A cause and effect relationship in the lead that ties errors of translation to misunderstandings, with perhaps a concrete example.
  • A brief explanation of the terms "eclecticism, stemmatics, and copy-text editing" in the lead.
  • Before the history is discussed, I believe the reason for criticizing text it should be addressed.
  • The Objective section should be written in paragraph form.
  • There is so much jargon in the article that I am unable to follow it, particularly the Objective section. It won't do to obfuscate an already difficult topic deliberately. For each blue link, italicized, or "quoted term" that is a concept in Textual criticism, provide a brief explanation.
  • The section on Eclecticism is choppy, and I'm not sure what it is explaining. I think you need several topic sentences to put your reader in a frame of mind of what to expect, why these areas of study are important, and what they mean for interpretation of concepts.
  • Concrete examples of what scholars have found to be misprintings, omissions, misunderstandings, and mistranslations should be given frequently, and they should be well-cited.
  • Citations are few and far between, particularly in the Stemmatics and Cladistics section. For such a topic as this, these claims need to be cited. I hope the fact tag in Internal evidence was put there by an FAC reviewer, and it didn't come to FAC that way.
  • In the Application of textual criticism to biblical criticism there is a list of works that have gone through textual criticism, but nothing is compared. What are the differences between languages or translations, copies? What is the use of listing works that have had textual criticism applied without giving examples of what scholars have found?
  • There is a list of findings, but is there an explanation of their importance? For instance, I read that Mary, mother of Jesus, is described in Hebrew text using a word that means both "virgin" and "young girl". Can you imagine what the impact of the translation of "young girl" would have been for women throughout history? At the very least, Madonna would be dancing on a street corner without that ammunition.
  • These issues are prevalant throughout the article. I think if you work on it some more by providing cited concrete examples for these ideas, and rewriting some sections to flow better, you will have the basis for an FA. I wish you luck. --Moni3 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you thorough review. The challenge is that this is an extraordinarily complex subject, and treating it in detail will require probably 6 or 7 articles. My intention was to provide an overview of the subject, and I can see that some of your suggestions could be applied to that effect. I guess, it will need the involvement of many editors, copy-editors, experts on the subject, as well as wikignomes to make this article reach the coveted FA status. I am concerned that some articles on pop-culture subjects are reaching FA status, while articles such as this one often get neglected... That is a challenge: to get articles on subjects such as this to attract enough eyeballs and attention to give it the treatment it deserves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're not just whistlin' Dixie there. Of the stunningly small percentage of editors who escort an article to FA, an even smaller percentage escort a classical topic such as yours. I have to admit that I am guilty of putting forth such a pop culture article as my last FA, but it was unavoidable. Obsession made me do it. As for the preparation of this one, you may have to split it apart, but I didn't really think the article required a substantial amount of content; not doubling it by any means. However, I think it needs almost basic This is the Term. This is a definition of the term. This is an example of the term. This is a nonexample of the term - type illustration. Just written a lot better than what I just did. You can always ask the FA Team for assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Moni3 for your feedback. I will give it some thoughts and see if I can rally a few editors to help in this effort. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:02, 5 June 2008 [58].

Ghosts I–IV

Self-nomination This article recently went through a very easy GA nomination and a more in-depth peer review, so I am confident in its quality and thoroughness. As always, any comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links, that'll help with future FACs. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Drewcifer (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments That Release versions section resembles a shopping catalogue. The whole thing seems to be just unencyclopedic detail. How is the fact that the Two-Disc release "includes a web key for immediate access to the digital release" of any interest/importance to the lay reader? I think the whole section should be replaced by a sentence, "the album was released in many different formats such x, y and z." indopug (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest comparing this article to FA In Rainbows, which had a similar release and varying formats. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that such detail is useful to the lay person. For example, I'd say that the fact that the 2-Disc release includes a web key for immediate access to the digital release is actually quite remarkable: as far as I know, no album in history has ever been offered as a physical package AND as an included immediate high-quality digital download. In Rainbows included. And don't take it from me, a ton of 3rd party, reliable sources have also found this fact worthy of mentioning. And to respond to Wesley, I take it what you were pointing out from In Rainbows was that the release versions were explained via prose rather then list/tables? I'm not sure if such an approach would be the best here, since there's so many differing versions each slightly different content. Drewcifer (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I picked an awful example to prove my point. How does "If downloaded from the official site, it also includes a 40-page PDF and additional wallpapers, web banners, and icons." not resemble an advertisement? In any case, of these release modes were so revolutionary, why not discuss and analyse it critically? That'll be quite interesting and encyclopedic. indopug (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree with you on the web banners thing, took it out. As for your other suggestions, I agree with you in theory, but I'm afraid of going into OR-territory, as well as just repeating stuff that's already mentioned in the same section (what's in each release) and/or the second paragraph of the Critical reception section (what critics thought about the release methods). Drewcifer (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Or in other words: critical analysis is already in the article (just in a different section, dedicated to Critical reponses, including their analysis to the distribution methods), and any other analysis (ie non-critical, ie coming from me), would be OR). Drewcifer (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this page isn't nearly ready. The whole price list and features section is repeated twice, one as text, one as table. It's also self contradictory, starting by saying that "The album is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license", then saying later that (surprise) it's only some tracks from Ghosts I. And with a lead-on like that, why isn't at least one representative song (or even a sample from it) listed as an .ogg image like one of the other music articles above? Worst, there is virtually no discussion of its significance. There are some immediate news articles yes, but no indication if the practice of differently pricing various grades was copied by others or what the results were. Sure, the article says the very top grade sold out, but it doesn't explain whether these were purchased by speculators or die-hard fans. It says the site clogged from downloads, but not whether the downloaders went on to buy the full album, whether marketing analysis was done (or by who) to determine whether sales were lost or gained by the practice, etc. There's no depth here. Wnt (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your comments. I'll try and address or respond to all of them. Unfortunately I don't agree with many of your comments, but hopefully we can come to some sort of agreement. So:
  • I personally don't think I see a problem with saying the same thing twice, especially since the info is presented in two different manners. And, both ways are relatively small space-wise, so it's not like I'm wasting a ton of space repeating myself. That said, if you had your way, what would you suggest removing or changing? I'm definitely up for concrete suggestions.
Redundancy is a recurring problem I have seen in articles you have brought to FAC. If things are presented twice in two different formats, choose one format over the other, or a find a way to combine the two. This will make the article more concise and better-written. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, took it out. I guess I just like pretty tables and stuff. Drewcifer (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The table was pretty - it was just the duplication that was the problem. Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's what I liked about, since it's summarized some points graphically. But hey, you can't win 'em all. Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you were confused by the CC thing. Which is probably a fault in the prose, but not in the way you're implying (a bait and switch). The whole album is CC-licensed, it's just Ghosts 1 that is free. There is a big difference. What exactly was it that lead you to believe otherwise? Perhaps the Creative Commons thing wasn't explained clearly enough?
I'm under the impression that any CC licensed thing can be freely peer shared. Am I wrong? Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. CC-licensed stuff can be freely shared (within the limits of the specific licenses), but that doesn't mean it's necessarily free from the original source. Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the band charges money but anyone could put it on their Web site? I'm confused. Wnt (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much exactly what it means. It's definitely an a-typical business model, and kind of depends on good-faith, but it looks like Reznor made out alright for himself regardless. Drewcifer (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as including a song sample, I'm a little worried that you didn't actually read the whole article, since there is indeed a sample included in the article (in the Music section).
Sorry, I was unclear. That is a fair use sample from Ghosts IV, but so far as I understood not freely redistributable. But then again I'm not sure how Wikipedia regards the "noncommercial" restriction on the Ghosts I license anyway, so maybe it's not as clear a point. Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the non-commercial thing that forced me to use it under Fair-use. Wikipedia does not allow the free use of non-commercial CC stuff, so I had to treat it as fair-use (ie non-free). I've updated the image page with an additional template that hopefully clears this up. Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the significance of the release, again, I'm left wondering if you read the article in its entirety. The second paragraph of the Critical reception section discusses critical reception of the article in relation to its importance to the music industry as a whole. 5 separate critics are quoted, all of which in some way discuss the releases larger implications: artistically, business-wise, etc.
These all seemed to be forward looking predictions. The real problem is that there is no overall idea of the long term significance because you're pushing a freshly released album. What I was getting at is that I don't think you can have a stable, comprehensive view of an album that has just barely been released ... not until after it has been out a while. It'd be a pity if that diminished its financial value...Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By criticizing the article for being too soon, you seem to be going down a few slippery slopes: 1) an article cannot be an FA until a designated time after the event/release/whatever since it may prove to be influential in some way, 2) the potential for the album to be influential necessitates the article to mention such influence in past-tense terms, and 3) if a potentially influential topic is yet to be influential, it is incomplete until it does so. The problem here is that you're judging the article based on the topic's potential 2/5/10 years down the line, which is bordering WP:CRYSTAL. Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, could the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 be featured? This product likewise is facing a popular vote. Wnt (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that right now, the primaries article couldn't be featured because it's not finished yet. But once they are, (I suppose around the time of the Democratic convention), then yes, it could be featured, since the event has happened/is over. Any long-reaching effects of the primary (such as whether the Dems rework the primary system or whatever) should be included if and when these effects happen, but I don't believe you can fault the article for something that may or may not happen sometime in the future. The same goes for this article: the album was released (which means the event in question has happened), and it may be influential, but we really don't know until it is. Drewcifer (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for distinguishing between whether hard-core fans/speculators bought the Ultra edition, I'm not really sure how one would know that or find it out. Exit polls? Tracking down each customer? Besides, how does one define a "hard-core fan" versus a "speculator"? Does one have nose piercings and the other wears a tie? Obviously I'm being facetious, but it seems like a very vague undertaking. So, along those same lines, how would a newspaper/magazine/other reliable 3rd party source have any chance of finding that stuff out then publishing it? If this is an unreasonable expectation of the New York Times, surely it's an unreasonable expectation of the article?
  • As for specifics about sales, marketing analysis, etc, that is entirely dependent upon whether sources with access to that information (ie pretty much just NIN and its management) decides to disclose such information. If they had/do, then great, that info should certainly be included at the risk of not being comprehensive. But assuming like 99.9% of every other album ever released, that info is not disclosed, then it's an unreasonable expectation to insist on it being included. I can't include information that is never made public. The fact that the album was released in an unorthodox/potentially groundbreaking manner does not change this fact. Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles on Wikipedia that don't make it to featured status because enough is known about the topic, and I see this in the same position. Saying that "comprehensive" includes only what can be found out from crystal ball gazing and the company that owns the album because you're trying to feature the album two months after its release just doesn't seem like a compelling argument to me. Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you seem to be saying is that no album article will ever be comprehensive without some form of marketing analysis. Whether it's two months or two years after an album is released, 99.9% of albums released don't have such information released. So based on this assumption only an exceedingly few album articles will ever be FAs, and all other album articles are un-comprehensiveness because such data is never released. And again, the fact of how this particular album was released doesn't change this fact. It seems like a mistake to fault an article solely on the fact that it's missing information that is very very rarely released. And it also seems like a mistake to fault the article on it being too soon, with the assumption that such information might be released later. (WP:CRYSTAL) Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Oppose for now. The criticism section is very short and is about two different aspects; the music and the way the recording was released. The shallowness of the critical appraisal is a big worry. If this article were to appear on the Main Page as of now, it would seem at "best" promotional, at worst an advertisement. Can you not find more reliable critical reviews and balance this section? Lastly, why are Trent and others constantly stating rather than saying or writing? GrahamColmTalk 17:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm finding this one difficult to judge. It's well-written and interesting for sure, so I'm changing to neutral and I will follow the discussion here for now. Graham. GrahamColmTalk 09:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. Your point about "stating" is well-taken, I've tried to address it in the article. As for your other criticsm about the Critical reception section, I'm not sure if I completely follow you: do you think you could offer me some more specific suggestions? I've done my best to provide a wide range of critical opinion (positive, negative, about the music, about the release), and they're all from well-known, reliable sources (Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, etc). I could add more, of course, but I'm afraid that that would just be more of the same. I can't imagine adding anything else that hasn't already been said in that section, but if you have some suggestions I'm certainly open to them. Drewcifer (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with an average rating of 64% based on ten reviews on Metacritic" - I wouldn't call that generally favourable... more mediocre. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 12:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually now 66% based on 11 reviews (I've updated the page). And "generally favorable" is what MetaCritic calls it. Check it out: link. Drewcifer (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's cool. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that ship has already sailed. I rearranged the citations to fix the problem, however. Drewcifer (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critical reception of the album has generally been favorable, with many news agencies also commenting favorably on the unorthodox release of the album" - do without the "also" DONE
  • "Much coverage of the album has compared Ghosts I–IV to the releases of Radiohead's In Rainbows as well as Saul Williams' The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust!." - might want to say why (the way they were released, right?) DONE
  • "that the band had completed its contractual obligations to the band's record label, Interscope Records," - "their" instead of "the band's"?
Reworded to "its", since "their" is a tricky word to use for a semi-psuedo-one-man-band. Drewcifer (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to use or rework the material for any non-commercial purpose" - could this be said in lay man terms? Otherwise, it's obvious from the license title.
Changed "non-commercial" to "non-profit". Does that make it a little clearer? Drewcifer (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • May wish to say in the infobox that it was released online (under the release date)
I don't know, I'd rather not. A release is a release, especially in terms of the infobox. If this is a deal breaker I'll change it, but I'd prefer not to. Drewcifer (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the Halo numbers in the Release versions section be in italics?
I don't think so. They're essentially catalog numbers, which as far as I know are usually written in normal typeface. Drewcifer (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the first sentence of the lead it's in italics, that's why I ask. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that was a mistake. 5 words in an there was something wrong! I fixed it to be unitalicized. Drewcifer (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Washington Post stated "There's too much here. Yet it's the most interesting NIN in years." The Washington Post review" - bah, repetition... FIXED

