Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive4: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:25, 2 June 2008 editSquash Racket (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers14,116 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 07:24, 2 June 2008 edit undoJbmurray (talk | contribs)Administrators20,564 edits →Roman Catholic Church: strong opposeNext edit →
Line 40: Line 40:
*'''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. ♬♩ ] (<small>]</small>) 04:59, 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. ♬♩ ] (<small>]</small>) 04:59, 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 ] regarding structure and references. ] (]) 05:25, 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 ] regarding structure and references. ] (]) 05:25, 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 ], then on ], and also ]. I do have other comments on this article, but am hardly encouraged to present them here. --] (] • ]) 07:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:24, 2 June 2008

Roman Catholic Church

previous FAC (00:01, 18 March 2008)

Toolbox

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

Nom restarted, old nom SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 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". 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 21:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I eliminated "some" - good comment. NancyHeise (talk) 01:57, 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 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)
  • 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)
  • 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. 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)
Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive4: Difference between revisions Add topic