Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2025

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2025 [1].

Singapore Rail Test Centre

[edit]
Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This rather short article is about a rail testing facility in Tuas, Singapore which just recently opened. After another rather vigorous GA review by Starship.paint, I decided to bring this to the FAC stage.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
  • img1: licence good, consider shortening caption to Main entrance or Main entrance to the Test Centre [there are many options], alt missing
  • img2: licence good, perhaps a map caption could explain to the reader what the colours mean so they don't have to open the map up, alt missing
  • img3: licence good, consider Construction site in May 2022, alt missing
  • given that the map is so small in the lede, perhaps it is better placed in the #Design section, where it would be most useful, and can be displayed at a size that is readable.

Comments Support from MS

[edit]
Lead
History

In the sentence: "Khaw said that the ITTC will allow testing..." the verb tense should be adjusted to "would allow" to maintain consistency with reported speech.

Design
  • alternate current” → “alternating current”

Correct technical term in British English.

More idiomatic and concise.

Use a colon and bullet points or proper sentence structure for list items starting with “The tracks include”. As written, it’s grammatically off.

Plural fits better with context (or make “refurbishment” uncountable if referring to general process).

General

Support  Comments  from Noleander

[edit]
  • Users will want a lat/long web link they can click on to view site in a map app, but I cannot find lat/long link in this article. It normally would be in the InfoBox or in upper-right corner of article. The location of this test center is 1.34343980 North, 103.6441029 East (decimal degrees).
    • There's no parameter for it for the infobox public transit, but I put it in the upper-right corner. I used the coordinates from the official OneMap source
  • The article uses phrases like "rail testing facility " a few times ... clearly an important concept, especially here:
    • First sentence of article: The Singapore Rail Test Centre (SRTC) is a rail testing facility ..
    • And claiming first place: The SRTC is the first exclusive train testing facility...
Readers need an article they can view to get the definintion of Rail testing facility ... (okay if it is small/stub article). Normally an FA nominator is not required to create a second article for FA, but looking at this SRTC article in its entirety, it seems essential to create Rail testing facility - at least a stub.
  • Quotes vs paraphrase: Hailing it as a "worthwhile investment" expected to cost "a few hundred million dollars", Khaw said that the ITTC would allow testing of new railway systems, "robustly, round the clock", without the need to close MRT lines. .. In top-quality encyclopedia articles, the majority of the article is written in the encyclopedia's neutral, objective voice. When quotes appear: they should have a special significance. See WP:OVERQUOTING. When readers encounter the quotes shown above, they may pause and wonder why the encyclopedia is drawing attention to the words: Is the official lying? Is the official exaggerating? Consider either (a) replace quotes with paraphrase in encyclopedia's voice; or (b) add words (in encyclopedia's voice) explaining what is so significant about the quotes and why the reader should pay special attention.
  • Not much significant besides Khaw regarding it as a "worthwhile investment". But I will keep that phrase.
  • Past vs present tense: The testing centre was constructed in two phases. The first phase, which includes the high-speed track, was initially planned ... shifts between present vs past. Probably will read smoother if "includes" -> "included"
  • Diagram accuracy: The diagram https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Integrated_Train_Testing_Centre_map.png looks really nice; great job by the volunteer that created it! The metadata says it was created in early 2021. I'm sure it is mostly still accurate, but since the facility was not completed until 2025, there is a chance it does not represent the final facility layout. Suggest adding the date info to the pic caption to make it clear to readers that it represents the design as of early 2021, not necessarily the current "as built" layout. E.g. "Map of the facility, as represented in early 2021 design documents" or something similar.
  • Clarify Stabling and maintenance tracks for conducting... I'm not sure what "stabling" means here ... a horse stable is a building for storing horses; is it building for trains? But it seems to be modifying the noun "tracks" ... is it a Siding (rail)? Suggest add words to clarify; or link to article that defines.
  • Official web site in the InfoBox? "External Links" section contains LTA official website of the SRTC ...can that URL be added into the InfoBox? Readers will first go to InfoBox to find URL.
  • Topic bar at bottom: Suggest that the bottom topic bar be collapsed (hidden) by default:
{{Rail transport in Singapore|state=collapsed}}
It's customary to collapse topic bars by default, and with more readers using mobile devices, it also helps with bandwidth & screen real estate.
Support on prose and MOS. I did not look at sources or images. I made a couple of small changes to article: hid the ugly raw URL in the InfoBox with plain words; and changed "exclusive" -> "dedicated" in the first exclusive train testing facility ... since readers may think "exclusive" means special or limited-access. Noleander (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (Oppose)

[edit]

Since I commented on this at WT:DYK, I guess I should bring up the same point here. I'm concerned about the quality of the sourcing. At DYK, I commented on two specific sources because these were being used directly to support the hook:

  • Smith, Kevin (31 March 2025). "Singapore Opens New Metro Test Centre". International Railway Journal
  • No, Kyung-min (1 April 2025). "GS E&C Completes Southeast Asia's First Rail Testing Facility in Singapore". The Korea Herald

These both appear to be basically rehashes of a press release; I base that guess on the tone of the writing, the extensive use of large quotes, and the fact that the centre began operations on 28 March 2025, with these two sources being dated 31 March and 1 April. Actually, it looks like this is the press release. Looking now at the rest of the sources, these also look like they're probably just based on the press release, based on the same criteria (with the assistance of Google Translate for the non-English ones):

  • "Pusat Ujian Rel $800j Dibuka di Tuas". Berita Harian (in Malay). 28 March 2025.
  • "新加坡铁路测试中心全面启用 新柔地铁列车料在此测试". 联合早报 (in Chinese). 28 March 2025.
  • "$800 மில்லியன் செலவில் ரயில் சோதனை நிலையம் திறப்பு , சிங்க‌ப்பூர் செய்திகள்". Tamil Murasu (in Tamil). 28 March 2025.
  • Loi, Esther (28 March 2025). "$800m Rail Test Centre Opens, Allows Trains and Rail Systems to Be Tested in Singapore". The Straits Times.
  • Cho, Yong-Jun (1 April 2025). "GS E&C Opens Railway Test Center in Singapore". Korea JoongAng Daily
  • Singapore Rail Test Centre completed". Railway Gazette International. 4 April 2025.
  • Ong, Justin (Guang-Xi) (28 March 2025). "Singapore Rail Test Centre Officially Opens, Aims to Bolster Rail Reliability".
  • Ahuja, Simran (2 April 2025). "Singapore Rail Test Centre opens for operations". Southeast Asia Infrastructure.

I'm not saying these reports are necessarily unreliable, but I'd like to see more independent sourcing and less dependence on contemporary news reports. I'm not sure I'm ready to oppose over this, but I'm leaning that way. RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the FA criteria for sources so I won't say my opinion on the majority of them, but the LTA press release didn't mention the facility being the first of such in SE Asia, or even "Southeast Asia"; I'm inclined to think this is a conclusion drawn by the outlets themselves. In addition, the Berita Harian, Lianhe Zaobao and Tamil Murasu sources are only used once in the infobox to cite the names of the facility in the different languages, and I don't see how, even if those are press releases, they should be considered here, considering names of a place are uncontroversial in nature. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 02:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon additional perusing of the sources, I'm going to come down as a firm oppose. In addition to the problematic sources listed above, I count 11 other sources which are authored by the Land Transport Authority (who appears to be the owner of the facility). Some are primary documents (annual reports, etc), but most are just plain press releases. Pinging Starship.paint who did the GA review: I see you did a good job of spot-checking source-to-text integrity, but I don't see anywhere in the GA review where you evaluated the overall quality of the sources. RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, sigh, looking again, I see two more sources which are speeches by the Minister of Transport. So again, primary and non independent. RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @RoySmith: - I did look at the source quality for most of those you mentioned above, I may have missed out on Southeast Asia Infrastructure which I think it was a late addition during the review. For the rest of the above, several of those are mainstream media outlets, and the others looked like decent industry-specific sources, which seemed fine for Good Article level in my opinion. starship.paint (talk / cont) 01:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also like to add on to the other comment by RoySmith - I did see the primary sources from the LTA or Singapore government. But, I did actually check (and ask) that the same information should be also provided in other sources. I would say that very little of the article should be sourced to primary sources only, with an example of an exception being basic information like the address. starship.paint (talk / cont) 06:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't a government source a reliable source?--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with the government sources is that they're not independent. If a government report says there are 16.9 km of track, I'm willing to accept that as an accurate number. But when the sourcing for an article is overwhelmingly government reports and press releases, and newspaper articles which are directly based on those press releases, I'm having trouble seeing how this even meets WP:GNG which requires secondary sources which are independent of the subject. And note that this excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. This is a basic, bedrock requirement. RoySmith (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • In honesty, if you consider Straits Times or local media as invalid since they are considered still too close to the government and merely copying these claims, then almost every article related to Singapore would need to be purged since there's often very little coverage on our country by international news and we rely a lot on government reports. Already I tried my best, along with starship, to scourge for more secondary sources, such as International Railway Journal covering this subject, and I strongly believe that it's on that basis that this article passes GNG given its interest in other rail professional circles. I also doubt even local news reports would blindly copy from the press releases before publishing them. since they still have editorial standards to verify these claims...--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D

[edit]

Just to comment here in response to Roy's review above, I've reviewed quite a few Singapore MRT-related articles at GAN and FAC and have raised concerns about sourcing in several of them. This has included over-use of government statements and text that's unnecessarily favourable to the government's views. Singapore is obviously a difficult country to source articles on contemporary government-related things on given it isn't a true democracy and doesn't have a fully free press, but it's an issue that needs to be considered by people developing articles. Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nick-D: - so, for this article, is there text that's unnecessarily favourable to the government's views? starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep:
      • The lead for instance unnecessarily says " It also incorporates several energy-efficient features in its design and operation such as solar panels and smart lighting control" - this type of thing is standard in modern infrastructure, and this seems like boosterism.
      • The article says that the site was reserved for a high speed rail line, but doesn't comment on whether building this facility has now made the high speed line unfeasible.
      • "The Korea Railroad Research Institute was consulted in the design of the testing facility" - Why, and what was learned from this?
      • This whole facility seems very unusual internationally, but the article only briefly discusses the rationale for it and this is presented from the government's perspective. Why was this a good use of public funds when larger and more complex metro systems get on fine without their own test facilities?
      • The text in general seems to go out of its way to present this facility in a positive light.
      • The article doesn't discuss the effectiveness of this facility - not unreasonably as it only opened a few weeks ago, but this suggests the nomination is premature. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing each of the above points:

  • Ok, that might sound very fluffy, and I will be willing to delete that. I wrote it in the lead because someone commented the lead was a bit too short, so I expanded to include that it's a green building, or smth like that.
  • In honesty, this is also a very rare admission of the conception of the SRTC by LTA, because they never explain how they decide where they build new facilities and stations. That said, the KL-SG HSR is now essentially dead besides some Malaysian corporations trying to revive it, but there's a lack of political will on either side (as for now) to resume.
  • I still find it an important mention. I mean, does that then make mentions of who the contractor and the architects irrelevant? But I admit this point could be expanded a little more. From my understanding from the sources, since the contractor is Korean, they brought in a Korean organisation who had the relevant experience, and they are shown to have led various R&D projects related to rail. Credit due when credit due.
  • I dunno, do you think they should spend it on something else?
    • Why is my opinion relevant here? What do independent reliable sources say? Have opposition politicians or independent commentators commented on this project? Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the last points, well, you have a point. Perhaps it's indeed rather premature and there's a lack of distance to really give independent commentary. That said, even some long-time establishments in Singapore never gotten any commentary, like plenty of my other MRT articles. And nobody cared enough to criticise our transport plans. Well, unless someone pays a professor to do a review of the SRTC.