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed/commented on all of your concerns. Let me know if there's anything else. Drewcifer (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Have fun and ... be creative" — The ellipsis do not appear in the reference.
The ellipsis bridges the gap of stuff I've taken out since it's not as relevant. The full quote is "Have fun and I’ll see you in a few hours.” And he said, “We could go the traditional drum route but be creative—See where your mind and your ideas take you.”" Drewcifer (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at "just have fun and be creative". But still, use [...] instead of ... Gary King (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "26) – US$5 to download" US$ already stated once before so no need to link again; just $5
Fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What is the deal with those genres in the infobox? Can you make it more general? How about Industrial rock and Ambient? indopug (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the talk page (or the talk page for the main Nine Inch Nails page), you'd see that NIN's genre(s) are a hotly debated topic. I can see about changing it if you really think it's necessary – and by see I mean bring it up on the talk page, since there's a note in the article saying any changes will be reverted unless discussing on the talk page – but I honeslty think it's an uphill battle. I myself am satisfied with the genre descriptions up there now. A little too specific I perhaps, but they get the point across. Drewcifer (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a and 1b. I stopped noting problems after getting bogged down in the lead, which indicates the need for a thorough copy-edit. Also, the article is not comprehensive. The information on composing and recording is much too light. Almost nothing about the tracks themselves. You'll have to move beyond Google and hit some indexes of print journals, newspapers, etc. Samples of prose problems (from the lead):
I expanded the recording section a bit, but I'm not really sure what else there is to say. The album was started and finished in a very short time span, so there isn't alot of history to catch the reader up on. Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opening two sentences mix tenses. Instead of "The album contains 36 instrumental tracks and was recorded in ten weeks of autumn 2007." why not "Recorded in ten weeks of autumn 2007, the album ..."?
I reworded it, but not in the way you suggested. But I think it does work better now. Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The team behind the project included ..." Why "included" if you list everyone? REWORDED
    • "The album was initially released digitally ..." Released "in a digital format" and released "digitally" mean two different things.
I agree in theory, but in practice I don't see how the two could possibly be mutually exclusive. You can't have a digital release in any other format other then digital. And the reverse is true, if it's released digitally, I can't imagine a scenario where it wouldn't be a digital format. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comments? Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The album was initially released digitally on the Nine Inch Nails official website, without any prior advertisement or promotion." What is the comma doing? I dunno, FIXED
    • "Via the official Nine Inch Nails YouTube profile, a user-generated "film festival" was announced, where fans were invited to visually interpret the album and post the results." Passive voice eliminates the subject. The final phrase is confusing... what does "visually interpret" mean? Look at the album and write about it? Also, "post the results" is confusing as the "results" of the film festival would really be the entire body of work produced.
Reworded slightly, hopefully to rectify the problems you've pointed out. Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Critical reception of the album has generally been favorable, with many news agencies commenting ..." The "with ... (verb)" construction is poor grammar. --Laser brain (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, in part because I tried to think of a better way to word it, but am unable to find any better solutions. The sentence is most clear in my opinion using "with". Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check out User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises, exercise 2g. --Laser brain (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing like a paint-by-numebrs exercise to take you down a few pegs! Well, I changed the sentence a bit, given the valuable lessons I've learned from the exercise. Personally I think it's worse off because of the change, but it's one sentence, so I'm willing to let it go. Drewcifer (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:18, 4 June 2008 [59].

Cyclone Gamede

After passing a GA nomination and A-class review, I nominate this article for featured status, since I believe it passes all of the criteria. It has been copyedited and looked over a few times, and if anything was missed, I'll be happy to get it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise links check out fine with the tool, sources look fine. I think this is the one I get to skip doing a full review on, right? I just reviewed Tropical Depression Ten... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re the Australia Severe Weather reference: it is a public mirror of mailing list posts by Gary Padgett, who is considered an authority in tropical cyclone studies worldwide. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, you can skip fully reviewing this one ;) I'm not sure if Le Mauricien is a newspaper, but it is a news agency, and here is their website. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lets be good kids and see some links showing he's well respected? That way I can put his site on my list of "all proven" sites and we won't have to request it again, when I see another cyclone article (which I know I will). I should have taken up storm articles, they definitely work up quicker than bishops! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in a previous FAC, he is cited in various NOAA publications ([60][61]). If they are good enough for NOAA, they should be good enough for WP. Yea, TC's are easy to write about, since they don't usually cause conflict, but there's always a ton of info on them. The choice is yours whether or not to come to the dark side of WP. WPTC: disrupting FXC processes with endless successful candidates since 2006. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, on the source that is. TC's, I think I'll leave alone. I did enough worrying about them in 20 years in Houston, I am just as happy to get away from the coast! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Tropical Cyclone Hyacinthe" (in lead) no wlinks?
  • "with the JTWC classifying it with winds" - what's JTWC?
  • "upwelling; upwelling is the process..." - it'd read better if the word wasn't repeated
  • "again underwent weakening" --> "again weakened"?

