Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Westminster Assembly/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2016 [1].

Westminster Assembly edit

Nominator(s): JFH (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a committee of theologians called by the Long Parliament to reform the Church of England during the Civil War. The Westminster Assembly created documents which are part of the constitution of virtually every Presbyterian church in the world. Tim riley recently promoted the article to GA. JFH (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments The start: "The Westminster Assembly of Divines was a council of theologians (or "divines") and members of the English Parliament appointed to restructure the Church of England beginning in 1643. It was formed during the lead up to the First English Civil War by the Long Parliament." is rather misleading, as the committee did not actually sit until the war was well under way, and would not have sat at all without the war.
  • The legacy section seems rather short, and does not make clear the legal position in England of those continuing to uphold the WA positions after the Restoration.
  • Should not the quite long Westminster Confession of Faith get a "see also" link, as well as the standards?
  • The article hardly mentions the virulent anti-Catholicism which is perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the assembly and its product.

Johnbod (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Johnbod, for your helpful comments. I think I've addressed them all. The issue of anti-Catholicism was a bit difficult, as I didn't find a lot written on the anti-Catholic attitudes of the Assembly itself (though I agree it was very anti-Catholic). I did manage to add a bit on Puritans anti-Catholicism to the background section and a paragraph on the Assembly's theological opponents (Catholics and radicals) to the theology section. --JFH (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - sorry, I thought I had already done so. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – One feels shy about commenting after real experts like Johnbod, but I found the text well sourced and constructed when I reviewed it at GA and have no hesitation in supporting its promotion to FA. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. I am particularly impressed that after yet another reading for this review I have no idea where the nominator's sympathy lies in this protracted punch-up. A fine example of impartiality. Tim riley talk 16:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too kind, Tim, but really, I'm well out of my area here! Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi edit

