This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The page creator asked me about the tags I left during New Page Review so copying my response here for the benefit of other editors:
Under WP:SIZERULE, a page of 9000+ words (which this one is) should generally be divided and trimmed. This page is very long considering the subject matter is a relatively obscure individual. The organization of the page is poor, with far too many headings.
This leads to the "intricate detail" argument, about which -- there is no reason to have so much obscure detail. For example: At the American Civil War's end, Chaney traveled to Europe in June 1866 for a three-month vacation. During his absence, the Hollis Street Church was closed for renovations. No information on his itinerary or traveling companions, if any, has been found. What is the relevance of this detail? Why is it included? What encyclopedic value does it provide? There is a vast array of content in this biography that is like this.
The original research is the biggest problem. Per WP:NOR, Wikipedia presents a summary of what secondary (and sometimes tertiary sources) say about subjects, and rely only in rare instances on WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs and contemporaneous news stories. You have used those documents extensively to write this article, with the result that this article reads more like an original research paper than an encyclopedic treatment. Lots of statements appear to represent your own view of Chaney, not a summary of what secondary sources say. Here is a sampling of original research claims in this article: What is clear is that Chaney believed in a loving God who resided within us. ... Consistent with his optimistic view of humankind, Chaney rejected the orthodox Christian dogma of original sin. Chaney observed that the concept of Adam's fall and its consequential generational sin rested upon the unquestioned acceptance of a few lines of scriptural texts. Chaney's biblical criticism was more demanding and eschewed the literal reading of Genesis scripture. ... Chaney cautioned that the truth in the Bible is offered like a precious ore. It must be worked to reveal its value.
The "Myths" sections is also a form of original research and a violation of WP:NPOV, in which you are responding to statements(?) by unsourced individuals. An encyclopedia treatment would instead weigh a variety of opinions on Chaney rather than classifying some of them as "myths." In a Wikipedia article, every contentious statement should be able to be backed up with a reliable, independent, secondary source unless a policy permits a different source.
I don't believe any of these problems are surmountable. I do think the subject passes the test of notability (WP:N), which is the main thing New Page Reviewers are asked to do when we review a page. What I've mentioned above are content problems. They are serious, and need to be addressed, so please don't remove the tags unless you or another editor can successfully address them. Hope this helps. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