Generally a great read, couldn't find much. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 13:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I added the link to Hyacinthe, and fixed JTWC (I meant to add the acronym after its first usage). I changed the second upwelling to this, which avoids the redundancy. Fixed the redundancy with weakening. Thanks for the review. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good prose, layout, fully referenced. However, I think you should de-link the dates if they do not include the year. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe I should change the dates. User preference will automatically change the date to the American or UK style of dating, so May 24 will show up for me as May 24, but for another as 24 May. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with one comment. In the sentence, After being named, Gamede quickly intensified, with the JTWC classifying it with winds of 120 mph (75 km/h) early on February 22, per MoS, "with" is generally not a good connecting word. Otherwise, the prose is excellent. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Since I come from the French Wikipedia, I don't know whether or not I have the right to vote. By the way, I'd like to say that this nomination comes too early, by far. The article would be in a much longer and better state if only French sources had been used. Since Gamede stroke Réunion, there are many of them available on the Internet, and they should be dealt with. For the moment, the description of key events is kept within a sentence whereas it should be detailed in many paragraphs. I am thinking about the airbridge that had to be set up by the French army between Roland Garros Airport and Pierrefonds Airport. An unprecedented event in the history of France, it is unheard of in the current version. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I don't know French at all. I wouldn't know what to look for, and how to find it. If only French sources had been used, yes, it probably could be longer. However, this is the English Wikipedia, and I relied heavily on English sources (including a thorough check in a news archive via Lexis-Nexis). This article is comprehensive via English sources, but it's tricky, since the comprehensive criterion says nothing about foreign language sources, though obviously they are acceptable. For myself, this comment is unactionable, but I certainly wouldn't be opposed for you to add the important missing information (which I could integrate into the rest of the article). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source is a reliable source. Le Monde is no different to the New York Times. For en.wp English sources are preferred, but if the French sources contain significant information that is not available in English ones, that information will have to come from those French language sources and the article would fail 1(b) without that info. The article should not use "only" French, but wanting information from French language sources (the airbridge reference is an example) is actionable - you cannot ignore sources in other languages just because you can't read them! Btw, search engines translation tools are typically "good enough" to determine if there is useful info in an webpage, even if someone would need to translate properly for use in an article.---Nilfanion (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. You can have a look at www.temoignages.re and www.lexpress.mu for local sources with free articles. Yet, I doubt that you will be able to provide a comprehensive synthesis if you don't speak any French, as there are many subtles things that you should take care of in the process. For instance, if you want to fully understand the impact the cyclone had in national media in France, you have to take count of the chikungunya massive outbreak earlier in the region. And if you want to be precise, you'll need articles such as Rivière Saint-Étienne and so on. Thus, I think the best way for this article to be featured would be to have your current version translated into French, completed by a French volunteer, then translated back to English. I can deal with the first two steps if you want, but only after September. For the moment, I strongly oppose. Cyclone Gamede may be a Good article, but I definitely think it cannot be a featured one. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Le Mauricien is a newspaper, indeed. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through some French sources (as well as the French article), and I don't see any significant pieces of information that is not covered in the article (I added a few pieces of info from a few sources I found). I disagree with I think the best way for this article to be featured would be to have your current version translated into French, completed by a French volunteer, then translated back to English. An FA on a topic outside of the English-speaking world can certainly be completed by an English writer. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but that is not what matters here. The debate is whether or not the article should be featured. And I think it should not, due to the failure to provide important pieces of information about how the authorities reacted to the cyclone, how they dealt with its aftermath, how the media covered the event and what was its social and political impact on the islands. For example, François Baroin and Pierre-Henry Maccioni are not spoken about. Consequently, the article is three to four times shorter than it should be, with the French version not being a standard either. Thierry Caro (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thierry Caro, Hurricanehink indicated that he searched through French sources and found no more than small facts. Thus, the article is comprehensive, and therefore meets the FA criterion. Also, the length of an article is not grounds for opposing. I honestly don't see how the article could be expanded three to four times its current size. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not prone to calling comprehensive an article about a cyclone that would ignore important facts the press has echoed and that would thus describe the meteorological event without dealing with its social impact. Ministerial visits and national media coverage are not details that can be bypassed. In a sense, I oppose the nomination because of the very criteria you refer to. Plus, I miss the contextualization that is often found elsewhere and that generally comes with well-written featured articles. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I suppose you are right. It wouldn't deserve to be featured if there is indeed that much information missing. I'm withdrawing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll archive; please leave the fac template on the page until the bot goes through, per WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 18:42, 2 June 2008 [62].

Vädersolstavlan

This is a GA, reviewed and discussed. I recently added a reference from 2007, so the article should be updated too.
Self-nominator Raven in Orbit (t | c) 11:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC) (aka Mats Halldin)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes http://www.atoptics.co.uk/ a reliable source? Note I'm not saying it's necessarily not one, but I don't see anything that jumps at me and says it is.

Not reading Swedish, I can't evaluate the sources in Swedish. The link checker tool is showing one site with a soft 404 redirect. This one:http://www.sl.se/ErrorPage.htm. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments.
• atopics.co.uk is run by Les Cowley who has studied the halo in the painting. AFAIK, the site is one of the most widely used on-line references on atmospheric optics. (And that's not me suggesting I'm an expert from the field.)
• I've repaired the sl.se link. Apparently, they've updated the site lately.
/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 14:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Several uncited paragraphs, including but not limited to: "In 1523, as the newly elected King of Sweden", "The painting is used on a variety of merchandise""The painting shows a bridge stretching north", "Where the southern city gates were"
  • "(left to right)[14]:" References go after punctuation
  • Every time "Vädersolstavlan i Storkyrkan" is referenced, it needs page numbers.

There are more issues than these, though. Gary King (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out, I must admit I do use references a bit randomly. I've lived my entire life in Stockholm and I avoid leaving it. Some things related to the city are so self-evident to me that I tend to think of them as not needing citations.
  • I agree about the "elected king" claim needing a citation. I don't have one right now, but I'll try to produce one. And I just discovered I missed a citation for the "Like the islands, the ridges surrounding the city, ..." section. I didn't make this up; it comes from one of the sources already available in the article - I'll try to fix this.
  • However, I can't see any reason to doubt the painting is depicting Stockholm looking east, so I can't see a need for adding references for sentences claiming various structures are facing/pointing in various cardinal directions.
  • Stockholm really is littered with various products featuring the painting, so finding a citation for it seemed redundant to me. (Here is a link to a puzzle at the Stockholm City Museum.) I guess I could produce a photo from any museum shop in town.
It would still be WP:OR as we can't just "take your word for it". Gary King (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I get your point, but finding a ref for this is like finding a ref confirming Mona Lisa is used for all sorts of honky-tonk. Would the example above be enough?
/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "left to right" list comes from reference [14], so the citation is valid for the entire list. Maybe I should add a ref tag for every item in the list?
No, I mean ref goes after the colon (:) Gary King (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done
/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rothlind's Vädersolstavlan i Storkyrkan article is 7 pages long. Why is there a need for more specific page numbers?
I wasn't aware. Fair enough. Gary King (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd greatly appreciate if you could point out other similar problems in the article.
/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 19:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was greatly helped by 4u1e with my shortcomings in English. As a non-native English speaker I feel I can but admire you people reworking the prose. Here below are my five pennies: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raven in Orbit (talk • contribs)

Prose issues:

  • "Facing these challenges, the king saw conspiracies everywhere, sometimes correctly, and started to thoroughly fortify his capital." — The commas really feel like they are stopping the sentence a few times, as if you're in a car and the brakes are applied when you least suspect it. The wording also doesn't seem as professional as I would like. It can definitely be polished further.
I don't see the problem here. Please improve this sentence if you can.
/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the king, in contrast gave his unreserved support." → "while the king, in contrast, gave his unreserved support."?
Done
/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the king and the reformer collaborated initially, within a few years they started to pull in different directions." doesn't connect very well. Perhaps "Although the king and the reformer collaborated initially, they started to pull in different directions within a few years."?
Done
/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The primary historical source describing the events following the celestial phenomenon is the minutes of the proceedings from the king's legal process against the reformers Olaus Petri and Laurentius Andreae in 1539–1540 as described by the clerk and historian Erik Jöransson Tegel in his chronicle of Gustav Vasa written in the early 17th century." Wow. Technically, I would say this is grammatically correct, but perhaps it can be bogged down less? It's just... really long and winding.
I broke it up into two sentences, let me know if this is not what you meant.
/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Devil - one" convert to em dash, per WP:DASH (—)
Done
/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These were all found in the History section. Gary King (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These were just samples; there are several more issues in the text. I don't mean to be critical, but if I don't look for issues, then others will. I've also gone through the FAC process with my own articles and have received very similar criticism (just ask User:Tony1, User:Laser brain, or User:BuddingJournalist). Gary King (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand you are supposed to be critical -- a FAC process would of course be worthless if you weren't. No problems with me. It's the first time I'm attempting a FAC, so even if it fails I will learned a lot from it. BTW, I've added a lot more references and reworded various sections. Apparently I still got a lot to learn.
/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Avoid articles in section titles - "The church and the castle" can be changed to "church and castle"
  • Possible weasel word - arguably. I don't have access to ref#1, but couldn't this be attributed to it?
  • Found one contraction - isn't. There might be more.
  • Footnotes should be located after punctuation. Most of them are, but there's at least a few that aren't.
  • "However, a copy from 1636 by Jacob Heinrich Elbfas held in Storkyrkan in Stockholm, is believed to be an accurate copy and was until recently erroneously thought to be the restored original." - should there really be a comma?
  • I'm not an expert on this, but between years (i.e. "1998–1999" in the lead) I'm fairly sure there should be an en dash, not a hyphen.
  • "The painting was commissioned by the Swedish reformer Olaus Petri, and the resulting controversies between him and King Gustav Vasa and the historical context remained a well-kept secret for centuries." - awkward sentence, consider rephrasing.

Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those suggestions, Nousernamesleft.
I've now realised I need to rework various parts of the article and I'm in the middle of the process of reordering the entire reference section. Could I have this nomination postponed for a while? Is there a template or something for this? Sorry for stealing your time folks.
/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 18:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've withdrawn this. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template on the talk page until the bot adds it to articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Roger Davies 19:18, 1 June 2008 [63].

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

I wish to withdraw this FA nomination until further notice —Preceding unsigned comment added by EclipseSSD (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 June 2008


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has reached at least Good Article status, and I believe it meets the criteria for FA, including relevant images, and has clear well-written layout, and reliable references. EclipseSSD (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good job, appears to be through.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Links checked out okay. Sources seemed okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a good start. I enjoyed reading this but there is still some work to be done before the article will be ready to be featured. The writing needs to be sharper as shown in these examples:

  • The house used for the film's location now suggests no indication there ever was a house there.

This should be something like: The location of the house used for the film now shows no signs of a house ever having stood there.

  • Special effects were simple and likewise limited by the budget. - There is no need to say likewise here.

There are many other examples like this in an otherwise well written article. Please do not just fix these two. I suggest you ask someone new to the article to take a critical look. GrahamColmTalk 18:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think this article can be better. Much better. This is one of the most influential horror films, and by that designation, films in general, and the article doesn't go into detail about its cultural impact or enough explanation about the filming or production. You can find a wealth of information in print sources such as books and film journal articles about this movie. Search Film Indexes Online at a library (I just did) to find journal articles for this film (I found about 30 references). Use this book: Eaten alive at a chainsaw massacre: the films of Tobe Hooper, as well as others on the horror film genre. I've never seen this film and I know the article is not comprehensive. That's how pervasive the film is in culture. An entire section should be dedicated to the depiction of the graphic violence in the film. I suggest you de-list the article and work on it some more. Ask folks at WP:Films for assistance if you don't have access to the Film Indexes Online. --Moni3 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll take on board the feedback, and try to cleanup as requested. By the way, the graphic violence in the film is extremely minimal. Tobe Hooper went for the effect of actually scaring people, rather than over the top gore.--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Usually, the Plot section of an article needs to be shortened. In this case, however, I think it should be a bit longer.
  • "An estimated $83,532(USD) was raised." — The placement of "USD" seems odd; I don't think it follows WP:MOS.
  • The list in "Release" should be converted to prose.
  • Why is there one of those labels that appear when you hover over an image, in the "Tobe Hooper setting up a shot using an Eclair NPR 16mm." image?
  • "Financing" might be better placed as a subsection under "Production", and perhaps the paragraphs in that section could also be organized better under subsections such as "Creation", "Filming", and "Cast"? Just some examples.
  • You mention that the film grossed $30 million in the United States (and the fact that it is the most successful independent film) — twice. Is that necessary?
  • "Critical reception" can be renamed to just "Reception".
  • The amount of money that the film made should go in Release, I believe, while the amount of money the film cost to produce goes in Production.
  • A space should be in "crowd.[6]The".
  • "(1991).[7][6][8]" — Sort the references in ascending order.
  • "about thirty miles southeast" — Use the {{convert}} template so that the length in kilometers is also shown.
  • "August of 1973, under" — Years do not need to be linked unless they are significant to the understanding of the article.
  • "House [5]." — References go after punctuation marks.
  • "character. [6]" No spaces between punctuation and references.
  • I would suggest replacing all IMDB references with something else, as it is generally considered unreliable.
  • This tells me there are at least three paragraphs that are very short, and I agree with it because that's how the article looks like. There are a lot of paragraphs that are fairly short and could either be expanded on or merged with other paragraphs.
  • Format the references; some say "Retrieved on" while others say "last accessed on"; be consistent and use the {{cite web}} template.

These are only some of the problems that this article faces. It will need a significant amount of work before it reaches FA status, but it is doable. Gary King (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I can't do all of this on my own. At least I managed to make it to Good Article status.--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is understandable. I would suggest withdrawing this FAC (by saying you wish to withdraw at the top of this FAC) unless you can find some other editors to help out. Gary King (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting this to Good Article is a fine achievement. It is very, very difficult for most editors to get an article to FA without help. The editors at WP:Films should help with this; as Gary said, "it is doable". Graham. GrahamColmTalk 18:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:) Yep, I've been on both ends of the process now (having had 2 FAs and a few that I later withdrew, and now I am reviewing articles) so I understand very well the difficulties faced here. I would be glad to see the article back later on after it has improved. Gary King (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Graham and Gary. Do not be discouraged. If you love this film, it will not be difficult to work on this. Between the GA designation of To Kill a Mockingbird and its FA, it doubled in size. Be patient and tenacious. It will be very rewarding. --Moni3 (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everybody. I'm actually proposing a Texas Chainsaw Massacre project which will help with stuff like this. You can find it here. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a task force or something, at WP:FILM, might be better and elicit more response. Gary King (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Roger Davies 19:18, 1 June 2008 [64].

Seth MacFarlane

Self-nom. I worked on this article for about six months. The article is a GA. All of the images are free use, so the fair use rule doesn't apply. I have fixed the dead external links. I am free to suggestions on improving this article for FA status. miranda 17:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that this was a premature to nominate this as a featured article, because this is early in his career. Thus, I would like to withdraw my nomination. Thanks to those who took the time out to comment on the article. miranda 19:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes the following sources reliable?
    • http://www.wargs.com/other/macfarlane.html a reliable source? Just as an FYI, it's generally considered not ethical for professional genealogists to publish any biographical data on living persons (like Seth's parents).
Not really. Genealogists published results of political/actors, recently. miranda 00:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo is a reliable source.
This is a biography of a person. I can't find it at the moment (duh!), but I seem to recall a discussion at the RS:N about how Yahoo's biographies of people were editable by anyone? Remember this is a BLP, we should be using the best possible sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean WP:N or WP:RS? miranda 23:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I meant Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which has an abbreviation I never can remember. Sorry about that! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous users or logged in users can't edit the yahoo article. The site publishes the content. The main content is here. I will find alternate sources. miranda 23:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we're not dealing with an editable-by-anyone type article, yahoo's reliable enough to make it reliable. I could have misremembered!
Official blog of Frederator Studios miranda 00:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with Yahoo.ca story
Flak Magazine - RS
I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide, since some folks have a more jaundiced eye about online magazines than I do. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with IGN source.
About page mentions that it is a source used by professionals. Mentioned in reliable magazines. miranda 00:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will leave this one out for others to decide. I'm always a bit leery of pages from the site itself that say "So-and-so says we're great", not so much because I think they're lying, but you always wonder what got left out. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff (magazine) - RS
Insider magazine to Hollywood. Has cancellation of shows. I will contact the owner about the website's credentials, forward to OTRS, and place the results here. miranda 05:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Animation World Network - RS
So a trade organization for Animation professionals? Assuming that is so, I've struck this. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newsmeat - reliable source. Has campaign contribution reports.
What makes it reliable? To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with Huffington Post link miranda 23:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your strike outs, at FAC it's usual to let the person making the comments strike out issues when they feel they are resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I brought this up on the talk page, I'll bring it up again: how is where McFarlane was and what he was doing on September 11 important enough for a dedicated section? By the page's own admission, it didn't affect him that much. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see by the talk page, the section was much longer, and I had to cut it. The section is notable because interviewers ask him about his experience with September 11th. And his incidents from September 11th have influences on Family Guy. He uses September 11th in several episodes. Just because someone doesn't think an incident is important to their life, doesn't mean that incident should not be included with the article. miranda 22:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of TV shows and movies have addressed September 11. The section currently says nothing about why his experiences are important to the reader understanding the subject (i.e., nothing about how 9/11 affected his work.) Without this, it's a section that shouldn't be included. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — It is still very early in MacFarlane's career, and it is highly likely that this article will be expanded and altered as new shows, films, etc. are produced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support This article looks great. Discount this if you want to, I do after all don't know much about FA, but judging from the readable paragraphs and the references I say it should be featured. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Use {{cite web}} for references so they are standardized. Several references, such as "Hooper, Barrett. "Winner’s one big loser: Not all ex-Daily Show correspondents make great sitcom stars". Now Toronto. Published March 8, 2007. Retrieved December 21, 2007.", has the publishing date formatted differently from "Finley, Adam. "Seth MacFarlane and Samm Levine in new short film - VIDEO", TV Squad, Webblogs (in partnership with AOL), June 30, 2007. Retrieved on January 5, 2008. "
  • Somewhat of a minor issue, but in "wrote a short titled", "short" is the noun and not the adjective that most people associate it with. Perhaps reword to short subject (and link) or explain it? I had to double-back on that one.
  • "intellectual dog Steve" → "intellectual dog named Steve" might be better
  • "characters called Family Guy." I don't think the characters were called Family Guy; a comma might be better here.