@RoySmith: and Nick-D, I appreciate your criticisms, but I must admit the generalisations of our press releases and news sources as unreliable just because they are pro-government are offensive. The Straits Times has also been assessed as reliable as a newspaper of record except in cases of political controversy, and I don't see any political controversy here behind this project. You must also understand that Singapore is a small city-state and almost everything here is tied to the government in some form.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 12:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shifting to oppose in light of the comment above. The nominator seems unable to tell the difference between government PR and independent reportage. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome for you then to launch an FAR if necessary on my recent FAs: Hume MRT station and Nicoll Highway collapse, if you deem my sourcing have issues.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EG - drive-by comments

[edit]

ZKang123 asked me to leave some feedback here, but these comments represent my own, and only my own, perspective. Here are my comments for now:

  • I'd suggest finding Malay, Chinese or Tamil sources that talk about these more in detail. However, Kang told me that these sources mostly repeat the press releases and/or English sources already in the article. Not sure what can be done in these cases, as Singapore doesn't have freedom of the press much like the five main English-speaking countries or Europe do.

Lead:

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even more in a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • Actually, reading through this, there are several instances where there are 3 references in a row (which is fine), but 2 are either to a government website (e.g. MOT, LTA) or the Straits Times. I can see why Roy and Nick-D have issues with the sourcing, but are you 100% certain that no better sources (e.g. books or journals) exist for these? That being said, I do have to say that I think this meets GNG even without the government and Straits Times sources.
History:
  • Para 1: If sources exist for this, it may be worthwhile to mention that before the SRTC was built, the LTA had to test their trains on operational lines.
  • Para 2: "Part of the site would also be used for a depot for the Cross Island line." - Is this still being planned?
  • Para 2: "Construction of the ITTC began with a groundbreaking ceremony on 17 March 2021" - I must caution that sometimes, construction doesn't actually begin with a groundbreaking ceremony; I've encountered projects where the ceremony was held during the middle of, or even toward the end of, construction.
  • Para 3: "To enhance safety and efficiency in the construction, the contractor incorporated precast concrete and utilised Building Information Modelling technology to identify construction risks" - I'd say "increase" rather than "enhance". Also, for those who aren't as well-versed in construction, how did precast concrete increase safety or efficiency?
  • Para 4: "On 1 November 2022, the rolling stock test and research facility for the ITTC were over 50% completed" - This should be "...was over 50% completed" as the phrase "rolling stock test and research facility" doesn't refer to two things, but to a single facility with two functions
  • Para 5: This paragraph is just a series of dates. While this is not yet a WP:PROSELINE issue, I would rephrase it a bit so it doesn't sound too disjointed. For example, the second and third sentences could be rephrased to "The first phase of the SRTC was completed and opened on 2 November of that year, and the testing and commissioning of the new Circle line trains began at the facility the same month", since you've already mentioned 2023 in the first sentence.
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was being a bit hyperbolic with my GNG comment, but there is a lot of room between "passes GNG" and "adequately sourced for FA". RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: I decided to withdraw the nomination as for now in light of the issues (particularly sourcing) raised above. I admit as the facility is a very new development, there's not enough distance (in terms of time) for any adequate independent commentary on this facility. I thank all for their constructive comments on this article.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as requested. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 May 2025 [2].

Hundreds of Beavers

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jon698 (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the plot, production, release, and reception of the film Hundreds of Beavers. It was upgraded to GA status by me back in February. It is comparable in length to some other FA-class film articles. I have done intense research for this article since May 2024. I have used every possible news article or web page and created a Google alert solely for subjects related to this. Jon698 (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dracophyllum

[edit]
images
[edit]
  • img1: fair use license good, res good, caption good, alt missing
  • img2: caption good, license good, consider adding Black and white to alt
  • img3: caption good, license good, consider adding Black and white photograph to alt
  • img4: caption good, license good, consider adding Black and white photograph to alt
  • img5: caption good, license good, consider adding Black and white poster of to alt; maybe delink them in the footer?
  • img6: caption good, license good, consider changing alt to Mike Cheslik attending a video call in 2024
  • img7: caption good, license good, include location in alt
  • img8: a little blurry license good, caption good, alt missing
@Dracophyllum: Done in this edit Jon698 (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
nice. I can support for images. Cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 21:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

alert solely for subjects related to this. Jon698 (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Paleface Jack

[edit]

Everything seems ok so far. My only critique would to be to bunch your works cited into just a single alphabetized reflist rather than making subsections on the type of source. Other than that, well done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa

[edit]

I'll give this a look. As an initial comment, is there any particular reason to say "the original theatrical run grossed more than six times its production budget" in the WP:LEAD instead of providing the specific figures? TompaDompa (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: I have changed "the original theatrical run grossed more than six times its production budget" to " the original theatrical run grossed over $1 million". Is that better? Jon698 (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, assuming it is correct (I'm not entirely clear on the timeline for the original run—when does it count as having ended?). TompaDompa (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: I have removed "original" and made further edits to address your concerns below. I will be making some edits to make the citations consistent. Jon698 (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • Source reviews are not really my forte, but I don't see how the approach here meets WP:FACR 2c, which requires consistent citation formatting.
  • The article could use quite a bit of copyediting for clarity, brevity, "flow", and general polish. I have brought up a few examples of issues below; these are not exhaustive.
All of the references now use the same citation style. Jon698 (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "Hundreds of Beavers premiered at Fantastic Fest on September 29, 2022" – this contains information that is not present in the body, namely the date. In this case, the solution is to add the date to the body.
  • "Produced on a low budget of $150,000, inspiration for the film came from [...]" – this is not really grammatical, as this sentence construction makes "produced on a low budget" refer to the inspiration rather than the film itself. That being said, fixing that problem in isolation would lead to a sentence ("Produced on a low budget of $150,000, the film [...]") where the subject of the sentence comes directly after some information about it and a comma and is then followed by the rest of the sentence, which looks out of place in encyclopedic writing (being more reminiscent of the style used by e.g. newspapers). It's not necessarily wrong, but should be used sparingly if at all to maintain WP:Encyclopedic style and tone.
  • "inspiration for the film came from [...] Let's Play videos." – this is subtly different from what the body says ("The second act of Hundreds of Beavers was designed to be like watching a let's play."), and going by my understanding of what the source says it is even incorrect.
Addressed in this edit Jon698 (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • "Two beavers sneak into the orchard [...] and eat the support beams" – there are two beavers sneaking, but only one of them gnaws on the beams. It should be possible to rephrase this without getting into the number of beavers at all.
  • "successful 19th-century applejack salesman Jean Kayak" – I do not see any good reason to describe the character as "successful"?
  • Referring to one character as "the trapper" and another as "the Indian Fur Trapper" is bound to lead to confusion. Try to find some way to refer to them after their initial introductions that does not run the risk of causing confusion.
  • "A pair of beavers styled after Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson begin investigating Jean's traps. [...] When the detectives report back to the beavers" – this refers to the same pair of beavers, which should be made clearer.
Addressed in this edit Jon698 (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cast
Addressed in edit for plot section Jon698 (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • I would WP:REDLINK the first mention of Mike Cheslik here.
  • "Filmmakers Mike Cheslik and Ryland Tews met at Whitefish Bay High School" – do the sources say when?
  • "Cheslik directed, wrote, edited, and created the visual effects for the film while Tews played the lead role." – this comes rather out of chronological sequence.
  • "It was originally conceived as a parody film of The Revenant and survival films." – I would gloss The Revenant as a 2015 film.
  • "The footage was then showed to other investors which allowed the rest of the film to be shot." – I'm guessing the intended meaning here is that the necessary funds to shoot the rest of the film were secured by enticing investors through showing them the first-act footage. It should be rephrased (showing the footage did not in itself make shooting the rest of the film possible).
  • "The black-and-white film had a budget of $150,000." – this seems like an odd place to introduce both the budget and the fact that the film is in black-and-white. It's also a somewhat conspicuous phrasing: a noun-phrase description used to introduce new information followed by a verb phrase used to introduce some other new information is typical for news reporting, but not for encyclopaedic writing.
    • The new version of this sentence—"Shot in black-and-white, the film had a budget of $150,000."—is an example of what I described above: a sentence where the subject of the sentence comes directly after some information about it and a comma and is then followed by the rest of the sentence, which looks out of place in encyclopedic writing (being more reminiscent of the style used by e.g. newspapers). As I said above it's not necessarily wrong, but should be used sparingly if at all to maintain WP:Encyclopedic style and tone. If you want to mention both the black-and-white part and the budget in the same sentence, the straightforward sentence construction "The film was shot in black-and white and had a budget of 150,000." would be better (or, alternatively, "[...] on a budget [...]"). TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in winter in 2019 and 2020" – ambiguous. Is that the (Northern Hemisphere) winter of 2019–2020, or two consecutive winters, or the winter of 2019 and additionally non-winter parts of 2020?
  • Overall, the timeline of the shoot is very unclear to me. The article mentions 3–4 weeks for the first act, 12 weeks (total?) in 2019 and 2020, and 9 weeks in Michigan and Wisconsin. The timeline needs to be made much clearer.
  • "wooden kazoos, wooden clapper toys, and other wooden objects" – this could be rephrased as "wooden objects including kazoos and clapper toys" to make it slightly more concise and to avoid having the word "wooden" thrice in rapid succession. It's a matter of preference.
  • "The second act of Hundreds of Beavers was designed to be like watching a let's play." – the source goes on to explain how it is like a let's play, specifically, and not just watching a video game: by showing the entire progression instead of using a montage or similar. This is, I think, a crucial detail. There are plenty of other things that are explicitly linked to video games rather than let's plays (and these things, or at least a sample of them, should also be noted in the article).
  • "The film's poster [...] was praised as one of the best film posters of 2024 by IndieWire." – this seems like overselling it. The list has 50 entries, so this is basically saying that IndieWire found it to be one of the top 50 posters of 2024, which is not exactly an extraordinary accomplishment.
    I have attempted to address most of your comments in this edit. I have not done points 7, 8, and 10. For point 2 there is no specific date given for when they first met. Jon698 (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that the article now notes that the poster list is a top 50. That's somewhat better, I suppose, but I really think this should be removed entirely as a rather minor point. TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Release
  • "Hundreds of Beavers, with a runtime of 108 minutes, premiered at Fantastic Fest in 2022." – this phrasing is pretty awkward. The runtime seems rather shoehorned in, so to speak. If there are different runtimes and we need to specify which one was used at the premiere, "Hundreds of Beavers premiered at Fantastic Fest in 2022 with a runtime of 108 minutes." would be better. If there is only one runtime (which seems to be the case?), it would be better to mention the runtime elsewhere instead.
  • "More than half of the film's box office earnings were made after being released through video on demand." – is this really in the right section?
    I have addressed these concerns in this edit
    The article now says "More than half of the film's box office gross was made after being released through video on demand." in the "Box office" subsection. That's better, though "after being released [...]" seems to modify the wrong thing (the box office gross, instead of the film itself). It should be rephrased. TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • "Hundreds of Beavers has grossed" – use the simple past tense instead.
  • Avoid "earn" for revenue. Use "gross" instead.
  • "It crossed over $1 million in gross" – this seems unidiomatic.
  • "$500,000 was earned on digital platforms and $250,000 worth of merchandise was sold." – this appears under the heading "Box office", but is not box office. It should at least be introduced along the lines of "In addition to the box office revenue, [...]".
  • The "Critical response" subsection is rather heavy on verbatim quotes.
I have addressed these concerns in this edit except for the last point about the reviews. Jon698 (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Accolades
  • Has there been no coverage of the awards and nominations the film received—or indeed, did not receive—that would warrant prose coverage here?

