Talk:Irenaean theodicy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk • contribs • count) 12:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:ItsZippy

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	According to WP:LEAD, the lede should summarize all aspects of the article, without introducing any information not found in the article body. This lede doesn't do that.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Some online references are poorly formatted (no information on websites besides the title). On the other hand, it's excellent that you have page numbers on the book refs. Some sources are clearly unreliable, such as "InfoBarrel", when there are many high-quality sources that cover the same info.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All material is sourced, but some of the sourcing seems a little loose. For instance, the John Hick section sources the first paragraph to Cramer and the second to Tyler/Ried/Gordon, but it doesn't look like the Tyler source covers the first paragraph better than the second, or that the Tyler source covers the second paragraph better than the first. Specific facts should be sourced to the best source that contains the relevant info. Also, I'm not sure why the external links aren't used as references.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I don't think this is a problem.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This is the primary problem with the article. See below.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It seems adequately neutral, thus far.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are free and correctly tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are appropriately chosen and placed. There are very minor problems with the captions, but nothing serious.
	7. Overall assessment.	This does not pass our GA criteria at this time.

I really like this topic, and I think it deserves a quality article. The information in the article is good, but the main problem with it is that it is far too short. If you look at Featured Articles like Free will, Diocletianic Persecution, or Catholic doctrine regarding the Ten Commandments, you can really get a feel for what a fully fleshed-out article on a topic like this would look like. A glance through Google Books shows entire books written on the topic, as well as long chapters in more general reference books. Some of the unanswered questions in this article would be: What precursors (besides Irenaeuns) existed before Hick's interpretation that led to his understanding? What effects did Hick's idea have on Christianity or theology? What groups have spoken in favor of, or against, this theodicy? How does this relate to other major models (such as the Augustinian theodicy)? Did Hick write about this anywhere other than "Evil and the God of Love"? Etc.

I hope you continue to work on this article. You may want to submit it to Wikipedia:Peer review to get more opinions on the sort of material that should be added. Once it's fleshed out, feel free to resubmit it for GA review. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)