These are only a small sample of the issues. Gary King (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal of this nomination was probably a wise decision (I say probably because it isn't too far off, with a bit of work) but to withdraw because it is "early in his career"? I don't think that should prevent this from being FA. Gary King (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I withdrew it because there aren't enough sources online. And, since he reached a new deal with Fox after the strike, it's kind of early in his career. IMHO. miranda 19:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough; but personally, I would not consider an article to be "too early" for FAC, unless there is a set date for when it would not be "too early" anymore. Examples include sports championships, where their articles would be stable after they ended, film releases, etc. Gary King (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 16:32, 1 June 2008 [65].

Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York

I hereby christen this article a featured article (candidate). It showcases brilliant writing legal and is sourced, good format, images, etc. JeanLatore (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose
    • Completely uncited, I can't see one citation.
    • Lead does not meet WP:LEAD
    • No references whatsoever.
    • Please consider re-reading the featured article criteria once more. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Milk's Favorite Cookie. Your perennial nomination of articles that do not meet the FA criteria is getting annoying. Please familiarize yourself with the FA criteria before nominating in the future. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous noms by JeanLatore:
  1. Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Beavis_and_Butt-head/archive1 and talk page note.
  2. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strap-on dildo/archive1 and talk page note.

I am traveling and on a bad connection; will leave the talk page notes to others. See also: User:SandyGeorgia/Glitter SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Sandy Georgia. see her unhelpful commentary at my talk page referenced to my queries her talk page. Folks, I think we've been had! JeanLatore (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Premature FAC nom. One online source is provided, but nothing else and no footnotes. Please withdraw it, JeanLatore. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 11:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose No in-line citations, one primary source, clearly not even B class.--Grahame (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support It's a Supreme Court case, and those are very informative. Angie Y. (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose of course. I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith. The nominator has been extremely rude to User:SandyGeorgia on her Talk page and this is the third completely unprepared article nominated by this person, despite the clear explanations of the process that have been offered. Please withdraw the nomination and follow the peer-review and Good Article route. GrahamColmTalk 17:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fair enough, someone plz. help me do a "peer review" of this article ASAP. JeanLatore (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:02, 1 June 2008 [66].

4 Vesta

Nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is well-written and does a very good job of explaining the science of Vesta (plus, aesthetically I think it's well-formatted and just nice to look at and this just makes it more fun to read). --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 9 is lacking a publisher, and also it dead links for me.
  • Current ref 13 "evolution of Vesta" is lacking publisher and last access date
  • Current ref 14 is just a bald link. Needs to be formatted with a title, etc. but at the moment, it's a dead link (with tag on it saying so too, I might add)
  • Current ref 21 Greg Bryant "Sky & Telelscope ..." is lacking a publisher and other bibliographic data
  • Current ref 23 is lacking publisher, and last access date. Also, what makes this a reliable site? Looks like a homepage.mac page to me.
  • See also sections usually go before the notes
  • http://www.rasnz.org.nz/MinorP/Vesta.htm deadlinked by the link checker tool
Sources look good. Other links all checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—This article is going to need a significant re-write in about two years when the Dawn spacecraft arrives.—RJH (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Prose/reference/layout issues need addressing before I can consider supporting this:

  • Short, stubby paragraphs/sections ruin the flow and readability.
  • The lead needs expanding to fully summarize the article as per WP:LEAD.
  • Lists should be converted to prose to improve readability/flow.
  • The pictures push the layout around (especially the last one, which obscures the 2 column references list.)
  • Orbital characteristics in the Infobox are not sourced.
  • No reference for "Vesta was discovered by the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers on March 29, 1807."
  • No reference for "After the discovery of Vesta in 1807, no further asteroids were discovered for 38 years"
  • No reference for "Vesta is the only known intact asteroid that has been resurfaced in this manner. However, the presence of iron meteorites and achondritic meteorite classes without identified parent bodies indicates that there once were other differentiated planetesimals with igneous histories, which have since been shattered by impacts."
  • What makes http://homepage.mac.com/andjames/PageVesta000.htm reliable? It's a .Mac homepage (personal website).
  • Current ref 2 needs access date.
  • Current ref 5 needs access date.
  • Current ref 11 needs access date.
  • Current ref 13 needs publisher/author/access date information.
  • Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for addressing prose issues, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Members and Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting for lists of copyeditors who can help you.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This interesting article needs copy-editing. The prose if often non-encyclopedic, ("thanks to" for example,) and stubby. There's much to be done for it to be of FA standard. I concur with the advice given above by Wackymacs. GrahamColmTalk 12:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a lot of work to be done on this article, I think. Some basic things like the length of the introductory paragraph: the LEAD should summarize the important parts of the rest of the article. There is no way the four sentences currently in the lead of this article summarize the main points of this article. I note things like the Dawn mission sometimes appear in italics and sometimes do not. This needs to be standardized (one way or the other). This article is only about half the length of Featured Article 1 Ceres, leading me to believe that it's not comprehensive, although I realize comparing the two articles isn't an exact science. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How much time left to fix these issues? --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rough plan here is that nominees may have issues which take up to seven days to fix, or more if steady progress is noted. It is possible to recover from this point if you have alot of free time and some handy reference books or journals but may be a tough call. It is no drama if you withdraw now and a few astronomical folks help out for a few weeks to give it a good spit'n'boot polish and renominate then. There'd be some who'd help. Either way is cool. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I also agree the article needs some work. Happy to help, but needs comprehensiveness issues addressed before copyediting Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - simply not ready. For the wealth of information available on Vesta, this article is simply insufficient. A quick ADS search gives 1156 hits for Vesta [67] Google books give 671 books mentioning it [68]. Substantial expansion is needed before this can be considered featured. WilyD 16:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator Comment: I'm a bit disappointed to see no one's taken the initiative to revise the article. Well, I'm the nominator so I guess the responsibility goes naturally to me. Give me until tomorrow afternoon (USA) to make some revisions. And yes, I agree with the above mentioned objections and they seem fair. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't come to FAC to get your article improved. Naturally that happens in the process if your article is not good enough. If you're seeking more editor help I suggest a peer review. Since the article needs serious expansion, this is something more suited to one with interest in the subject. Clearly, the people here (including me) are those who would do small edits such as minor copyediting. At the end of the day though, everyone has their own projects going on (and real life), so not everyone has the time. There are lists of copyeditors who can help you at both Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members, but I only recommend a copyedit once you're finished expanding - as WilyD explained there are a vast number of sources out there you can use. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:02, 1 June 2008 [69].

Water supply and sanitation in Colombia

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it fulfills the criteria for a featured acrticle.--Mschiffler (talk) 04:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 9 "Rojas, Leila, Vice Minister of Drinking Water and Sanitation"... is this a published source? I don't see a publisher for it, or any other bibliographical information that would enable folks to verify it, per WP:V
  • Current ref 32, "Garcia Carreno Jose Noe ... is this a published source? It's lacking all bibliographical information to enable others to verify the information, per WP:V
  • Same for current ref 33 "Guzman Hoyos ...
  • Current ref 43 (Columbian peso data from 2008) has a bald link for the source
  • Current ref 39 Columbian peso data from 2004 is lacking a source
I don't read Spanish, so I couldn't evaluate the Spanish language sources. The links seem to work according to the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the article's current size and depth, I'd say the lead needs significant expansion. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I love it --Well Hater (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Hater (talk · contribs) is blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding the lead should be easy - we did have a longer lead section in an earlier version and a peer reviewer suggested to shorten it. What is more difficult to address is the information that is not based on published sources. I am not sure if I'd like to take this out if that's needed to make it a featured article, or if I'd rather keep it as a GA and keep the information in.--Mschiffler (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What information is this? Even a Good Article isn't supposed to have that in it.-Wafulz (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The lead is too short and many of the sources are in Spanish, please see:Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources. GrahamColmTalk 09:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to me that "assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality" is the operative sentence. But I don't see any reason to assume that there's extensive English-language sources that could be used instead. In order to combat systemic bias, we do have to allow foreign-language sources unless English sources are available. Unless we have evidence that extensive English-language sources exist discussing the water supply of Colombia (this seems unlikely to me), then the article is actually okay in this regard. --JayHenry (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose This is an interesting topic, and I wish it was ready for FA, but I agree with the others who have stated the lead is too short. There are external citations throughout the article and breaches of MoS, 1-sentence paragraphs, and quite a few places without any citations. Bummer. --Moni3 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:02, 1 June 2008 [70].

History of Indiana

Nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because...