I'm afraid I am going to have to oppose this at present. The main issue I have identified is prose quality (WP:FACR 1a), but I also have concerns about comprehensiveness (1b) and have identified at least one omission that will need to be rectified (see above about missing details concerning video games and let's plays). I also suspect that there is a fair amount more to be said about the low-budget filmmaking and probably also general analysis of the film (i.e. in addition to the filmmakers' reflection). Oh, and I suppose it does not meet the requirements about consistent citations (2c), but that's more of a "do not support yet" thing than an outright "oppose" thing. At any rate, this would seem to need more work to be ready for promotion to WP:Featured article status than can reasonably be expected to be carried out during the FAC process. I would usually suggest bringing this to WP:Peer review, but I see that this was already done and there were no responses—that's a shame. In this case, I would recommend reaching out to WT:FILM and the WP:Guild of copyeditors for help with improving the article. TompaDompa (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a number of edits made, and the article looks a bit better. I still think it needs quite a bit of further polishing and expansion before it is ready, however. In addition to WT:FILM in general, I think Darkwarriorblake may be a good person to ask for advice about how best to approach writing an article like this. TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a general support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is not looking as if it is going to achieve a consensus for promotion this time around, so I am going to archive it for further improvements to take place off-FAC. I look forward to seeing it back here, although the usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 May 2025 [3].

William Faulkner bibliography

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 20:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, this list represents the first complete bibliography of the Nobel Prize-winning writer William Faulkner. (If one exists, I wish I had found it as it would have made this project much easier to write.) Although best known for his Southern Gothic works set in the fictional universe of Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi, Faulkner also worked on a range of projects in Golden Age Hollywood. ~ HAL333 20:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14:44 18 May 2025 article candidates/One Direction/archive2&diff=1291012478&oldid=1291012478 FACBot (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

One Direction

[edit]
Nominator(s): jolielover♥talk 04:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the English-Irish boy band One Direction. Formed in 2010 on The X Factor, the band grew to be one of the most successful musical acts of all time before their indefinite hiatus in 2016. I believe this article is FA quality. It is well researched, having consistent citation style and inline citations, with appropriate, reliable sources. They are several academic sources included as well. The article is well illustrated by images with the appropriate licensing. It is neutral and stable. As a defining band of the 2010s, contributing extensively to the popular culture, I hope to bring the page to FA by the band's 15th anniversary in July of this year. jolielover♥talk 04:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Avoid duplicating captions in alt text
  • Some images are missing alt text
  • Captions need editing for grammar
  • File:What_Makes_You_Beautiful.ogg is missing a fair-use rationale
  • File:One_Direction_2012_Stockholm.jpg is quite blurry
  • File:One_Direction_figures_at_Madame_Tussauds_London_(33783672342).jpg: what is the copyright status of the figures? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Does it not have one? I can see one at the file's page.
  • Ah... this image is up for debate as to whether it should be included in the page. Some people think it should be included, some don't. I personally think not since it doesn't illustrate much and isn't noteworthy by any means. See article talk page and this for more info. I removed it again since there has been a lack of discussion on the issue.
  • Good catch - on further research, I think the figures may be possible copyright violations so am removing it for now, swapping with another image.
jolielover♥talk 04:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A fair-use rationale is needed for every article in which a piece of non-free content appears. It has a rationale for a different article, but not this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added the rationale, is it fine? jolielover♥talk 07:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the figures are not copyright violations per c:COM:FOP, so are added back. jolielover♥talk 08:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on why that would be the case? These aren't permanent displays, to my understanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, multiple discussions on commons have expressed the sentiment that Madame Tussaud's figures are allowed. See: 1, 2, 3, 4. The discussions express than Freedom of Panorama applies to the sculptures. Wax figures count as permanent displays. jolielover♥talk 04:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general, they can be - but it appears in this particular case they are not. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how it doesn't apply in this case, when all the discussions previously establish they do. Technically, nothing can be considered permanent. Displays in museums are shifted around frequently. However, FoP considers such sculptures permanent. If you find an issue with it, feel free to start a discussion on Commons, because as of now, there appears to not be an issue with the image. jolielover♥talk 05:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the discussions - see for example this one or this one. In this particular case, it appears that the display was limited and has now been decommissioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both the links say it doesn't exist, did you put the wrong ones? jolielover♥talk 06:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok the links work now, those deletion requests are from 2011, predating c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom as they were written in 2012 (this is addressed in the first discussion I linked, expressing that Madame Tussauds figures are allowed). From c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wax figures in the Madame Tussauds London, here is examples of what permanently means: if "from the point of view of the general public, [it is] intended to remain in the public place for a long, mostly indefinite, period of time". So if the viewer should not realize it is for a limited time it is permanently (limited time can be ice sculptures, sand castles and graffiti which is expected to be painted over sooner or later). So with that argument I would also think that it is permanently unless it is clearly stated that is it only for a limited time. jolielover♥talk 03:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have stalled, so I am archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think the main issue with this contribution is that it is obviously written by a fan, or at least reads like it was. It's full of flattering statements. Take the Lead for example where the reader is told twice that the lads became one of the best-selling boy bands of all time. It also assumes the reader has knowledge of the format of the show, for example the casual mention of the judges' houses, without an explanation. I also noticed some glitches in the prose, e.g. "The video revealed Horan being chosen as the band's first member", which should be "Horan's being" because here "being" is a gerund (or should be). I cannot see this candidate garnering much support as it stands. Graham Beards (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 May 2025 [4].

Amphimeryx

[edit]
Nominator(s): PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though obscure compared to its fellow Quercy relatives Palaeotherium, Anoplotherium, and even Xiphodon (though far from the most obscure Quercy fossil animal genus), Amphimeryx has a short but quite fascinating research history going back to 1804. It is an interesting case of parallel evolution/convergent evolution with ruminants due to its dentition and, most notably, its fused "cubonavicular bone" that is known in derived ruminants, including all that are extant. Amphimeryx is a good example of the high level of endemism that western Europe used to have in relation to mammalian evolution from the late Eocene up to the Grande Coupure extinction event (though a decent amount of the endemic faunas have still persisted, but only one family survives today). Hopefully, by having this article attain FA status, we can set the modern standards for Cenozoic fossil taxa pages. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Definitely the best article I've read today on a Cenozoic fossil taxon.

  • Could we have a reconstructed image of one of the actual creatures in the infobox -- there must be some nifty way (if only by jerry-rigging the two together) to have it alongside the specimen? I don't really get a sense of what the things actually looked like until the photograph of the mouse-deer.
  • It was erected in 1848 by the French palaeontologist Auguste Pomel: I've never heard erected used in this context -- is it a term of art in the field?
  • I must admit I find the lead a little confusing -- perhaps written for too expert an audience? For instance:
    • Amphimeryx is an extinct genus of artiodactyls in the family Amphimerycidae: as I alluded above, I have no real sense of what an artiodactly or the Amphimerycidae are -- I'd like to know that it was a genus of small, deer-like mammals, for starters.
    • lived from the Late Eocene to the Early Oligocene: again, I know that was a long time ago, but how long?
    • Auguste Pomel, who argued that its dentition was roughly similar to those of ruminants.: why are we being told, so early in the game (when we know almost nothing about this creature), about its teeth? The answer becomes clear later on (we only actually have the teeth, at least going by the images), but it would be useful to start there -- to say that we know about these animals because of jawbones (discovered in... by...?)
    • . murinus, was previously recognized as a species of Dichobune by the French palaeontologist Georges Cuvier: Again, I'm not totally sure what a Dichobune is.
    • It went extinct shortly after the Grande Coupure extinction event: again, when was that? Was this genus around for a long or a short time?
    • I'm afraid I'm still finding it tough going, and a little confused: the prose of the first two (very long) sentences could certainly do with a bit of work. As Roy has suggested, perhaps a look from a subject-matter expert with some copyediting skills would be a good idea? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The body seems to start in medias res: In 1848, the French palaeontologist Auguste Pomel, without further specifications of the specimens, reclassified "Dichobune obliqua" and "D. murina" to the newly named genus Amphimeryx, also stating that it would have been close in affinity to ruminants.. What was a Dichobune, which specimens are we talking about, and what does "further" mean, given that we haven't talked about any specifications at all yet?
    • Rewrote the first paragraph to begin in 1804 instead of in media res, giving some context behind Dichobune and explaining the lack of postcranial fossil evidence in its early history. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop there for now: I've had a quick read through the rest and it does generally manage to get the point across, but I think the general picture is more or less the same: we need to explain the technical language and make it easier for a reader with very little knowledge of paleontology to see why we're telling them things, and what they should make of them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (oppose)

[edit]

(as a general note, if I ask a question here, I'm not looking for you to explain it to me, I'm looking for you to explain it to the reader).

How can I do that exactly? Should I do so via a footnote or something? PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an example of WP:TECHNICAL, what is "postcranial fossil evidence"? Cranial is obviously related to "head", but post could be "behind" or "after", and I just can't make any sense of it as a complete phrase.
  • Pomel erected the genus What does it mean to "erect" a genus? Is erecting the same as creating, as in created the species name from a few paragraphs back?
  • dental and foot fossils I'm not an expert at grammar, but shouldn't "and" join two things of the same part of speech? So "tooth and foot fossils" or "dental and pedal fossils"?
  • In 1855 during a science conference Be more specific: "At the 1855 conference on whatever ...". Also, you could do your readers a service with liberal use of trans-quote in the citations of foreign sources, even if not strictly MOS-required.
  • in 1885 synonymized I see that this is a term of art in taxonomy. At the very least, link to Synonym (taxonomy), but even better, explain it in-line.
  • In his synonymization of Hyægulus, he invalidated H. murinus related to the previous, what does it mean to "invalidate" something?
  • a type specimen originally from Ronzon that had since been lost What does it mean for a type specimin to be lost? Did somebody put it in storage somewhere and then forget where they put it?
    Well, to be honest, I was wondering if there was some more scientific meaning for "lost", as in "Traits are often lost during evolution". I get that "type specimen" is the physical object on which a taxonomist is basing their description of a new species, but even with that understanding, I wasn't quite sure how to read this. And (I'm sorry to keep repeating this) I doubt most students and curious laypeople would even know what a type specimen is, so they would be even more confused. RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stop here, having read through just the first part of Taxonomy (stopping short of classification). This is not my field of expertise, but I do know a bit about taxonomy and I'm really struggling to get through this. I suspect this article would be appreciated more by a professional taxonomist (Faendalimas might be willing to comment?) but for me, it's really dense reading. WP:TECHNICAL talks about making even highly technical subjects accessible to "students and curious laypeople in addition to experts" and I don't think this does that.

