Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive4

Roman Catholic Church

previous FAC (00:01, 18 March 2008)

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

Nom restarted, old nom SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Well-written --Andrea 93 12:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good! Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 18:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per previous nom. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• 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)

Comment

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)

• "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)

• "he basic administrative unit of the Catholic Church is the diocese." unreferenced

Thanks again - referenced. NancyHeise (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Thank you for your comments. NancyHeise (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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". Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I eliminated "some" - good comment. NancyHeise (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

Responding to Hurricanehink and Squash Racket, a FAC reviewer responded to this same comment on the previous nomination page and I agree with it. [1] 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)

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)

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)

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 [2] 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

I've fixed the broken link. Today's date is acceptable for accessdates? Squash Racket (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you accessed it today, then that's the date! ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(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)

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)