  • "several others of the Assembly documents" Several other documents, or several other confessions? Seems it must be the former, but wording unclear. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The divines were even more strongly opposed to Catholicism than to William Laud and his followers. They associated both with Arminianism and persecution." Here "both" == Catholicism and William Laud, or Arminianism and persecution? Different meaning. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lingzhi, I think I've cleared this up. --JFH (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The House of Commons approved both catechisms, but the Lords only approved the Shorter Catechism" Out of curiosity, is it worth noting either of two things: first, why they didn't approve the Larger, and second, whether this rejection had any real later impact? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My source doesn't comment either way, so I'm not sure what to do. --JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut this out as unnecessary detail. It matters very little that Parliament approved of the catechisms at all.--JFH (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "conceded to the Scots on prudential grounds" as in "prudent" or "advisory; superintending or executive"? Please use somewhat more high-frequency vocabulary, whenever such options are available... And is this a direct quote? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might remove this whole episode per your comments regarding too much detail.--JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Parliament may have nominated them to lend greater legitimacy to the Assembly and not have expected them to attend" Why not? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.--JFH (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think the count of divines should be mentioned prominently in the lede. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Assembly's documents became influential worldwide through missionary expansion" This happened during the 17th century? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some; New England is mentioned earlier in the paragraph. I suppose that's an immigration rather than missionary effort so I edited the sentence. But most missionary activity is going to be later. --JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • * Neither this article nor the one on the Root and Branch petition seems to spell out clearly what were the "perceived abuses by bishops". This is a critical oversight, IMHO, although I'm not sure which article should detail this info. perhaps this one can at least add 7 or 8 words to list the main one or two...? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I decided this was not a great description of the petition anyway. The abuses would have been the aforementioned changes in worship practices and silencing of Puritans. Calling these abuses is probably not neutral. I did try to make it clear early on that Puritans opposed episcopacy because of its relationship to Catholicism. --JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After reading and rereading, my biggest nagging concern about this article is that seems to have a "can't see the forest for the trees" problem. As just one example, the article closes by calling the Assembly's Confession "by far the most influential doctrinal symbol in American Protestant history", but never says why or how. The focus of the article seems too firmly set on details and not nearly enough on big picture issues that an outsider, who has no familiarity with anything Presbyterian or Episcopalian or anything even vaguely similar, needs shoved up to the lede and spelled out in flashing letters. Why should anyone care about this Assembly? How is its impact still felt today? Why is it important? It almost seems as though it was written by people so deeply imbued in those realities that the biggest facts are unconsciously assumed to be understood. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think I have to agree. Some of it is probably from trying too hard to be neutral and just get the facts out. But of course the article needs to answer the questions you pose and doesn't need to get into minutiae. I'm going to have to think about how to fix it. --JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the Aftermath, now Legacy, section to better explain the Assembly's lasting importance. I've incorporated this into the lead and moved it toward the top of the lead. I've trimmed some detail, especially dates which are not particularly important. --JFH (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Done.--JFH (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • The lead says the assembly was appointed to restructure the English church, and later that it produced a liturgical manual for Scotland. I think it would be helpful to say that its remit was later extended to church government in Scotland, as stated below.
Done
  • "Puritans were forced to keep their views private." This seems wrong. Puritans did express their views, but were persecuted for it.
Done
  • The comments on the Scottish church are unclear. It is stated that it was presbyterian, but then that episcopalianism was imposed in 1604. Did the church defy the king and keep presbyterianism, or was it episcopalian between 1604 and the Civil War?
I tried to clarify this. I think I overstated saying he "imposed episcopalianism" at that date. Returning to my source it looks like it started as a threat, and that it was a gradual introduction of epsicopacy and BOCP worship rather than a complete change of one government for another.
  • "The eighth of the Thirteen Articles" Why thirteen?
Typo! eighth of the Thirty-Nine
  • "Augustinianism channelled by Anselm, Thomas Bradwardine, and John Wycliffe." "channelled" seems an odd word in this context.
Done
  • "The doctrine of Scripture was also a particularly important area of debate at the time, since some scholars had argued that the Hebrew vowel points of the Old Testament were probably not part of the original." I do not understand this.
Attempted a clarification
  • "The Civil War brought with it the end of the consensus that there should be a single church imposed by the state" Was there really a consensus on this point before the Civl War?
Benedict uses the phrase "long-standing consensus". I think it's implied in Benedict, but not necessarily in my article, that we're talking about Protestants, so I made this clarification.
  • "the Church of Scotland's "principle subordinate standard"," principle or principal?
Fixed
Thank you very much for your comments. Please let me know if I haven't fully addressed any. --JFH (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. But I am not sure about "King in Scotland". Surely he was King of Scotland? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and thank you!--JFH (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Officially I think he was King of Scots, but no-one in the late period except his mother seems to be usually called that way. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- JFH, am I right in assuming this will be your first FA if successful? In that case we'd need an editor to conduct a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Also I think we still need a source review for formatting and reliability of references (something required for all nominations). A request for both of these checks may be left at the top of WT:FAC, unless one or two of the reviewers above would like to have a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is my first. I've made the request. Thanks. --JFH (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon edit

  • I think the first sentence of the lead would be stronger if it mentioned the time period
Added.
  • The link label "121 ministers" is a bit odd. I even wonder if we need a link here in the lead. I'd assume the reader expects the list to be in this article. I think it suffices to have a link, properly labeled, "full list of members of the memebers of the Westminster Assembly", in the body of the article.
OK
  • "to replace those who could no longer attend" seems not quite to cover the case of those who were not even expected to attend.
Fixed
  • sources formatting: isbn missing for Muller 2003a, 2003b, Jones 2011, Moore 2011
Fixed
  • Google Books seems to think Muller 2003b's title is "Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena to theology" It is sometimes wrong.
Fixed

I'll try to do a spot check soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--JFH (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks:

  • 8 Fesko 2014, p. 49. ok; ref 92 ok; ref 93 ok;
  • 61 Letham 2010, p. 46. ok

That's as much as I can do unfortunately. Support from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Westminster_Assembly/archive1&oldid=1138475443"