Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Roman Catholic Church/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review‎ | Roman Catholic Church

Roman Catholic Church

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone two passes through FAC and needs a fresh perspective.

Thanks, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the peer reviewers coming to the page to give their opinion on whether we should capitalize the word "church" when it is used alone without the word "Catholic" in front of it. There has been some confusion about this and we need to find consensus. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be capitalized when referring to "The Roman Catholic Church" as an organization. Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by karanacs edit

I think that the article is massively improved from it's first FA nomination, and quite a bit improved from it's second nomination. I don't think it is quite ready for the next nom, but it is getting closer.

  • Awkward wording in the lead -> the Catholic Church believes that it is the only one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Jesus ; Perhaps just remove "only"?
Addressed - removed only, its redundant anyway. NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll reiterate that I think the Origin and mission section is repetitive and should be removed. Origin should be covered in the History section (it's main article is History of the Roman Catholic Church!), and the Mission part could be folded into the section "Church, Works of Mercy, and Anointing of the Sick"
I placed this on talk page to find out what others think first since I disagree. NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the opening part of the Beliefs section, it might be wise to briefly define Sacred Scripture too.
  • Should "college of bishops" be capitalized?
Its not even capitalized in Canon Law so I think we are safe with it lower case.--DizFreak talk Contributions 18:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, I think you've done an excellent job summarizing the beliefs section. I think it will make a lot more sense to non-Catholics and non-Christians now. There are a few niggling phrases, though:
    • "while laying on hands" -> a lot of people won't know what that means.
    • will also mark the beginning of a new heaven and earth in which righteousness dwells and God will reign forever. -> this reads like a quote. It is very flowerly language and should be made a more encyclopedic tone.
  • I think the full text of the Nicene Creed belongs in its article and not this one. It's mention or a summary of it could go in the intro paragraphs of the Beliefs section.
I placed this on the talk page to find out what others think since I disagree with this too. NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of you. A few sentences about beliefs work better than the actual words of the RCC when possible. --DizFreak talk Contributions 18:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Nicene Creed full text does stay, the wikilink in the middle needs to be taken out. You aren't supposed to add wikilinks in quotes.
  • I don't like the placement of the differences in beliefs between Catholics and other Christian religions in the Creed section. This makes it seem like those churches don't use/believe in the Nicene Creed, and that is not the case (as was mentioned in a previous paragraph. This paragraph should either be in a section on its own or be added in the intro paragraphs of the Beliefs section
Addressed - I moved it.NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are capitalization errors in this section title: "Church, Works of Mercy, and Anointing of the Sick"; usually, only the first word of the section title is capitalized.
Addressed NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what this means: This Mass was codified by the Council of Trent to reaffirm traditional Catholic teaching that the Mass is the same sacrifice of Calvary offered in a non-bloody manner
Addressed - added language to clarify NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "Doctors of the Church"?
Addressed -added explanation in picture and wikilinked NancyHeise (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any information on preparations for ordination in other parts of the world (not just the US)?
  • This is a little confusing: According to canon law, one becomes a member of the Catholic Church by being baptized, or if already baptized, by making a profession of faith, such as the Nicene Creed. If you are already baptized, you don't need to make a profession of faith. Since other denominations also use the Nicene Creed, then simply saying the Nicene Creed after being baptized in a different denomination doesn't make one Catholic. Perhaps this could be reworded or explained a bit better?
  • This is not a complete sentence "For example, violating the seal of confession, (committed when a priest discloses the sins heard in the sacrament of Penance,) persisting in heresy, creating schism, becoming an apostate, or having an abortion"
Addressed, reworded NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although competing forms of Christianity emerged early and persisted into the fifth century -> In the 5th century, the Oriental Orthodox Church started breaking away. That means to me that there were always competing forms of Christianity.
There were always competing forms of Christianity, the Oriental Orthodox is one of those, some would argue that the Eastern Orthodox was always a competing form of Christianity too. The sentence in question was changed to the present wording to reflect Ealdgyths comments from previous FAC.NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence in Early Middle Ages could be removed: The church soon saw the conversion of the Visigoths and Lombards who were abandoning Arianism for Catholicism - this fact is mentioned earlier in the paragraph, and repeating (or expanding) at this point in the paragraph breaks the flow.
I disagree, the source lists this as one of the effects of the monasteries the subsequent conversion of Visigoths and Lombards. NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not have a citation anymore and needs one "church leaders who initiated the crusades did not condone massacres"
Addressed - I reworded and added citations and other content per one of your other comments on this page. NancyHeise (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for flow within paragraphs. One paragraph discusses Romanesque and Gothic architecture before ending with a sentence on mendicant orders. The two don't belong in the same paragraph, unless there is an excellent transition (and there is not here). This is not the only issue of this type either.
  • The mission areas of the history section are focusing on the good stuff that the missions did. It should probably also mention that the missions were sources of epidemics as well. I don't have the sources quickly available to fix the section properly, but coverage of the missions is leaning to far towards pro-Catholic POV instead of neutrality.
I'll see what I can do but all of my sources speak highly of the Church's work in Latin America from the beginning to the present day. Maybe it isnt POV but just a fact.NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is still a bit of a POV issue in the handling of persecutions in the history section. Persecutions OF Catholics are described in detail (persecutions by Romans, persecutions by Japanese authorities, Elizabeth I's persecutions, etc) while persecutions BY Catholics are glossed over (the crusades, the inquisitions, Mary I's reign, etc). The weight of coverage needs to be more equal between these two types of persecutions to maintain proper POV.
I addressed this in the Crusade paragraph with a little rewording. I have not yet looked into inquisitions. Please remember that Mary I was not actin on behalf of the Church, she was a Catholic person acting of her own accord and I dont think that it is right to expand on her persecution in this article unless it was something sanctioned by the Church which it was not.NancyHeise (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After balancing the books" - this alludes at a serious financial issue within the church but doesn't go into enough detail to really understand. Was there a severe shortage of funds at this time? Did that effect the regular operations of the church in different areas of the world, or did everything go as normal and the church just owed a bunch of money?
Addressed by adding info from same source. NancyHeise (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dissolve the Jesuit order be*In 1773, European rulers united to force Pope Clement XIV to dissolve the Jesuit order - can the reasons why they wanted to explained briefly?