Tried rewriting this a bit, but taxonomy is inherently a dense field. I gave the taxonomy section (or the newly named research history section) its first paragraph to try to explain contexts behind reclassification and synonymization, so I'm hoping that it's a bit easier to understand? Do let me know if this first paragraph makes the rest of the section easier to read or not. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But, since I'm here, I'll just mention the one thing that originally caught my eye and got me interested in reading this:

  • Weight estimates ... yielded 1.846 kg (4.07 lb) and 1.511 kg (3.33 lb) respectively. There's several issues here. One is that when converting units, you should maintain the number of significant digits from the original source. But beyond that, it's unlikely (well, inconceivable to me) that any estimate of this nature could remotely justify 4 significant figures of precision. If that's what the source says, I guess we'd need to go along with it, but I can't find where Martinez and Sudre 1995 says this. Are you sure that's the right citation?
The measurements are on table 8 from page 206, which includes weight estimates in grams based on molar and astragalus formula estimates. I can convert it to grams if that's what you wish, although I generally prefer expressing weights in kg unless the animal in question is very tiny. What would you prefer I do in this case? PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grams vs. kg is not the issue. You started with 4 significant digits (1,511 g) so you should end up with 4 significant digits (3.331 lb). I'm still dubious about how Martinez and Sudre justify 4 digits, but that's not our problem. RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's the conversion template ({cvt|[x]|[y]}) doing its own thing of not converting to four units also. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which you can (and should) control with the sigfig=n parameter. RoySmith (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just spent some time trying to figure out what MP14 to MP17 (43.5 to 37 Ma) meant. Yes, there's a link to Mammal Palaeogene zones the first time MP is used, but how to find it? Just searching the text for "MP" yields 199 matches, since that's common in running text. Eventually I hit upon searching for "<space>MP", which let me find the Mammal Palaeogene zones reference, but it took some determination. It took me a fair bit of searching to discover that MA contains an entry for Megaannum. To be fair, I actually knew what Ma stood for, but as mentioned earlier, we need to consider the needs of "students and curious laypeople". I'm thinking an article like this would benefit from a glossary. Perhaps a box right below the infobox which would list obscure terms like this in an obvious and easy to find location?
  • 3 incisors, 1 canine, four premolars and three molars be consistent about digits vs spelling out numbers.
  • P2 is separated from P1 and P3 I gather that the location of the number (sub vs super, in front vs after) encodes the location in the mouth in a compact way that makes sense to people who are familiar with this, but to the students and curious laypeople, it's just another hurdle to understanding the article. Perhaps more grist for the glossary box?
  • adapted towards folivorous (leaf-eating) dietary habits couldn't this be more plainly stated as "for eating leaves"?
  • metatarsal digits III and IV likewise, why not just "third and fourth toes"?
  • The hind leg is known from complete fossil evidence from the locality of Escamps. What does "complete fossil evidence" mean? Does that mean this is the only place leg fossils were found, or that they found a fossil of a complete leg? Also, what does "locality of Escamps" mean? How does that differ from the more everyday "near Escamps".
  • has a slender and elongated shape why not "is long and skinny"? I know we're not writing for Simple English Wikipedia, but a lot of the writing here seems like it's grasping for the most complicated way to say something because that's the way scientists talk to each other when trying to sound important.
  • The femoral head is reduced in form Why not "is smaller"?
  • but is compressed in its mediolateral area I hate to keep carping on this, but I have (almost) no clue what that means. Compressed obviously means something like "smaller", but how is being "compressed" different from being "reduced in form", or being "slender"? And "mediolateral" has something to do with "from the side" but beyond that I'd have to go searching for an anatomy text to figure out exactly what it means. I consider myself scientifically literate with a better than average grounding in anatomy and evolutionary biology, but I'm still struggling to keep up. Our target audience of students and curious laypeople will have no chance.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose on this. Scientifically, I suspect this is well researched but I really think it needs a lot more work to get it to the point where it is approachable by a non-expert audience. RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might find it wiser to withdraw the FAC nomination to address the technical language issues in my own time. @FAC coordinators: May I please request that this FAC be withdrawn? PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing the nom as requested. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19:01 16 May 2025 article candidates/1985 Wales v Scotland football match/archive1&diff=1290738278&oldid=1290738278 FACBot (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

1985 Wales v Scotland football match

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hammersfan (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the World Cup qualifying game between Wales and Scotland in September 1985, at the end of which the Scottish manager Jock Stein collapsed and died. The article is already at GA status, but I done done a significant amount of revising in an effort to get it to FA status, in the hope of getting it onto the Home Page on 10 September this year, which will be the 40th anniversary of the game, and of Stein's passing Hammersfan (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Departure–

[edit]

I'll be reviewing this over the coming days. Seems like an awfully interesting topic. I'll preface this by saying I don't know much about football or sports in general but a review is a review and I'll scrutinize anything that needs to be. Departure– (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background
Home Internationals
  • Put a {{main|British Home Championship}} template here - unsure about this point as it's linked later on, but it couldn't hurt.
Done
Done - removed duplicate link further down paragraph
  • What is the meaning of "friendlies"? It should be explained so those not familiar with sports can accessibly understand the article.
Changed entry to "exhibition games" with note explaining meaning of "friendly"
  • But, as international football expanded, - Starting a sentence like this strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps replace "but" with "however".
Changed
  • The objective "prestige" quality of the British Home Tournament isn't introduced until the part where it "starts to wane".
Added additional sentence
  • The British Home Championship had ended in the 1983–84 season - Link the season if an article exists.
Done
  • citing an increasingly congested international fixture list, and waning interest from supporters, - As there are only two reasons, with the second one being much longer, I don't think the comma is necessary for comprehension.
Removed
  • The Home Internationals had been a fixture in the calendar for 100 years, and there was some level of disappointment felt by Wales and Northern Ireland over the decision. - The "a fixture in the calendar" strikes me as a bit puffery-y. Does the source support that wording?
Added line explaining that they had been played every year, with exception of the World Wars, since 1883
First set of items from Departure– attended to. Hammersfan (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This game, Wales' first win at Hampden for 34 years, saw Scottish complaints over what appeared to be a foul by Welsh striker Mark Hughes on defender Alex McLeish in the buildup to the goal scored by Ian Rush, and a clash between Scotland captain Graeme Souness and Welsh midfielder Peter Nicholas, for which both were booked, and which led to a number of the Welsh team surrounding the Scottish player. - This sentence is very long and should be split up.
Done
  • With this in mind, a draw for Scotland would be sufficient to virtually guarantee second place in Group 7 and advance at the very least through to the two legged play-off against the winner of the Oceania qualifying tournament, while a win would likely see them top the group and qualify automatically. For Wales, anything less than a win would end their hopes of qualification unless Spain failed to beat Iceland. - No citation here. While the material might be sourced, not having a citation is going to make verifying this information less accessible.
Found appropriate citation
  • The situation was similar to the qualification for the 1978 World Cup, - This should probably be prefaced with "the initial" or some variant - perhaps changing it to "the matchup" - unless I'm missing something.
Changed to "the matchup"
  • while Wales needed a victory to keep their hopes alive for their final game - the wording on "keep their hopes alive" strikes me as odd. Can it be changed to some variant of "have a chance"? I don't know if this is a formal MOS point.
So altered
Second set of items from Departure– attended to Hammersfan (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Build-up
  • Scotland meanwhile went into the match - Add a comma here.
Done
  • In 1985, the FAW did not have the use of a large national stadium. - It might just be a quirk of British English but from across the pond "the use of" seems like it should be replaced with "access to".
Done
  • Ninian Park however had had its capacity cut - Add a comma here.
Slightly reworded
  • the interest in the game led to the FAW to name the larger Ninian Park as the venue - Whose interest? The audience or the organizers? This should be clarified more.
Done
  • while just two days after Scotland's qualifying game in Iceland, the Heysel Stadium disaster had occurred prior to the 1985 European Cup Final, which had led to English clubs being banned from European competition by UEFA. This sequence of events is preceded by a semicolon. Incidents should therefore each have a semicolon or something of the like to distinguish them from each other. Also, more information about the Heysel Stadium disaster would be appreciated.
Added semicolons; also added note going into more detail about Heysel - I don't feel this should form part of the text itself, but you're correct that it needs more explanation
  • although there were discussions over their participation in the 1988 European Championships. Nor did it have any implication for either the Scottish Football Association (SFA) or FAW over their clubs' participation in European competition. - Replace that period with a comma and lowercase "nor", or you've got a live and primed fragmentation gren- er, sentence fragment, floating in your FA-to-be.
Done
Third set of items by Departure– attended to. Hammersfan (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Match
  • in spite of the fact that the day was not so hot as to cause significant perspiration - "not so hot" has a double meaning as a metaphor for generally feeling unwell, so this should be rephrased to make it clear the temperature was at fault here.
Done
  • and had lost one of his contact lenses. Not only that, but he did not have a spare pair with him. - These shouldn't be two sentences - it could be replaced with something along the lines of "lost one of hs contact lenses, while not having a spare replacement pair."
Reworded
  • Reports were sketchy initially - "Sketchy" could likely be replaced with some variant of "disparate", "spotty", "inaccurate", "misleading", etc.
Changed to "confused"
  • BBC Radio commentator Peter Jones (who had no access to the television pictures and was relying on information from other people in the press box) - The splits would be better off as consistent. As far as I can tell, this article primarily uses commas and endashes to break up text fragments so one of those should be used here instead of parentheses.
Done
  • the depth of feeling from the Scotland fans was summed up when one said: - Who is this "one"? Is it just a random quote from a fan? If so, it shouldn't be described as "summing up" an entire community's feelings.
Reworded
A lot of my prose criticism may have to do with British vs American English but there is objectively plenty to improve as is. Plenty of prose, seems generally well-cited. Once all of this is dealt with I'd be comfortable supporting on prose. Departure– (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Last set of items from Departure– attended to. Hammersfan (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been busy working on my own article and haven't been checking this, but I'll be doing a spot-check later today before giving my support. Departure– (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since my initial criticism and the cleanup after, a quick spotcheck shows prose about on par with what I'd expect from a featured article, so support on prose only; no prejudice against a second prose check, and a source check still needs to be done. Departure– (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Alt text added to images
  • Captions need editing for grammar/style
    • Amended captions
  • File:Daily_Record_Jock_Stein_death.jpg has an incomplete FUR
    • Completed as far as possible
  • File:Jock_Stein_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1590588.jpg: what's the copyright status of the plaque?
There's no graphic one can hold copyright on so to my knowledge it would fall under {{PD-text}}, at least where US copyright law and by extension Wikimedia is concerned. Departure– (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is believed that the photo will cause an issue then it's simplest to just remove it - I have now done this. Hammersfan (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised by Nikkimaria attended to - Hammersfan (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I will review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 02:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • " In his programme notes for the first game of the 1984 tournament" - would it be more accurate to refer to this as the 1983-84 tournament?
  • ""World Cup 1986". Internationals on ITV 1984-present. ITV Football 1968–83" - this is some sort of unofficial website - what makes this a high-quality RS?
  • "having been drawn together in the same qualifying group for the 1986 World Cup," - is this necessary? This is found in the immediately preceding sentence
  • Is there some sort of link available for "booking" for the benefit of those who do not follow association football/soccer?
  • "while at the same time virtually eliminating Wales from the competition." - this sort of phrasing really implies that an Iceland victory over Spain was very unlikely, but nothing of that sort is directly stated in the article
  • I am very confused about the 12.9% 32.26% 9.68% win percentages in the table for the stadium. The 9.68% is apparently the 3 wins at Vetch divided by the 31 games total, but I don't know what makes that an informative number - I can understand a winning % at the stadium, or maybe what % of the wins were at each stadium, but this is just confusing for me
  • "The disaster at the Heysel Stadium in Brussels saw 39 fans of Italian club Juventus killed " - is it accurate to say that all 39 were Juventus fans? Our article on the Heysel disaster only states that most of the dead were Juventus supporters
  • " showed Stein, who appeared to be both conscious and alert," - while yes, he does appear to be concious and alert while being carried down there, it's a little OR-ish to be citing this to a YouTube copy of the original TV broadcast
  • "lewellyn, Don/Watts, John/Williams, Lewis (Directors) (1985). World Cup Soccer Special: Wales v Scotland (Television). Cardiff, Wales." - this would be a copyrighted TV broadcast, right? There isn't any indication that leads me to believe that the YouTube uploader has the copyright to this video, which would make it a WP:ELNEVER situation
  • There is still an active CN tag in the article from last month, although it is followed by a citation?
  • It's not clear to me where the game counts in the Welsh home venues 2000–2024 are sourced
  • " "27 Years since Jock Stein died". Jambos Kickback. 10 September 2012. Archived from the original on 15 May 2023. Retrieved 7 April 2025." - what makes this a high-quality RS? It appears to be a web forum (non-RS) publishing newspaper scans (ELNEVER again)

