Talk:Theology of Huldrych Zwingli/GA1

GA Review

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

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Needs some prose work, as well as expansion of the lead.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
need to clarify the copyright status of the pic of the statue
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Specific comments

The statue pic. I'm not sure if it's PD, as we need to know the copyright status of the statue. When was it made? I suggest getting an opinion from an image expert.

Sometime ago I submitted a question on the legal issue of photographs made in Switzerland. The response was that photographs made in areas for the purpose of public viewing are not subject to copyright by the owner of the photographed subject. I will look up the diff. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK the law seems to be called freedom of panorama and works in public places can be photographed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead. Does not summarize the article. Includes information not in the body. It's also pretty skimpy for an article of this size. I'd suggest a bit more information in the lead.

Will get to this. Please hold. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scripture section, third paragraph, fourth sentence, its wordy. Perhaps "Like Luther, Zwingli did not regard Revelation of St John highly."

I took your formulation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph of Baptism is very choppy and disjointed. The third sentence in particular seems disconnected from the preceding and following sentences.

Rewritten. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baptism section, second paragraph, fourth sentence, is it "...covenant, sign, or pledge." or "a covenant sign, or a pledge."?

Just two items. I reordered and rewrote it. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baptism section, second paragraph, sixth sentence, that's a very long wordy sentence, any chance of breaking it up?

In fact, I rewrote it. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baptism section, second paragraph, ninth sentence ... I got totally lost, what are you trying to say here?

Rewritten. Hopefully understandable now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baptism section, third paragraph, you mention Hubmaier's position, but you need to explain what Zwingli's refuting, at least briefly.

Added wikilink to Hubmaier and it was his position on baptism (the anabaptist position). --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that "A Reply to Hubmaier" is written after the "Baptism, Rebaptism..." work? Might give some chronological indication of that.

The source gives the documents in the order of publication (as shown in the first paragraph) and both were published in 1525, but it isn't more specific than that. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Context. You need a bit of it with some of the terms. Not everyone is going to know what Anabaptists are. A quick one phrase explanation of "Anabaptist, or those who did not practice infant baptism, in contrast to most other Christians." would proably suffice. You also have some odd choices of when to wikilink things. You don't link covenant until the third or fourth usage of it.

I added some context and some names of the leaders (with wikilinks). Moved the covenant wikilink to the first one. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baptism section, third paragraph, sixth sentence its unclear how this sentence connects with the rest of the paragraph.

Rewritten and reduced. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eucharist section, third paragraph, suggest breaking off the second half of this paragraph into its own paragraph, starting with the sentence starting "The main issue for Zwingli..."

Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you wikilink the titles of the books of the bible, sometimes you don't. Pick one and be consistent.

Did I miss any? There is a second reference to John 6:63 (the first is wikilinked) and there is Isaiah that is part of a title (which should not be wikilinked). --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need to give some context to the "mercenary service" in the first paragraph of State

Added context. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the references that aren't footnoted, and put them in a further reading section.

Done. The two that are seemingly not used are planned for use in further expansion of the article (on the Long March to FA). --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOte any foreign languages in the references, notes, or further reading sections.

I added a de icon to the website. Should there be an indication for the Huldreich Zwinglis Samtliche Werke? The info is really from Stephens and he gave the German reference. I added the additional German reference for those who wanted to dig to the original source. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't actually use the SW stuff as a ref, throw it in a 'further reading' and it should probably note non-English (although I'm a lot less picky about that sort of thing in further reading/external links than I am in the main references) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, those are citations of a citation. You might notice that those cites are for quotes made by Zwingli, not something from Stephens' analysis. So what I did was to add the additional information of the original source (Zwingli's compiled works) which I think would be of interest to the reader. However, following WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, Stephens is properly noted as the article's source of the quote. I added Zwingli's compiled works in the References section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That "Protestanitsm" template is plain ugly. Is there a real need for it?

Removed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it return five or six times... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could happen. I didn't put it there myself. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the points I've raised above, the prose is very wordy. I strongly suggest a good copyedit or two, by someone unconnected to the article. I wont hold up GA status waiting on that, but it will need a lot of polishing to go to FAC.

Yes, it is definitely not ready for FAC. I just wanted to see if it makes the GA level as it is now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.