Addressed by adding info from same source. NancyHeise (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • did the Napoleonic war end cause the Catholic revival? Was that revival worldwide or just in France? It's unclear in that paragraph
Addresssed added more info from same source. NancyHeise (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the vast majority of worldwide sex abuse cases" - does the source mean cases as "instances" or "lawsuits" I think "cases" should be replaced with a more descriptive word.
Cases, not lawsuits is more descriptive. Not everyone who suffered filed a lawsuit asking for payment, some just reported it to the cops or the church. NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no mention in the article about issues getting enough priests into some areas. I know that is a big cause of concern among Catholics in the area where I live, and I think it might need to be mentioned here.
Do you live in the Midwest of United States? To my knowledge that is the only place suffering that kind of situation - I think Latin America has an overload of Catholic persons to priests ratio but not sure about no coverage in some areas. I am not sure that is reportable but I'll do some research and put it in there if its notable. NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
West Coast here, and we are very short on Priests.--DizFreak talk Contributions 18:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might also be worth mentioning (I'd like to see what others have to say) the fact that some areas generally considered to be staunchly Catholic are liberalizing. For example, the numbers of practicing Catholics is declining in places like Spain, and more liberal laws are being passed in Spain, Mexico, and Ireland.
Perhaps we can have a paragraph in Demographics addressign the preist shortage in some areas and liberalizing in others. I think that is a notable and interesting fact. I'll try to address this after some more research. NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still some prose issues that I'd like to see fixed. It's hard sometimes when you are so involved in writing an article to identify the issues. I'd recommend contacting someone from the League of COpyeditors just before your FA nomination. Here are examples:
    • Watch for wordy sentences like this Catholics believe that God is not part of nature but that he created nature and all that exists and is a loving and caring God who is active both in the world and in people's lives -> these are two different concepts thrown into one sentence. That makes the prose more difficult to read.
I addressed just this one sentence but I will look out for others. NancyHeise (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Watch for passive voice sentences. These are necessary sometimes, but should be rewritten if possible.
    • The last thing that should be done before FA nomination is to reread the article for basic grammar and punctuation issues. I've seen a few misplaced commas, periods in image captions on sentence fragments, etc. It's relatively easy to fix, but hard to do when the article is still being actively worked on.
    • Avoid repetition from sentence to sentence. Example: The Cluniac reforms of monasteries beginning in 910, placed abbots under the direct control of the pope rather than the secular control of feudal lords. This was a key developement for monasteries throughout the medieval world in that it eliminated a chief source of corruption and sparked a great monastic renewal. This could be rewritten like The Cluniac reforms of monasteries beginning in 910, placed abbots under the direct control of the pope rather than the secular control of feudal lords, eliminating a chief source of corruption. This sparked a great monastic renewal.
I addressed some of these issues you brought up but I agree it would be good to have someone go over the whole article before FAC. NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspaper names need to be italicized in the refs
  • Ref number 117 (Washington Theological Union -- Married, reordained clergy, etc) is to a Google cached page. That is really not a good thing! This information should be easy to find in a book. Please replace this reference.
  • The information about Baroque art needs to come from a Book, and not a webpage describing a specific exhibit at a museum.
  • I don't think that http://www.losangelesmission.com/ed/news/1102news.htm - the Los Angeles Catholic Mission, is a good source to use for an encyclopedia article.
I am going to get some more refs to fix all reference issues you have brought up in this list. NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of another thing this morning. It might be wise to bring mention of the Gregorian calendar into the history section when discussing the Council of Trent. The RCC managed to change the calendar and bring leap day into existence - that's a pretty big thing that's affected a great deal of the world.Karanacs (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good point, I have the ref for that and will address when I get some time. Thanks again for your very sincere effort to help make the page better. Even though I dont always agree with some of your suggestions, please know that I am always appreciative of your efforts and I respect your opinions on most issues. NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreements on a small scale are good for articles because it makes everyone consider a different viewpoint. You have done a tremendous job on this article Nancy; I'm extremely impressed by your dedication to improving it and the sheer amount of work you've put in. Karanacs (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all of Karanacs comments. I would like to request a once over by the league of copyeditors if there are no more comments. Also, I would like to mention that there can not reasonably be any more requests to include more info into the history section without violating article size considerations. While there are many more things we can include in the history section and even expand upon, I would appreciate future editors to consider that the page can only accomodate the most major points in the church's history with wikilinks to other pages that elaborate on other events in detail. I intend to deny making any more changes to the history section in the next FAC since the page has had significant review through two FAC's two peer reviews and more. NancyHeise (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 240 is due to expire according to the Dead Link checker--DizFreak talk Contributions 18:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, I addressed it by eliminating it and the content related to it since it was an embellishment of details that is not necessary. The sentence that is left is referenced to another ref. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Roman_Catholic_Church/archive2&oldid=207746608"