I think there is a fair bit of work needed here yet. Hog Farm Talk 01:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to move to an oppose here. Between my concerns above about OR/sourcing/ELNEVER, and SchroCat's prose concerns below, I don't believe this article is quite ready. Hog Farm Talk 20:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SC, just checking that this is still on your list. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is, yes. I've had something of a tsunami of work over the last couple of weeks, but hope to get onto this in the next day or so. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's some rather informal language dotted around which could be tightened and a few points where there are some WP:IDIOM fails. Below are a series of examples, rather than a thorough examination of each and every point that needs addressing. At the moment I'm leaning oppose as this needs a good and thorough copyedit to tighten up the informal prose and deal with some of the problems. You may be able to sort out the text while it's still here, but it's not at FAC level yet.

  • "with England having announced" ->"when England announced"
  • "prove expensive": fails WP:IDIOM (unless you can put a financial figure on the booking)
  • "This led to his receiving a suspension": -> "This led to his suspension"
  • "Scotland ahead thanks to a superior goal difference" -> "Scotland ahead because of a superior goal difference"
  • "With this in mind, a draw for Scotland would be sufficient": -> "A draw for Scotland would therefore be sufficient"
  • "virtually guarantee" -> ""almost guarantee"
  • "matchup": an Americanism that should be replaced. "situation" would suffice, as would other terms
  • " each playing one of the other teams in the qualifying group and a friendly": this reads as if both Scotland and Wales had played against a group team and had a friendly, whereas Scotland didn't play any friendlies
  • "but had gone down to defeat away to Norway": -> "but had lost away to Norway"
  • "buildup" -> "build-up"
  • " twenty home games since the beginning of 1980, with eight each of those played at Cardiff and Wrexham. Of those, Wales had won 6 and drawn 2, including two wins": I think this fails WP:NUMBERS with a mix of words and numerals
  • Only A Game?. -> Doesn't need a full stop as there is a piece of terminal punctuation already present
  • "the journalist also noted": 'also' not needed
  • "In the return game at Hampden Park": is it a 'return' game if it happens first? Why not just "In the game at Hampden Park"?
  • "mis-hit" -> "mishit"
  • "Stein was unanimated" -> "Stein was not animated"
  • 'evening - "keep': -> 'evening: "keep'
  • "Seconds later, Stein slipped into unconsciousness": -> "Seconds later, Stein became unconscious"
  • "the news began to filter out slowly": -> " the news began to spread"
  • "We'd rather be out of the World Cup and have Big Jock back.[64]": this should be inline, not a block quote, and have quote marks
  • Why is there a 'citation needed' tag in there in mid-FAC?
  • "also the sense of history repeating itself": reword this awful cliché
  • "which Wales again failed to qualify for" -> "for which Wales again failed to qualify"
  • "As a consequence of this," -> just "As a consequence,"
  • "has led them to come full circle": another cliché that can be blitzed
  • "In the years since Jock Stein's death, some, including Alex Ferguson": Just "Stein" and "Ferguson" needed. Ditto others in the paragraph

I hope these help - SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Five weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersfan, I see you've never reviewed any articles at FAC (at least, according to the FAC stat tool). While there is no quid pro quo at FAC, reviewers are more likely to review articles where the nominator has been active in reviewing other people's articles too. If yu want reviewers to come to this article, you'll have to put in some work and go to theirs too. FAC self-supports, just like any other mini-community. - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article has moved away from a consensus to promote since I put it on notice I am going to archive it. The two reviews above give an idea of the improvements needed to get it up to FA standard. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 23:46 15 May 2025 article candidates/Arab–Khazar wars/archive2&diff=1290623904&oldid=1290623904 FACBot (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Arab–Khazar wars

[edit]
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 16:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 7th and 8th-century conflicts between the nomadic steppe empire of the Khazars and the emergent Arab caliphate for control of the Caucasus mountains and adjacent territories. Especially the 8th-century conflict, fought over several decades, was one of the major wars fought by the Umayyad Caliphate, featuring its most prominent commanders, with rapid reversals of fortune and ultimately little gain for the Muslims, but draining the Umayyad military and contributing to the Caliphate's collapse. The conflict may also have driven the Khazars (or at least their elite) into embracing Judaism as their state religion. The article has been loon gin work passing GA in 2016, MilHist ACR in 2018, and went through a first FAC in October 2023, which failed mostly because of lack of availability on my part. I have delayed renomination while looking for more sources, but nothing has come to my attention so far that is not in some way already covered. I therefore nominate it again with the intention of seeing this through to the end. Constantine ✍ 16:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Nagyszentmiklos_2b_korso_-_Hampel_1894.jpg: what's the full source for this?
  • File:Caliphate_740-en.svg: see MOS:COLOUR. Ditto File:Europe_814.svg, File:Chasaren.jpg
Constantine ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka

[edit]
  • The Turkic Khazars appeared in the area of present-day Dagestan in the second half of the sixth century, initially as subjects of the First Turkic Khaganate. After the latter's collapse, they emerged as an independent, dominant power in the northern Caucasus by the seventh century. These two sentences and the last paragraph of the same section cover the same events.
  • The Khazars are mentioned in medieval histories as being present in the Caucasus since the first centuries CE, but these are rejected as anachronistic by modern scholars. Some scholars have argued that the Khazars are to be identified with Turks who raided Sasanian Persia in the late 6th century, but again the evidence is unreliable, being derived from much later Arabic sources. I would delete both.
  • First Turkic Khaghanate or Western Turkic Khaganate or both?
  • ...the presiding prince... I am not sure I understand it.
  • ...although it is also not explicitly mentioned... I would rephrase it.
  • Why is the Nagyszentmiklós ewer relevant in the article's context?
  • I would mention in the main text that Suraqa ibn Amr was an otherwise unknown commander/general/...
  • ...Derbent was in the hands of the Huns... the North Caucasian Huns (who were Khazar vassals)... Are these two different groups of Huns? Borsoka (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • Good to see it back, I completed my review last time around, so I'll copy my points you didn't adress back then here, so you can check them off if they were done in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 735, the Umayyad general captured three fortresses in Alania (near the Darial Pass) and Tuman Shah, the ruler of a North Caucasian principality who was restored to his lands by the caliph as a client." I'm unsure of how the part after the comma relates to the first part. I wonder if "who" should be removed? Otherwise it's hard to make sense of.
  • You seem to randomly mention Ashot by his full title or only as Ashot. I think the full title is only needed first time around?
  • "and paganism remained widespread" Do we know what specific kind?
  • "Marwan also brought a large number of Slav and Khazar captives south, whom he resettled in the eastern Caucasus" Why?
  • "since those Khazars who actually converted to Islam had to be moved to safety in Umayyad territory" When and why?
  • Filan doesn't seem to link to anything relevant.
  • You end with the Khazars gradually vanishing, but would it make sense to also add whether the Arabs returned to the area later on?
Woo hoo! Constantine! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nominator has not edited since April, the nomination has garnered no support and is four weeks old with no new comments, archiving.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 May 2025 [5].

Tumu Crisis

[edit]
Nominator(s): Min968 (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the major military defeats in Chinese history, marking the beginning of the decline of the Ming dynasty. The article reached GA for a while and it was also my first article to reach GA. I also hope it will be my first FA. Min968 (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Bennett, 1998 - the title should be in title case.
  • "and the emperor was captured". Upper-case E. And in "or for the capture of the Ming emperor." See MOS:JOBTITLE.
  • "the poor leadership of the Ming army." We have a lot of Ming in that paragraph. Maybe in this case "Ming" → 'their'?
  • "the steadfast leadership of the Ming commander in the capital". We can possibly dispense with the word "Ming" here.
  • "Esen himself faced growing criticism". Do you need "himself"? (I mean, who else would he be?)

I have got to Background and didn't really need to check the talk page to tell that it was probably a first nomination, that a mentor had not been involved (sse the FAC instructions), nor that it hadn't been through either GoCE or PR. The prose is good, but it is not up to "is engaging and of a professional standard". There is definitely an FAC in here, but I think you need to work with a, or several, FAC-experienced editor(s) to get the prose into shape. I shall give some examples of what I mean, but please note that resolving all of these will not resolve the underlying issue.

