Template:Did you know nominations/Restoration of Peter

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of Peter edit

(

)

... that in the restoration of Peter (pictured), Peter's triple confession of his love for Jesus is thought to reflect his triple denial of him?

Reviewed: David Jones (New Zealand politician)

Created by StAnselm (talk). Self nominated at 09:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC).

Article is long enough and new enough. As far as I can tell after reading through it, it meets core policies and guidelines as far as it goes at the moment. It is not clear whether the sources used are just scratching the surface or not. If there is a lot more scholarship out there on this, it would be good to make that clear in the article somehow. One thing that needs to be addressed is the sources. Currently, the titles of the sources are given, but not the year of publication or publication details (e.g. publishers). Reference 7 is a named url, which needs additional details (currently just says 'Agapao & Phileo in Peter's Restoration'). Ditto for reference 13 'Primacy and the "Infallibility" of the Roman Pope'. The hook content and length is fine. The picture (from 1515) is public domain by age. QPQ review done. Overall, if the questions above can be sorted, this will be good to go. For now (pinging StAnselm). Carcharoth (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The omission of bibliographic details was just slackness on my part, and it's fair enough that this article isn't passed for DYK until those are added - I will put them in later today. As for the breadth of coverage, there are a lot more references that could be added, but IMO the current ones address the main points of discussion and dispute. I did check a few academic journal articles, but they didn't seem to be saying much that wasn't already in the article, and they weren't available online either. St Anselm (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Done St Anselm (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good to go now.

Carcharoth (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)