Wikipedia:Peer review/Roman Catholic Church/archive1

Roman Catholic Church edit

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because about three users have nominated this for a good article review in recent times. Yet it failed all three, it was suggested on the talk of that article that a peer review be set up as to identify the specific things which are needed to get this article up to top standard

Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 03:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I happened to stumble across this article through two pages: Requests for feedback and Peer review, so here's some advice. I am a Roman Catholic myself, and I know through experience that many aspects of the Church traditions have not been observed. For example, many people I know are reluctant to go to Mass every Sunday. In addition, not a lot of people are eager to join the priesthood. These are what I recommend for you: talk about the effect of the Church on the rest of society, how Catholics observe Church traditions, and how people of other faiths think about the Catholic religion. Bear in mind that these are only suggestions, you don't have to add these stuff to your article. In my opinion, the stuff I mentioned are, for the most part, debatable.--Dem393 (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments but I cant include them in this article without violating one of the FA criteria. What you are suggesting is not able to do without useing "weasel words" which I have been advised below to eliminate. The content has to be factually based, concise, giving the facts without personal elaboration and opinions using neutral point of view. I am not too sure if there is a factual count of how many Catholics go to Mass all over the world. There is a reference to a page called Criticism of the Catholic Church which is the proper way to address a subject that can take up a whole page. Thanks for your comments! NancyHeise (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very attractive article and looks like it reads nicely. Fine work! Here are some suggestions:
Papal Authority is described as a belief, if so, it can be moved to the next section. Anyway, it seems somewhat like an orphan. Otherwise, move to community? Likewise, why is Eucharist text not under Sacraments?

moved to Belief section under Church subsection NancyHeise (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about brief lead paragraphs for the main sections, e.g. community and history, to either recap or signal for readers what they'll encounter there.

Done. NancyHeise (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to rely heavy on the Catechism. Yes, I suppose that makes sense. But then maybe can simplify citations and number of footnotes?

I am not sure how to do this since the references point to different paragraph numbers in the Catechism and I don't know of a way of combining different paragraph references. I do know how to combine same ones and I have done that. If you have any pointers for me on this issue, I am listening. Thanks, NancyHeise (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. Probably not good style to mix in-line and footnotes. Maybe a footnote could say, This section relies on Catechism paragraphs X, Y and Z. Probably not a big deal. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

idea: Section on "Moral theology"?

This is copied from the FA criteria and is listed as one of the comments to address in the semiautomatic peer review below: "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." I don't think I can stray too much from the simple topic of what the Roman Catholic Church is without making the article too long to be an FA. Moral Theology can be its own Wikipedia page as well as many other Roman Catholic topics that are not covered here. What do you think about this, I would like to know your comments. NancyHeise (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the Church's role as the magisterium is central. Shouldn't the authority section describe the hierarchal structure, the role(s) of articulating and enforcing doctrine, the relation of church to moral theologians and individual clergy, to laity, etc.? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, and I applaud you for trying to handle such a huge topic.

More importantly, there's no mention of recent controversies, so it doesn't seem to cover the breadth of the topic. Homosexuality? Role of women? Liberation theology? Likewise, there's little about internal dissent within the Church/community. Overall, I'm concerned that the article is not sufficiently disinterested/neutral in the topic matter, seems like it's trying to present an inordinately positive/sympathetic view of one of the most powerful institutions in the world. Hope these comments are useful and taken in good faith (so to speak). HG | Talk 15:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the issues of no women or homosexual priests under the section discussing priests. I just gave the facts, no discussion of controversy. I was considering a section on those types of issues under a section called controversial issues at the bottom. Some editors dont think Jesus founded the church so I was going to put their concerns in this section too. What do you think about that? NancyHeise (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very responsive. I'd advise against a separate controversies section. Much better to have issues integrated in the article. Just like you have Luther, if there are very significant criticisms of Jesus as founder, then I weave those into the appropriate historical section. I would think that the Church's ostracism of homosexuality would deserve mention in the modern narrative (unrelated to gay priests), but do you all have a way of gauging the notability of such issues? Thanks. HG | Talk 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the script comments from comment number one on this page so I have it all on one page. Thanks.NancyHeise (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not copy the semi automated peer review here for space issues (see instructions above). I am copying it back, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]