  • "After the death of the Yongle Emperor in 1424". What? Who? A more detailed and gradual introduction is usual. Eg see the Background sections of three of my recent FACs from different periods - Battle of New Carthage, Battle of Morlaix, Battle of Preston (1648). Looking at battle FAs by others should also be helpful.
  • "the defense of the northern borders of Ming China began to deteriorate." Prior to this we need a description of what these defences were.
  • "Despite complaints from generals about the lack of resources". Do we know what resources? Men, horses, food, weapons, pay, something else, all of these?
  • "the Weisuo garrison system". Which would be what?
  • "were actually performing their duties." What were the other half doing? (Yes, this is a rhetorical question.)
  • "Hereditary soldiers". Woah! How did that come about?
  • "were often exploited by officers, leading to a reliance on inadequate grain supplies from the interior." Exploited how? And how on earth did this lead to reliance on grain supplies? The interior of where. Were they inadequate because they were only meant to be a partial ration, because of percolation, or something else?
  • "As a result, the quality of training, weapons, and equipment declined." 1. As a result of what? The last thing mentioned is "reliance on inadequate grain supplies from the interior." 2. Just the quality, not the quantity? 3. How did this - whatever it was, I'm still baffled - effect the quality of training? Could we unpack "equipment" a little? Armour, horses, artillery ...
  • "The Beijing garrison was frequently used for construction projects, such as defensive positions". I know what you mean, but it comes out oddly. Maybe "The Beijing garrison was frequently used for constructing defensive positions/works/fortifications ..."?
  • Why are cites 4 and 5 separate? Would it not make sense to run them together?

That's just what jumps out at me from the first paragraph. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw from this nomination. Min968 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 May 2025 [6].

Unreleased Sonic the Hedgehog games

[edit]
Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 14:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought a few articles on released Sonic the Hedgehog games to FAC, so why not change things up a bit? This article chronicles the Sonic games that, for one reason or another, never made it to store shelves, ranging from fully-finished products to those that never progressed beyond the conceptual phase. I've done a fair amount of work on this article after getting it promoted to GA last month and I think it's ready to get a go at FAC. I hope you enjoy! JOEBRO64 14:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Will review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question

[edit]

Procedural question Is this the right venue, or would this be a better fit for WP:Featured list candidates? It seems like a borderline case to me, where it could go either way. TompaDompa (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for jumping into this conversation, but I would consider it an article rather than a list given the amount of prose in the article itself. FLs on video games generally have the prose restricted to just the lead and the games are listed in a table. See List of Civilization media or List of Mario role-playing games for what I mean by this. So while this boils down to a list of unreleased video games, it has prose for individual entries to that point that I would consider it an article. Not to emphasize this point too much, but I have not seen a list that would have this level of prose beyond the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's ultimately up to the coords and I'll adhere to whatever they say, but I think FAC is the right venue here. The article is almost entirely prose, and to my understanding there's a distinction between list-format articles (which are rated on the normal quality scale) and actual lists (which go to FLC). Looking at previous examples, Superman in film, a similarly-structured article, was promoted to FA rather than FL, so I think we're at the right place. JOEBRO64 12:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to raise the same question. This is a collection of brief entries describing each part of a set. That's a list. It doesn't become an article just because the information wasn't crammed into a table or punctuated with bullet points. This is a list that provides helpful information for each item, which many lists decline to do. If the length of individual entries is an issue, then the long ones could be split into main articles for the games and then condensed in the list. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, but a similar article I wrote, Pokémon episodes removed from rotation, has a very similar structure to this one, yet was determined by FLC coords to be more akin to an article than a list. While I personally disagree with the assessment, it seems to indicate a precedent that these kinds of articles are deemed closer to articles than lists. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If a set index is considered a list, then I don't see why these wouldn't be as well. It's the same amount of information in the same format. The only difference is that it doesn't have a disambiguation aspect. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 May 2025 [7].

Alice in Chains (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): mftp dan oops 03:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the third studio album by Alice in Chains, one of the driving forces of grunge music in the 1990s and one of the more metallic of them. This was the last album to feature their original lead vocalist, Layne Staley, which brought them to fame. I have been working on translating content and expanding this bad boy from the Russian and, to a lesser extent, Polish Wikipedia articles for months now - which themselves are remarkably well-sourced. I believe I have finally reached the conclusion of my hard work for enwiki's version, and plan at this time to do the same for every one of the Chains' studio albums and even more.

You will notice I have gone immediately to FAC for this album. Normally, I'd send something like this to GA first, and I probably will for future albums, but my goal here is to get this promoted within a few months, leaving plenty of time to schedule the page for the front of Wikipedia, as its 30th anniversary is approaching. As you can see, time leaves me no choice if I want to reach my goal. If this FAC turns out to be a mistake, I am choosing to make a brave one and attempt to remedy any concerns brought forth on the fly, though I hope there are few. mftp dan oops 03:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina

[edit]

Full review coming soon. Some preliminary comments:

  • I don't think a chart section for the singles is necessary.
  • Suggest adding captions to the tables (Charts, Certs).
  • "highly successful" POV
  • Inconsistent use of false titles (or not thereof) "American rock band Alice in Chains", "bassist Mike Inez", " the supergroup Mad Season". Ippantekina (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)][reply]
    • All addressed. Do you think I could replace "highly successful" to "commercial breakthrough" if I add appropriate context and sourcing to the body? Or is that too much? It certainly exists and wouldn't be hard to include. mftp dan oops 17:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes "commercial breakthrough" works imo. Ippantekina (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, so I've added that descriptor. Bad news: I went and added a whole paragraph to background to justify the timeline and its inclusion in the lead. Good news: it seems I might not have interrupted anything in terms of reviewing, so I hope it's not a problem. mftp dan oops 23:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Hey, sorry for taking so long to get back to this. My honest opinion is that, the prose is definitely GA-solid, but for FA it should be more polished. From the lead, the background info on which members did what prior to the album is rather lengthy, some sentences could be refined (e.g. the live performances bit, something like "The band did not tour to promote the album due to Stanley's addiction, and they only performed live on several televised events and opened for Kiss" could work), and some terms could be jargon-y ("metallic riffs" does this refer to metal music the genre or...? "delicate acoustic moods" rather POV-ish?). Throughout the prose some phrasings/sentences are also clunky ("When Jerry Cantrell first began thinking about releasing a solo album in 1994", "Cantrell then decided to work on material originally intended for a solo album" etc). I'm not confident to support this for promotion yet, and based on your contributions I believe this article could be better prose-wise. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fair enough, I appreciate the feedback. I'll begin working those out when I get home. mftp dan oops 19:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright, so I addressed the parts you mentioned. I would agree that the article might be able to do better prose-wise, as I do notice things here and there. I did send this to the copyedit guild before nominating this, so I hope there isn't a lot of it, but I'm here to answer the bell. mftp dan oops 00:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px sizes
  • Suggest adding alt text
Thank you for the image review. I agree the picture of Layne is less than ideal, but it's unfortunately probably among the better options for a picture of him, in my opinion. Given that he's been dead since 2002, had not been active since 1999, and largely did not tour after 1993, we are very slim on options and I would consider him essential for the reader; do you have one you'd rather use from his category? I adjusted to one other shot, but I don't love it. mftp dan oops 00:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for almost three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance at all you could give me a little more time to at least get some more input? I have been diligently addressing the comments given me, but it seems my nominations routinely struggle to generate interest. I've mentioned it on Wikipedia's Discord server multiple times in previous months with absolutely no response. I can make an appeal to the WikiProjects it belongs to. I have decided to withdraw this; I no longer have the short-term time to fix this that is requested in the above context. mftp dan oops 23:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC) 02:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

zmbro

[edit]

Hey there. Like Ippantekina above, I think the article could use a little more work before becoming FA. It's heavily detailed The background section, for instance, I think strands a little too much into WP:OFFTOPIC territory, and some of the wording (i.e. "This was partly due to the fact that lyrics were written after the band had already entered the studio.") seems unencylopedic. Some of the prose can also easily be condensed (i.e. "The band played four shows in total for the tour" to "The band only played four shows for the tour"). You said you had the article copyedited but perhaps take it to WP:GAN or WP:PR before making another run at FAC? I wish you the best of luck! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: Like I said in my opening statement, I don't have time for either of those steps; normally, I would do just that, but the backlog for GAN would make my goal of having it on the front page and passed by the start of November practically impossible. Frankly, I was actually about to strike my above reply to the coordinator note and ask that the candidate be withdrawn (@Gog the Mild:) because not only does it apparently lack interest from reviewers, but to compound the issue I am leaving for vacation tomorrow morning and will not return to Wikipedia until May 20. With that in mind, would you be okay with perhaps leaving me more specific feedback that I can address? I am willing to do anything and everything that needs done writing-wise for it to be promoted come time I return. I'm willing to put in the work, but my eyes might need opened. mftp dan oops 02:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 12 May 2025 [8].

Peking Man

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most influential fossils in anthropology, the Peking Man, the interpretation of which was tied to the tumultuous historical developments of 20th century China. This is part of my ongoing overhaul of prehistoric humans, and so far only Solo Man and Homo antecessor have gotten to FA status. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • There are a lot of images in this article, resulting in sandwiching and including galleries
  • File:Skull_pekingman.jpg: is this a photograph or an original artwork? If the former, where was it taken? If the latter, how is it known to be accurate? Ditto File:Sinathropus_pekinensis.jpg
It's a photograph uploaded to Flickr, doesn't say where it was taken Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Zhoukoudian_65952-Peking-Man-Site_(28097398294).jpg: China's freedom of panorama requires additional information to be provided about the original work. Ditto File:Zhoukoudian_Pachycrocuta.jpg
  • File:Hypothetical_sketch_of_the_monophylitic_origin_and_of_the_diffusion_of_the_12_varieties_of_men_from_Lemuria_over_the_earth_LCCN2014649358.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
1919 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pithecanthropus-erectus.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death
replaced Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Zhoukoudian_mural_fire.jpg: what's the copyright status of the original work? Ditto File:Zhoukoudian_mural_hunting_party_2.jpg, File:Zhoukoudian_mural_hunting_party.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reach out to UNESCO Beijing Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I'll remove all the artwork from Zhoukoudian Museum Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a drive-by comment regarding the number of images. The number of images doesn't bother me. I'm not seeing any sandwiching on my machine, but prior conversations on this topic have led me to understand that some browsers use layout strategies and/or default fonts that make sandwiching more likely. Be that as it may, I'd drop File:The site of the first discovered skull cap of Peking Man.JPG. It's a picture of a plaque on a rock, and as such, doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding on the article's subject. Likewise with File:Ash layer of the ape hall, Peking Man Site.JPG, although that does at least attempt to show something of archeological significance (the ash layer). I'm also not seeing the value of File:Zhoukoudian Pachycrocuta.jpg. So if you're looking for images to cut, those are the ones I would consider. All of the other images in the article seem useful, so if they're really causing a layout problem, perhaps move them to a gallery or some such rather than deleting them. RoySmith (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support  Comments  from Noleander