Mingusboodle and myself have been working on it for several weeks and I believe it is ready now. Charles Edward 16:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A few of the references are pretty bare. Is it possible to include author and/or publisher on the internet sources? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've went through all the references and included publishers, authors, and titles as they are available on the pages referenced. Many links are to IN.gov where no author information is provided, all info there is the work of the Indiana Historical Bureau and I have listed it as the author. Charles Edward 17:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still seeing quite a few refs with just the title and "Retrieved on...". Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
looks my changes were lost in an edit conflict.. I will make the changes again. Charles Edward 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've fixed the refs again, and this time it saved. :) Please note that many of the refs point to IN.gov and the author is the Indiana Historical Bureau or another state agency. Also note that the refs who's publisher is stated as the Indian Center for History are on a site hosted by the Northern Indiana Historical Society, which is separate from the Indiana Historical Society, which other refs point too. Many have no "author" listed on the pages but are just general informational type pages. (if there is something more that can be done to these refs to improve them please let me know) Charles Edward 21:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks very good, but I would recommend someone go through and check for grammatical errors. I found four such issues in the lead alone. Small, nitpicky things though. Definitely is a high quality article. Resolute 18:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Websites still need publisher and last access date information on the references. I'm seeing quite a number of them missing publisher and/or last access date. When that's taken care of, I'll be glad to come back and double check the reliablitliy of sources and links.Ealdgyth - Talk 19:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I think it's on it's way, but I have a few concerns. Pronoun usage is a major issue. Please check all pronouns (he, she, it, they, their...)
  • The region was largely deserted until the Ohio River Valley became thickly settled by the Mississippian culture from about 1100 AD - 1450 AD. - how do we know it was "largely deserted". Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I've changed the wording, hopefully that will address this concern. Charles Edward 22:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their settlements where known for their ceremonial burial mounds, many of which are still visible. - wrong use of where (should be were), and the pronoun their has no antecedent.
"Their" points to "the Mississippians". I've addressed that also. Charles Edward 22:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For unknown reasons they disappeared in the mid fifteenth century, about two hundred years before the Europeans first reached the region. again, no antecedent for they, and it isn't clear why this should be compared to the arrival of Europeans.
I would argue for leaving that. Point 1- European movement into the region is the next section and this provides context for that 2. This makes is clear that the disapeared for "unknown reasons" is unknown because no Europeans where there to document it. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire "Early civilizations" section seems very under-developed. Presumably, the data that exists comes from archaeological digs, which typically bring up pieces of pottery and other elements of daily life that can be expounded upon here.
To my knowledge, praticly nothing of much significance is known about the Mississippians or the Hopewells other than a few things about their settlements.(you can find this if you look at their wikipedia articles) Which would be another good point for leaving in the line about no contact with Europeans as an explanation to this lack of evidence. However I would like to expand that section where more information on it available. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indiana held a very important post during the colonial period. - this sentence could be removed entirely, with only a few tweaks to the rest of that section to make it flow better.
I've removed that sentence. The next two sentences do seem to provide ample context. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No permanent settlements were established in Indiana during most of the colonial rule, but control of the territory - although inhabited by Native Americans - was contested at various points by the European colonial powers - during most of the colonial rule is improper grammar. It also seems unlikely to me that Native Americans did not establish a single permanent settlement between 1673 and 1783 - if a source says that, please make it explicit which source it is.
The natives did have settlemts, at least 20 or so that i have read of. But these were not "permanent" as the natives were nomadic and moved between different parts of the state. The sentance is meant to refer to European settlements anyway. That is clarified and the sentence rewrote. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • came to the area eventually known as Indiana in 1679, claiming it for the King Louis the XIV of France. The area was further explored - repetition of the area
reworrded the sentance, sounds better now i think Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • from migrating too close to British influence - "migrate" in this sense requires an indirect object (e.g. it should be from migrating to a position perceived as too close to British influence, but that's a bad wording too - change the whole sentence instead)
changed to "moving to close the British sphere of influence". Might still need work Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other forts and outposts where established - wrong use of where, should be were
fixed it Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These forts where manned - wrong use of where, should be were
fixed it Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the Jesuits conducted missionary works in the area they inhabited in an attempt to convert the local natives to Christianity - needlessly wordy
revised sentence Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the missionaries even went to far as to live among the natives and accompany them on their hunts and migrations. They would perform infant baptisms and preach regularly to the tribes. - vague pronouns - remember, pronouns should refer to the closest previous noun or pronoun that agrees in number and gender
revised sentences Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • he first war to affect the region was the King William's War in 1689 which saw some minor raiding by the native tribes - not to be pedantic, but it's highly unlikely that there was never a war in Indiana before 1689. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also, it isn't clear what King William's War is, or why there was raiding.
I am not clear how to change this sentence without going into a sizable addition. While there may have been wars in the region before there are none recorded, so I see no need to speculate. To say why there was only raiding would require a broader explanation of the entire war which was european in nature. And as previously stated the natives where allied to the french and there were no european establishments, so there has been established for which to attack within the state, so the raiding is external and not really relevant to the article other than the fact that natives left the state to raid. I made a small change, hopefully that is enough Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second, Queen Anne's War from 1740 to 1748. not a complete sentence
noticed that earlier but forgot to fix. fixed now Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • French convinced many of its Native American tribes - vague pronoun
changed to "convinced many of the regions native american tribes" Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • French control of Canada which would lead to its fall to Britain - vague pronoun
changed "its" to "Canada's". Not sure if that is proper either though Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the Seven Years War (known as the French and Indian War in the Americas) the British challenged - this is an article about the Americas, right? Shouldn't we be using that term?
But at this point in the article the state is being discussed in the context of being a european possesion. I have no problem to change that, but a second opinion would be useful. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if that's the standard for historical articles I don't really care either. But wasn't all of North America a European possession at the time? Tuf-Kat (talk)
  • the Native Americans largely support the French - wrong tense
changed to supported Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the beginning the tribes sent large bands of warriors to support the French in resisting the British advance and counter-raiding - this is a recurrent problem in this article - you can't say something like "the British advance and counter-raiding" unless you're confident the reader knows what advance and counter-raiding you're referring to. It would be more proper to change it to "an advance and subsequent counter-raiding by the British" (see Article (grammar) on definite and indefinite articles; only use a definite article if it is clear which member of a set is being referred to). Furthermore, "counter-raiding" can't really be used if it isn't explained what they were countering - the implication is that the Native Americans raided the Brits, and the Brits counter-raided the French, but I'm not sure if that's what's meant.
I have reworded this to sound better. But again, this war has it's own article and would be very lengthy to go into detail as to why they did everything they did. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • westward but eventually where able to overcome the native resistance, after the fall of Montreal and where no longer able to support the hinterland - another major recurrent problem. Please look at every instance of where to see if it should be were.
fixed Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great Britain began her influence on Indiana in 1760 - earlier France was referred to as "it" (the French convinced many of its Native American tribes - though now that I look more closely, that's mixed up with another pronoun misuse), whereas GB is referred to as "her" here. I think either one is considered acceptable (I prefer "it") but be consistent.
In that instance was changed to "the region's". Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are only the issues I found on a casual glance up to the very beginning of the "Great Britain" section. This needs a thorough copyedit to be read for FAC. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These tribes where significantly less advanced than the Mississippian culture that preceded them. The new tribes where nomadic, returned to the use of stone tools - there are still these two misused wheres. Also, the second sentence is improperly constructed (the comma after "nomadic" introduces a list, each item of which is grammatically optional: "The new tribes were returned to the use of..." is not sensical). I still think this needs a thorough copyedit. There remain improper usage of definite articles (The control of the territory was contested at several times by the European colonial powers., the British challenged the French control in the region yet again), and generally sloppy writing (there was no official attempted to form permanent settlements, Gabriel Marest was one such priest, teaching among in Kaskaskia as early as 1712.). I don't see any additional vague pronouns, but I don't have time to look too thoroughly (and I haven't actually checked that my specific concerns listed above have been satisfied - I think so, but don't quote me on that yet - the relevant sections do seem much improved). Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've went through the article completely and did a major copy edit. The sections seem to flow together much better to me now. I've also removed alot of the pronoun usage replacing them with nouns and proper nouns wherever it seemed appropriate. I've also reordered some of the paragraphs and sentences to best convey the thoughts in a coherent way. And i've tried to clarify as many vague points as possible, even removing some minor content. If you should have a chance please check through the article again and let me know if it is at all improved in your opinion. Thanks Charles Edward 18:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Let me first say that I am no expert on wiki rules, so please correct if my assumptions are incorrect. i am only interested in writing a good clean article. Charles Edward 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/index.html this site. it gives its sources, but they are all tertiary sources, it looks like. Facts on File and Encyclopedia Britanica. Also, they are older sources, perhaps something more recent?
    • I've replaced this with a ref to a newer book i found.
  • What makes http://www.mississippian-artifacts.com/ a reliable source?
    • this website has a NSTA award and the author is professor at Kansas state University. Does that not count? Plus it has some good pictures and alot of content. I've went ahead and replaced it with another ref I found. Charles Edward 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 31 "The Indian Historian - Indiana Territory" is lacking a publisher
    • fixed
  • This statement "These nations would be participants in the Sixty Years' War, a struggle between Native Nations and White Nations for control of the Great Lakes region. These tribes were significantly less advanced than the Mississippian culture that preceded them. The new tribes were nomadic and returned to the use of stone tools and did not follow the large scale construction and agrarian ways of their predecessors." is sourced to a book published in 1892. Scholarship has advanced quite a bit since then, surely we have something more recent about the Mississippians?
    • I found a newer another book saying the same thing. (but it the older book seems to be more informative to me)
  • There are sources listed in the notes in a short form that aren't in the references section.
    • Current ref 28 Judge Law The colonial history of Vincenens which is lacking all bibligraphic information past that.
      • expanded
    • Current ref 32 Matilda Gresham Life of Walter Quintin Gresham
      • expanded
    • current ref 44 "By Julia Henderson Levering Historic Indiana which is lacking all bibliographic information past that.
      • expanded
Still missing publisher. ALL book references need at the least: Title, publisher, and page number. Author, year of publication etc. should be given also, but there are rare cases where sometimes that's not always available. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 47 Dewitt C. An Illustrated History of the State of Indiana which is lacking all bibliographic information past that. Later it is used as current ref 55 with fuller information, I think. There though, it's lacking a page number.
      • fixed - pausing here, seems someone has screwed up the reflist template...
Second usage is still lacking page numbers. They are needed for WP:V Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 62 Miller Harold Economic Geography is lacking all bibliographic information
      • expanded
  • You reuse William M. Fowler Empires at War quite a lot, perhaps move it to the References section and do the footnotes in short form? Also, ISBN seems to be incorrect, is it this book: Google Books link
    • done
  • Current ref 14 is to the Encyclopedia Americana, but that's an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, it is a bit odd for an encyclopedia to be using another encyclopedia for references. Also it's lacking a publisher and publication date and other bibligraphical data.
    • I'm not clear, do you suggest replacing it with a better reference or expanding the info on the existing one?
Id suggest replacing it, but if you are adamant that it must stay in, it needs the other information. Really suggest replacing it though. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • i've replaced it with a ref to barnhart which gives the same information on the topic. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 29 Dowd, Gregory Evans A spirited resistance is lacking publisher and any other bibliographic information and page number
fixed
  • current ref 30 Arville L. Funk A Sketchbook of Indiana History is lacking an ISBN and page number, and you use this reference again, so shouldn't it go in the references section? Also several of its later uses lack page numbers.
    • my copy of the book does not have an ISBN number, and I cant locate one online either. It was published in 1963, did they do that then? Pages numbers are added, and it is converted to short reference. =But, fyi, i used two books by thus same author, I don't want to cause confusion so i left one as a long reference.
To do the one author with different books thing you can go two ways... you can differentiate them by Author (year of publication) or Author Title. I generally go Author Title but that's a personal preference. Just pick one and stick to the style, it's perfectly okay to have more than one work by an author and still use the short references system. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 35 Cleaves, Freeman Old Tippecanoe is lacking a page nubmer
    • fixed
  • You reuse William Wesley Woolen Biographicl and Historical Sketches of Early Indiana a number of times, probably should put it in the references section. Also, this book was originally published in 1883, perhaps you should mention that in the bibliography, that's it is a reprint of a 1883 edition.
    • done
  • Current ref 50 "Indiana Historiacl Bureau The State House story' is lacking a last access date
    • template was formated wrong, fixed
Still has no last access date. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • template was still formatted wrong... It is fixed now.
  • What makes http://www.potawatomi-tda.org/ a reliable source?
    • The site is maintained by a member of the Indiana Historical Society and the information containted in it is from their publications, and it's the best online reference I've come across. I have replace it anyway with a ref from Funk 45-47
  • Current ref 60 Emma Thornbrough Indian in the Civil War Era is lacking a page number
    • fixed
  • What makes http://historic.shcsc.k12.in.us/CivilWar/BATTLE.HTM a reliable source?
    • The site is hosted by the public school of Corydon, the city where the battle occured. The site is used as a public school teaching recourse.
Yes, but it doesn't give its sources nor is a public school going to be well known in the history field. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You reuse Ralph D. Gray Indiana History A book of readings, perhaps it should go in the references section?
    • done
  • What makes http://www.bsu.edu/ourlandourlit/Regions/EC.html a reliable source? It says at the bottome "Our Land Our lIterature is an electonric exploration of Indiana's enviromental literature created by student scholars at the Virginia B. Ball Center for Creative Inquiry in Muncie Indiana."
    • it is published by student scholars at a reputable Indiana university.
Yes, but the key part here is "student scholars". For self published information, we want to satisfy WP:SPS which requires that the writers be noted in their field. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've replaced the ref with two different ones that, combined, bear out the facts of paragraph. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 69 Milestones in Medical Research is lacking last access date.
Still missing. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • template formatting problem, fixed
  • Current ref 71 McMakin Dean Musical Instrumetn Manufacturing in Elkhart Indiana is lacking bibliographic data past that.
    • I am unable to locate this book or any additional information on it, perhaps someone else can? I will search for a ref to replace it.
    • I've found a another source to replace it with. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 72 is lacking last access date.
    • fixed
  • This statement "During the postwar era Indiana became a critical swing state that would often decide which party would control the Presidency. The parties each vied for Hoosier support and included a Hoosier on almost every presidential ticket in the three decades following the Civil War." is referenced to this site, which however only covers 1888. Need better sourcing for this statement.
    • added additional ref to gray, page 171-172 which covers the same topic.
  • Current ref 83 "Idnaian Center for History " is lacking a publisher
    • fixed
  • This is a marginal source http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=44dc224971c81010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e449a0ca9e3f1010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD, it would be nice to see it replaced with a better one.
    • i've supplied an additional ref to supplement it, but I do not find it as informative as the previous one so I have left it. The ref does site a biographical book as it's reference, however I do not have access to that book - would it be alright to add that book the reference instead?
If you don't have access to the book, you shouldn't cite the book. Only cite sources you've actually accessed. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I found another source that confirms the info in the article published by the County History Preservation Society of Indiana. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 85 "Indiana History Chapter Nine" is lacking a publisher
    • fixed
  • Current ref 86 Jack Keenan "The Fight for survival ..." is lacking a last access date
    • fixed
  • This statement "The 1973 oil crisis created a recession that significantly hurt the automotive industry in Indiana. Companies such as Delco Electronics and Delphi began a long series of downsizing that contributed to high unemployment rates in manufacturing cities like Anderson, Muncie, and Kokomo. The trend would continue until the 1980s when the national and state economy began to recover. Indiana's economy diversified in those years as manufacturing lost ground to the service industry." is sourced to this http://www.wsws.org/workers/1998/july1998/jiml-j02.shtml which is an interview with a retired autoworker. One interview with a retired autoworker isn't enough for the sweeping statements made in the article.
    • a ref has been added to the US labor department report about the rise and fall of auto industry in the midwest during the 1970s-1980s. Wording of the section may need changed slightly to more properly reflect the new reference, I will look that over.
    • I've went through and removed the part that is not supported by the new ref. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 27 just says "English" what is that?
    • fixed
  • Current ref 96 Corporate Tax History http://www.in.gov/dor/taxtypes/corp-history.html deadlinks for me.
    • The pages has been moved and replaced with a new page with far less content[71]. I don't think there is enough information there now to support the statement in the article, but I have went ahead and replaced the link. Another ref will need to be found or that statement should probably be removed.
    • i've been unable to locate another source to properly reference that statement, So i have removed the statement. It can be re-added when another source is found. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not wrong, but very odd formatting to see the last names of the authors of the notes given in short form be italicised.
    • that is due to using the cite book template for all the refs, I will correct that.
  • Please change all your references that give the author name in First last form to last name first, as that is the format you seem to use most
    • done
Links all checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will be glad to work through this list this afternoon. Charles Edward 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments from Ealdgyth - Talk 01:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Current refs 57 and 59 are to Funk, Arville Hoosiers in the Civil War, but neither give their page numbers.
  • Current ref 87 Indiana History Chapter Nine is lacking a publisher
  • Do you actually use the "Indiana" the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia ref? If not, delete it.
    • it doesn't appear to be used, I have removed it.
I'm going to suggest you read up on the use of the name function in the <ref> tags. If you go something like <ref name=TAG>(bibliographical info)</ref> for the first usage of a web page or a page (or pages) from a book (with the same page numbers) then every other time you use that same site or set of book pages, you can just go <ref name=TAG/> which simplifies things greatly, AND combines all the refs that are the same together so that it's easier to read the refs.
I will look into that, I've seen it done on other articles. To be honest when I began working on this article I never expected to become so lengthy and didn't consider that I would end up with nearly one hundred references.
I also took the liberty of formatting a few easy ref changes, and alphabetizing your references.
Thank you!
Lastly, I don't see any explanation of the origin of the nickname "Hoosiers"?
I didn't add an explanation mainly because no one really knows where it came from. There are four or five very different theories but the only thing definite is became common sometime between 1820-1830, which is mentioned in the "Early development" section. And too add one theory I would have to add the others to be fair which would make what I consider an already very long article even longer.
Heh. COI, my family is one of the ones that is supposed to have orginated the term. Actually a way back great-uncle, but... family nevertheless. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Northern Indiana Historical Bureau has a good webpage that explains the different theories, so I could add that information to the article if you think it would be useful. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will be glad to run through the remaining items tomorrow. Thanks for your your thorough review of the article! Charles Edward 02:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • Image:Mississippian city.jpg - on what page is this image? The book doesn't have an "appendix" and I've been unable to locate the image after going through the book twice.
      • page number added, my copy is a revision with three appendixes on the end. Charles Edward
    • Image:Pontiac conspiracy.jpg - needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.
      • I cant find anythinf certain on this image, I think it came from a harpers weekly though. Should we remove it? Charles Edward 18:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Treaty of Greenville.jpg - needs a verifiable source.
    • Image:Grouseland.jpg - needs a verifiable source.
      • I think someone just took that pic an uploaded it. I have removed it though because of the space issue. Charles Edward 18:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The small resolution, lack of camera metadata and non-self license are big red flags; very unlikely to be a user-made image. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Wh9.gif - needs a verifiable source.
      • Source is added Charles Edward 18:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see that the image has changed? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I added the info on the image at the commons. It is from [72], if not it is awfully coincidental that the images are the same size and name. Charles Edward 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Tecumseh and Harrison.jpeg - needs a verifiable source.