[edit]
  • Overall, the article looks fantastic! Excellent illustrations; broad coverage; clean format; good prose; plenty of citations. The article was inviting, and a pleasure to read.
  • Section name "Further Reading" is confusing because five of the seven items are used as sources (of citations). Only two items (Aczel and Jia) are truly "further reading" because they not used as sources. For example the book by Schamlzer is in that section, but is also used as a source by several citations e.g. [123] Schamlzer 2008, p. 154. Suggest either break into "Sources" and "Further Reading" sections; or eliminate the Jia and Aczel items, and rename "Further Reading" to "Sources". [FYI: I ran a tool that shows if reference items are linked-to by a citation, or not]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section "See Also" - Personally, I think See Also sections are distracting and give the impression that the article is not finished, and the editor perfunctorily threw a bunch of links, simply for the sake of having an additional section. If the articles are relevant to Peking Man, then they should already be linked elsewhere in the article, either (a) in body text; or (b) in the topic bars at the bottom of the article (e.g. somewhere within "Human Evolution" topic bar). Many FA quality articles do not have "See Also" sections. I'm not saying the See Also section is a show stopper for FA; just giving my opinion.
I enjoy a nice See Also section when I'm going down a wiki rabbit hole Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with "See also" sections but I've started to prefer calling it "Further reading" while being totally unclear on why MOS:SEEALSO and MOS:FURTHER draw a distinction between the two. In any case, WP:FACR includes "follows the style guidelines", not "follows the subset of the style guidelines a particular reviewer happens to like". RoySmith (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Readers have to work too hard: Despite what Charles Darwin had hypothesized in his 1871 Descent of Man, many late-19th century evolutionary naturalists postulated that Asia (instead of Africa) was the birthplace of humankind,... We should not assume that readers know what Darwin hypothesized . Yes, careful readers may be able to deduce that he hypothesized Africa (I am correct?), but why make readers stop the flow and do the calculus? Suggest: Darwin, in his 1871 Descent of Man,hypothesized that mankind originated in Africa. Despite that, many late-19th century evolutionary naturalists postulated that Asia was the birthplace of humankind, because ... or something like that.
fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot find a place in the article that lists all locations that Peking Man fossils have been found. The lead says Its fossils have been found in a cave some 50 km (31 mi) southwest of Beijing ... but is that the only location? If it is, that should be emphasized, perhaps in the lead. If there are multiple locations, then the fact there are multiple locations should be mentioned in the lead and all the locations should be listed (either in Lead or in the body). If the list is already in the article, that is cool ... I just cannot find the list right now.
A list of other Chinese H. erectus sites is in the Mao and post-Mao eras section right next to the map where they're all plotted. As explained in the Classification section, these other sites can be included in H. erectus pekinensis, but the name is normally reserved for just the Zhoukoudian site Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption of pic Reconstruction of the first Peking Man skullcap Suggest adding a couple of words helping non-expert readers distinguish the fossil from the reconstructed parts. What is obvious to experts and WP editors may not be obvious to casual readers around the world. If the caption would become too large, consider putting the additional text into a footnote.
I've added that the jawbone is hypothetical, but I'm not sure what else to say about the skullcap other than anything the same color as the jawbone wasn't preserved in the original specimen Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption of pic Reconstruction of the first Peking Man skullcap I'm comparing this photo to the illustrations in the "Gallery" lower ... if "first photo" skull is "Skull I" in the Gallery consider adding the identifier "Skull I" to the "first skull" photo caption (e.g. "... designated Skull I"),
I'm realizing now the Commons description is wrong, that's clearly Skull XI. Good eye Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote marks? Peking Man characterises the "classic" H. erectus anatomy. Can the quote marks be removed? Quote marks should be used sparingly. In this case, the reader will not know what the quotes signify, if anything. Is the editor quoting a source? Which source? Is "classic" a special word in paleontology? If so: the article should define the term here in the article (or link to WP article which does). Is this a WP:Scare quotes? ... those are discouraged. FWIW, I cannot tell what purpose the quotes are serving in this sentence. Suggest eliminating the quote marks and add some words that plainly convey whatever the quote marks were intended to convey.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Term "Sinanthrope" not defined? : "The Sinanthrope has been dated, described, measured, x-rayed, drawn,.... " Article needs to explain term "Sinanthrope" to reader ... especially because the genus was renamed later to Homo erectus (is that correct?) Because it is within a quote, consider: : "The Sinanthrope [Peking Man] has been dated, described, measured, x-rayed, drawn,.... " or : "The Sinanthrope [Peking Man skull I] has been dated, described, measured, x-rayed, drawn,.... "
The name Sinanthropus is already brought up by this point in the article. I've added the name to the lead Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paleontologists have been criticized, justifiably, for sometimes blurring the distinction between original fossils and reconstructions extrapolated from fossils. This article does a pretty good job of stating, for each illustration, if it is a fossil or reconstruction. One place that could be better is pic caption: Weidenreich's reconstruction of Humerus II (left) and Femur IV (right) it is not clear which parts are the original vs the fossil. The reader can go to the Gallery to see the fossil, and jump their eyes up and down to compare, but that is not ideal. Is there a better illustration that distinguishes fossil parts vs reconstructed parts?
That's the only reconstruction Weidenreich published, you can see where the border lines between real and reconstructed are drawn near the heads Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red link? that converge into a triangle (Ward's triangle), which... Red links are off-putting in FA articles. Is it likely that an article for Ward's triangle will get created in the next few years? Is it possible to either (a) create a stub for that article? (b) remove the red by eliminating the link?
I'm a little surprised it's not already an article, it's the weakest part of the femoral head and used to assess the progression of osteoporosis and the risk of a hip fracture Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eliminate red-link in author name "Ciochon": Displayed in citation [76] at Zaim, Y; Ciochon, R. L.; Polanski, J. M ... The raw text is here: {{cite journal | last1 = Zaim|first1=Y|last2=Ciochon|first2=R. L.|author2-link=Russel Ciochon|..... I think the "author2-link=Russel Ciochon" needs to be removed, but you should verify that. Correction: looks like a spelling mistake, should be: Russell Ciochon
fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: how's it looking now? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dunkleosteus77: Citation: Nonetheless, Weidenreich continued using "Sinanthropus" (and "Pithecanthropus") until his death in 1948[52] because he saw it "just as a name without any 'generic' or 'specific' meaning, or in other words, as a 'latinization' of Peking Man." The foonote [52] should be at the end of the sentence, unless there is a compelling reason to put it in the middle, esp since there is no footnote at the end.
that quote is from Le Gros Clark (well, he's quoting Weidenreich), ref 52 doesn't have it Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: ... as had been broadly recommended by various priors. I don't know what "priors" means here. Can you add a WP link, or some words explaining what it is?
Prior as in before, like "prior to" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phrasing could be better: The contributions of Chinese scientists during the Mao era were under much suspicion in the West for fears of propagandic contamination. Phrase "under much suspicion " is jarring. Maybe During the Mao era, Western scientists suspected that contributions from Chinese scientists were being distorted for propaganda purposes. or something like that.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who? To counter the declining interest in Eastern palaeoanthropology, many Chinese scientists... Not clear whose interest was declining. Were young Chinese scientists deciding to not enter the field of paleontology? Or were Western scientists ignoring aritcles/results from Chinese scientists?
from the focus of anthropological interest shifting from China to Africa as described in the previous paragraph Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • When? Many Chinese H. erectus fossils were given a unique subspecies name based on minute anatomical differences, at a time when different modern human races were classified into different subspecies for similar reasons. As the definition of "subspecies" tightened in the late 20th century,... The time frame is confusing here. The phrase "at a time when ... " suggests the reader should know what time/decade/years the first part of the sentence is talking about ("Many ... were given a unique .. name"). Can a few words be added to the first sentence reminding the reader what time this is? E.g. "During the 1940s" or something like that?
It's more of a quick recap of the historical developments from the previous sections Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phylogeny tree diagram: Is there a way to add "years ago" value to the bottom fork at the split of H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens ?
Currently the only dates are how old each individual specime. Estimating the divergence time between two different species gets really dicey. The existing source gives about a million years ago Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: Peking Man and anatomically similar East Asian contemporaries are sometimes referred to as classic H. erectus. Interesting fact! Will certainly raise questions for many readers: (1) Is that term still in use in new publications? or is it only found in older literature? (2) what is the significance of the term "classic"? In other words: how does "classic H. erectus" differ from plain H. erectus? I realize that the source may contain the answers to these questions, but readers will be happier if the article supplied the answers.
As in Peking Man is the classic example of what H. erectus is supposed to look like. Like, that is the "plain" erectus. The existing source for that claim comes from 2018 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote marks: Peking Man and anatomically similar East Asian contemporaries are sometimes referred to as classic H. erectus. Some readers may not know where the term begins & ends. I had to stare at it a few seconds before I concluded that the term was "classic H. erectus". Suggest adding quote marks around those 3 words so readers don't have to guess at the start/end. However .... the need for quotes may go away if explanatory text is added to the sentence (as suggested in bullet above) such as Peking Man and anatomically similar East Asian contemporaries are sometimes referred to as classic H. erectus in older literature, to distinguish them from H. erectus fossils that are ... [in this example, I'm inventing some text in the latter half of the sentence for illustration.
  • Confusing wording: In 1946, Weidenreich forwarded an unpopular hypothesis that Peking Man... At first reading, I thought "forwarded" meant "relayed a message to another person". I had to stop and start the sentence again, and finally figured out that the intention is "published" or "promoted" or "posited" or "hypothesized" or "conjectured", etc. Suggest using a word that is clearer than "forwarded".
changed to posited Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote marks: (Homo erectus pekinensis, originally "Sinanthropus pekinensis") I'm curious why the latter has quote marks, but the former does not. Is that covered by a Manual of Style guideline?
standard taxonomic convention, quotes around synonyms or otherwise invalid names Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dunkleosteus77: It is a fine article, and I'm close to supporting. My only hesitation is that there were several suggestions above where I expressed confusion, and you replied to me here in the FAC page, explaining the article to me. But my intention was not to get an answer for myself, but rather to hint to you that future readers may experience similar confusion. So I was expecting some improvements in the article, to assist readers. Examples:
    1. ... as had been broadly recommended by various priors. ...
"many prior authors"? Is the issue the word "prior"? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Issue was the word "priors" which is jargon/cant/slang. Looks like you fixed it. Noleander (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Who? To counter the declining interest in Eastern palaeoanthropology ...
"in academia" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. When? Many Chinese H. erectus fossils were given a unique ...
I can just remove it if you feel it's confusing. It's more to be a quick recap of the Classification section, so it's redundant. If you feel it's useful, I can definitely compile a long list of names and years, but that sounds beyond the scope of this article Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Clarify: Peking Man and anatomically similar East Asian contemporaries ...
There were originally quote marks around it but one of the other reviewers said they were scare quotes and wanted them removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Oops, I addressed the above to the nominator. Sorry for any confusion. I do not oppose the FA nomination; but I do think there are some more improvements that could be made. Noleander (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: @Dunkleosteus77: - Support ... Excellent article! Noleander (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (support)

[edit]

This is a longish article, so I'll come back and work on chucks on this a bit at a time over the next few days. I'm just going to be looking at prose quality. This will certainly need to be reviewed for the quality of the research by a WP:SME which I am very much not.