    • Image:Indianaconstitutionelem.jpg - history center website does not assert a date for this image. What is the basis for the 1910 claim (note, also, the discrepancy with "after" 1920 in the caption)? Where is evidence that the image was published, not just created, in 1910 (only the former is the PD-US criterion). Additionally, source asserts copyright and states "Users may download material displayed on this site for noncommercial, educational purposes only". Non-commercial images are not acceptable per WP:IUP, WP:TAG and Jimbo.
      • I am not certain I understand what you mean by "published". IHS has had the photo in it's public record for nearly 100 years, is that "published"? Anyway, I live two blocks from this tree.. I will just go take a new photo. :) Charles Edward 18:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Publication is "the distribution of copies ... of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". For example, if I take a photograph of a tree in my front yard and put the photo in an album or hang it on my wall, it has not been published. If I go and put that photo on postcards, use it in a book, etc. (i.e. copies to be distributed), it is thusly published. So the question here is whether this, say, just sat in a trunk before the historical society scanned it or it was actually copied and distributed before 1.1.1923. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok I am removing the current image. I will replace it when I am able to take a new photo. Charles Edward 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:80 Indiana Regiment.jpg - what edition of Harper's Weekly is this image from? Merely saying "Harper's Weekly" is not sufficient information.
      • It says its from the November 1, 1862, issue of Harper's Weekly and the author of the picture. What more do you suggest adding? Charles Edward 18:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It didn't say that when I reviewed it. You made the alteration. What is the basis for the assumption that the date provided is the issue of Harper's Weekly and not the photograph itself? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is a photo that I uploaded. I listed the issue date as the date. The image can also be found online here [73]. Charles Edward 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Indywarmem.jpg - needs a verifiable source.
      • The source says it is from www.indy.gov. Should we remove the image?
        • The image does not currently contain a source. On what specific indy.gov page is the image used? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks like its from here [74]. The copyright info would be listed wrong though, IN.gov is state, not federal, and therefore not free. Charles Edward 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image sandwiching issues in "Indiana Territory" section; see WP:MOS#Images. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am unfamiliar with the picture referencing criteria. Do these references to the source of images need to be shown on the article page or on the image page? Also, you have pointed to quite a few places you would like to have references added, this can be done but it is nessecary to reference every single statement in this article? Charles Edward
Image sources need only be provided on the image pages. You may be confusing me with Ealdgyth above, as I have not made reference to sourcing of statements. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will see what I can find out.. I've only added two of the images myself, the rest are from other articles. Charles Edward 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based primarily on prose, although there are some MOS issues and a few areas that need to be a bit better cited. For each of the main prose issues, I've given one example; the issues are not confined to just those examples, though.
    • Prose issues
      • Many long unwieldy sentences (example "the region entered recorded history when the first Europeans came to Indiana and claimed the territory for Kingdom of France during the 1670s." could be rewritten as "Explorers claimed the area for France during the 1670s.")
I've tried to go through and cut all this out, but I am not great with prose. Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • issues with clauses matching (example " These tribes succeeded one another in dominance until the region entered recorded history when the first Europeans came to Indiana and claimed the territory for Kingdom of France during the 1670s" - the tribes were still dominant in the 1670s; they didn't suddenly stop being there when the explorers arrived"
      • Use of descriptor "Hoosiers" in the lead without explaining what that is (many people will not know that is the Indiana nickname)
I dont think the lead is the place the go into that, I just replaced it with "residents" of Indiana. Charles Edward
      • Pronoun antecedents don't always match: example "During the early 20th century the state developed into a strong manufacturing state, then experienced setbacks during the Great Depression of the 1930s. The state saw many developments during this time " - which time? the 1930s is the last time discussed, or does this mean the early 20th century?
clarified this point, are there others? Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the lead there is a reference to Eli Lilly. This goes to a disambig page - do you mean the company or the man?
fixed Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lots of repetition across sentences that could be reduced. example "Evidence suggests that Indiana had a very low population following the Hopewell decline. The population remained low until " could be rewritten "Following the Hopewll decline, evidence suggests that Indiana's population was low until..."
I've tried to remove as much as this as I have noticed. Is there more? Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've seen several grammatical errors - verbs don't agree with subjects, extra words in sentences, no apostrophes in words that need it. It needs a thorough read-through again.
I've went through the article about ten times looking for things. It's all starting to run together. Hopefully I have fixed some of the issues. Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • MOS issues
      • Per WP:MOSDASH, use ndash instead of a hyphen for date ranges (and it should be spaced for a date range)
i've replaced all the ones I saw in the article. Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Capitalization errors: Cultures, Priests, etc probably shouldn't be capitalized. Check the article for other instances of wikilinks like these that ended up improperly capitalized.
fixed the ones I found Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations of fewer that 4 lines should not be offset.
I assume you are refering to the consitution quote - I have removed that line. Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • See also templates should be at the beginning of a section, not at the end, and I don't think that See also: History of Indianopolis really belongs here anyway - maybe in the See also section at bottom?
fixed Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is Jefferson Academy bolded? That appears to be against WP:MOSBOLD.
I believe it was bolded because it was not wikilinked. That can be changed Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see at least one instance where there is no conversion between standard and metric.
      • I don't believe that "War" is supposed to be capitalized when used by itself.
    • "but it is theorized that European plagues " - theorized by whom?
Theorized by the author of the book in reference that ends the paragraph. Should I duplicate the reference at every statement that is made using that reference, even within the same parapgraph? Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The citation method you use is fine, but it is usually best when there is phrasing like "it is theorized" to make it explicitly clear in the sentence who is doing the theorizing. Sometimes the source is reporting that someone else theorizes that. I'd rephrase to say..."Historian/author/etc John Doe theorizes that ..." Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If La Salle didn't come to Indiana until 1679, how was there an outpost within the territory in 1673?
La Salle claimed the land for france, he was the first to map it and truely explore. Traders were in indiana before him dealing in furs. That could be made more clear. Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of excess wikilinking and repetition in section France. It talks about each fort, when it was founded and by whom, and then has this sentence which repeats all the info " Of these forts the more important included Fort Vincennes (Present day Vincennes), Fort Ouiatenon (Present day Lafayette), and Fort Miamis (Present day Fort Wayne). "
that can be pared down Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On my screen, there is a gap of several lines before the paragraph beginning "By the 1850s". This is likely because the image and table are bumping against each other; one of these should be moved.
    • Is there a source for "In the early 19th century, most transportation in Indiana was accomplished by river.
    • Is there a source for "The first road in the region was called Buffalo Trace"
    • Is there a source for fact that New Albany was the largest city?
    • Is there a source for "The first major road in the state was the National Road, "
    • Is there a source for "The value to the South of this secession was only a brief piece of propaganda."
    • Is there a source for "Prior to the Civil war, the population was generally in the south of the state where easy access to the Ohio River provided a convenient means to export products and agriculture to New Orleans to be sold"?
    • Is there a source for "This would lead to a population shift to the north where the state would come to rely more on the great lakes and the railroad for exports"?
    • Is there a source for "Indiana's economy diversified in those years as manufacturing lost ground to the service industry."
I've added references to each of these statesments or a sentence or two after that should satisfy the claims. Charles Edward 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the images are of Governors. It might be helpful to put the years of their terms in office in the captions.
There are no images of the governors of Indiana in the article. There is one of President Harrison who was a territorial governor, but he was more than just governor, wouldn't it take away from him to just put his dates as governor? Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is the picture of Harrison and one of Gov. Morton. I think the captions should have a bit more context. In Harrison's case, it could say something like, "Harrison, the xxth U.S. President and the only one from Indiana, served as territorial governor from yyyy to zzzz". Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, I have done that. Charles Edward 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this can be fixed Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a little concerned that the article relies a great deal on the Indiana Center for History, the Indiana state government, and various websites. I would imagine that there are many books dealing with the history of Indiana, and I wonder why those weren't used rather than the web sources. I'd rather see independent third-party sources.
75% of the article is sourced from books exclusively. I would have sourced this whole things books, but then how could anyone verify anything at all unless you have access to a libary. There is a question about an image i scanned from one book in a lower comment that is not available in a copy of the book they are looking at. Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Verification requires that good sources be used, not that internet sources be used. Many FAs, especially for historical events do not use a single web source, and that is okay. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how Indiana Historical Bureau stuff could be conisdered questionable and will work through to see what I can be replaced with better references. But in regards to the Indian Center for History, that is funded by the Northern Indiana Historical Society, and independent orginazation, I would think that those sources are acceptable. Charles Edward 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The books listed in the reference section are using different formatting methods. Can these be made more consistent?
All the books where listed using the cite book template, they should all be formated the same. Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't put a section around the templates. They should just be by themselves.
I am not sure what you mean by this. please advise. Thanks Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section called Other Information, and the only information in it is two templates.

The section header should be removed. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK fixed Charles Edward 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your review. To be honest almost every sentence could have a reference put after it but some if it is such basic knowledge is there really any value to referencing it? I have the books and go do that if you think it is needed, Most of these statements have wiki links which you could follow, as a reader, and get more information, including references on the topic. Please correct me if my assumptions are incorrect on anything :) Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not every fact requires a reference. The ones I pointed out are those that could potentially be disputed. It is generally not a good idea to depend on a child article to contain the references, as those articles are outside the control of this one. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/June_2008&oldid=220057110"