Lead

  • Per WP:TECHNICAL, terms like "Middle Pleistocene" should be explained, i.e. "774,100 – 129,000 years ago" (everywhere, not just in the lead).
  • It might just be my style, but I find long lists like alongside deer, rhinos, elephants, bison, buffalo, bears, wolves, big cats, and other animals to be distracting, especially when they're open ended (i.e. "... and other animals"). It's particularly odd that after enumerating this particular set of species, you then talk about giant hyenas which aren't on the list.
I thought it might be redundant Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you can get away with not defining the other types of tools, but "burins" deserves an explanation.
A burin is a sharp-pointed tool which today is used for engraving Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but my point was not "explain it to me", but rather "explain it to the reader". RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is "chisel" a more well-known word? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery

  • economic geologist Johan Gunnar Andersson If you make it "Johan Gunnar Andersson, an economic geologist" you'll avoid the dreaded WP:SEAOFBLUE.
  • Why is "dragon bones" in quotes? Also, give us a hint in-line as to what a dragon bone is.
it's in quotes because the source also put it in quotes, and "dragon bones" can be some animal bone or fossil or petrified wood or a fun looking rock, it's not the most specific term Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1918, while in Beijing ... by the American chemistry teacher John McGregor Gibb. overly long sentence.
  • When Andersson visited a month later ... drove a man insane and another
split Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • then-crown prince of Sweden Drop "then-". This was 100 years ago, nobody expects he's still the prince.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a meeting planned for the prince ... to jointly take over study of Zhoukoudian Yikes. There's at least three sentences hiding in there.
it's mainly just titles Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bohlin extracted another fossil human tooth in the context of aan archeological dig, is there any difference between a "human tooth" and a "fossil human tooth"?
if it was from the Neolithic or younger, then it wouldn't have been fossilized Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
linked Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you need "the" before job descriptions ("the biological anthropologist", "the paleoanthropologist")
I submitted this to the Guild of Copyeditors and they added the to all of them Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I think they did you a dis-service, but I'll defer to that. RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's a British convention Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • his decision to so quickly name a new genus the referrent of "his" has gotten blurry here.
fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the biological anthropologist ... was actually a human or some carnivore Another mega-sentence. I'm going to stop calling out each of these, but please give this a careful read through the entire article looking for similar constructs.
split Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • questioned whether Peking Man was actually a human or some carnivore are "human" and "carnivore" mutually exclusive?
yes Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • encouraged to research these materials I don't think "research" can be used as a verb. Maybe that's Brit usage?
research can be a verb Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it already is Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 2 December 1929, the Chinese anthropologist Pei Wenzhong discovered a surprisingly complete skullcap,[14][c] and Zhoukoudian proved to be a valuable archaeological site ... This is a strange construction, switching from something that happend on a specific day to a statement about it's value over a broader time span.
split Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • five or six jiao per day, in contrast to local coal miners who received a pittance of 40 to 50 yuan annually How many jiao in a yuan?
it's in the note Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. But that actually makes this weirder. "in contrast to ... who received a pittance" makes it sound like these guys are being well paid. Oh, wait, those are annual salaries for the coal miners. Could this be rephrased? The double change of variable (unit of currency and unit of time) obfuscates the real meaning. RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well the coal workers were (I presume) working year round, whereas the dig team were working during dig seasons (over a few months depending on weather), so extrapolating a yearly salary for the dig workers is misleading Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • collaboration between these two civilisations it's not clear what two civilisations you're talking about.
Western and Chinese Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of specimens No issues.

Mao and post_mao eras

  • pop science magazines "popular science" would sound more formal. You could also link to Popular science
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Age and statigraphy

  • currently sits 128 m (420 ft) above sea level I assume it was not so during the pleistocene? Was it higher, lower, by how much?
Well sea level rose and fell a lot of times throughout the last million years, either higher or lower than modern day depending on when specifically you're talking about Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • further divided into 17 layers How are these numbered? Is layer 1 on the top or the bottom? What determines where one layer ends and the next begins?
Added that Layer 1 is the highest and youngest but I think explaining how geologically each layer differs in this section is a bit much for the scope of this article. A relevant ways they're differentiated are in the Palaeoenvironment section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Peking Man specimens, Locality 1" table, include a key explaining what all the crypic elements are?
There's a small note right next to Elements Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. OK, so that says "I1 indicates the lower left first incisor". I'm guessing that things like 1M mean "upper left first molar", and so on for (again, I'm guessing) P=Premolar, C=Canine? These probably make sense to paleontologists and/or dentists, but most people will still need a clearer explanation. RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
expanded the note. Does it need more detail? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background No issues

Out of Asia theory

  • with a brain volume much larger than living apes make this "... than that of living apes"
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peking Man's importance in human evolution ... and Homo (Kanam Mandible)[j] in Africa simplify
split Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • believed that "Pithecanthropus" and African Homo regressed "... had regressed"
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sinanthropus No issues

Out of Africa theory

  • asserted several Chinese apes millions of years old asserted that ...?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogeny

  • The philogenetic tree needs a key explaining what all the various symbols mean. For example, what is "(2.85)" after Homo? What do the dagger symbols mean?
now that I think about it, the daggers only add unnecessary confusion, deleted. Expanded Mya to million years ago Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy No issues

Skull No issues

Cranial vault No issues

Brain No issues

Mouth

  • the premolars are ellipse-shaped why not the simpler "eliptical"?
ellipsoid Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Postcranium

  • Explain "subtrochanteric crest"
I wasn't sure how to gloss this because it's literally a crest right below the trochanter Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Body size No issues

  • The torso is poorly known Maybe "The structure of the torso is poorly understood", or something along those lines?
"The torso did not preserve as well"? The words "poorly understood" makes me think "confusing" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "Torso artifacts were not well preserved"? RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feels incorrect using the word artifact when I'm not talking about stone tools Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bone thickness No issues

Paleoenvironment

  • The mammal assemblage indicates ... This feels like it starts in the middle. This section probably should begin with something like, "Along with the humanoid artifacts, the remains of other mammals were found", followed by your description of the layers, then pick up with "this collection includes macaques, the Zhoukoudian wolf ..." to avoid repeating "mammal assemblage" so many times.
Is the problem that the beginning doesn't directly reference Peking Man? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Perhaps "Along with the hominoid (or whatever the right term is) artifacts, the remains of other mammals were found. The mammal assemblage includes ..." RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"mammal assemblage of the Zhoukoudian site", since not every single layer contains human remains as detailed in the Age and stratigraphy section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it necessary (i.e. standard practice in this field) to capitalize "Layer"?
It's a proper noun so it does get capitalized Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of the cave

  • the skulls belonged to a primitive species and the limbs to a more evolved one, the latter manufacturing stone tools and cannibalising the former Is cannibalize the correct word here? Cannibalism says consuming another individual of the same species so does it apply between species?
Well it can also mean man-eater so like a tiger that eats a person can be called a "cannibal" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • determined that there is no evidence of any fire or ash Either "determined that there was no fire or ash" or "found no evidence of fire or ash" works, but the hybrid "determined that there is no evidence" is strange.
fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the American anthropologist Noel T. Boaz and colleagues "and his colleagues"
That's actually a duplink so changed to "Boaz and colleagues", which is a pretty standard convention in citing a paper (like [primary author] and colleagues) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • They noted taphonomic debates are nonetheless still ongoing "were still ongoing As of 2016"
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should us the {{as of}} template (in a few places). It displays the same but has the side effect of adding the article to some maintenance category that various gnomes monitor. RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It already says the study was done in 2016, so it's implied it's up until that year Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the fire debate is still heated "fire debate ... heated" Really?
We're allowed a little fun, like list of cetaceans with [cetacean needed] Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No! No fun allowed. If you want to indulge in that sort of self-gratification, WP:DYK always needs more help. RoySmith (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society

  • communist ideology among the general populace was imperative "general populace of China"
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • became the mainstay the mainstay of what?
"became popular in academic discussions" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stone tools

  • the IVPP prioritised you have to search back a long way to find where IVPP is defined. Perhaps re-introduce it here?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ; archaeological research stalled I think this would work better with "and" instead of the semicolon.
split Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This strongly contrasts ... where tools and manufacturing techniques have been categorised there's a jarring shift of tense here. The previous sentence talks about something that happened 50-75 years ago, then jumps to the present.
If I say "contrasted" it'd sound like it's different now Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consequently ... Nonetheless An odd construction. Could this be rephrased?
That got reworded but I forgot to take out "nonetheless", fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • or East Asia had a lower population density using a conjunction like "or" seems odd with a bullet list. Same with "and" a couple of paragraphs later.
removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A great chunk of these pieces "A great chunk" seems rather informal. I was going to suggest "A vast majority of" but I see that would repeat the usage in the following quote. I don't have a better suggestion offhand, but I don't like "a great chunk".
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fire

  • 700 °C (1,292 °F) ... 600 °C (1,112 °F) Don't let {{convert}} invent significant digits. There's a parameter to control this.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary OK, that's it for a read-through from me. Overall, very nice work; most of these issues are minor problems. I'll come back and take another look once you've had a chance to work though this all. RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left a few additional comments scattered in-line. RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: What am I missing? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The comments can be most easily seen in this composite diff. Of those, I think the only remaining item is to use {{as of}}. I'll just mark this as support now and you can clean that up on your own. Nice article, and I'll respectfully disagree with Graham Beards about the length; I found the historical background material interesting. RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I apologize for the odd formatting of my review. There was a big sale on L5 headers at the store, so I had a bunch to use up. RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense

[edit]

Reserved. I already have things I want to articulate, so I won't flake on this one, promise. Remsense ‥ 论 01:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense, nudge! Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you! I still do have things to say, so I'll get right to saying them. Remsense ‥ 论 18:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
§ "Out of Africa" theory
Mao era should likely be in sentence case.
I don't know what that means Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1960s etc. should be written out, per MOS:DECADE.
MOS says "always use four digits and an s, as in the 1980s" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant, sorry! I've gone and made those tweaks myself. Remsense ‥ 论 21:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deng Xiaoping is not mentioned prior to or following the unlinked drop of his surname. His full name should probably be given and linked.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need for what potentially function as scare quotes around "opening". Maybe just write and link reform and opening up in full?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awkward spots throughout, maybe try Western works that contradicted tenets of Maoist ideology were disseminated throughout China, causing a radical shift in what anthropological positions were being discussed.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
§ Cranial vault
The initial image's caption is structured very awkwardly. Perhaps it can be rewritten with fewer hiccups, e.g. From left to right: illustrations of Skull XII by Franz Weidenreich showing the front, back, right, left, top, and bottom.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
§ Body size
Would The torso is poorly attested be correct?
I feel like that's more confusing. Maybe just poorly preserved? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the limbs and clavicle are proportioned like those of modern humans definitely seems better.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence leading the list does not grammatically connect, maybe rewrite as Working under this assumption, living body dimensions have been reconstructed:
That makes it sound like an exhaustive list Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's better. Remsense ‥ 论 21:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More later? Remsense ‥ 论 00:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense: did I miss anything? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Remsense:, is there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

[edit]

I think the article is too long: Do we need all the historical detail pertaining to the discovery and confirmation of the species? I think most of it would be better placed in a linked article. Sorry, but I have to oppose for now. Graham Beards (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on the longer side, but there are other paleontology FAs at around the same or greater wordcount, like Dilophosaurus, Elasmosaurus, or Lambeosaurus Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards: I read through the article twice, and I think the article is a perfectly good size ... certainly consistent with featured article status. I really enjoyed reading the details of the discovery and analysis. Rather than focusing on the size of the article, a better question is: is the article overly detailed? If you really think the article is overly detailed, you should identify several specific sentences that you think are should be removed from the article. And even if such sentences are identified and considered overly detailed, a simple solution is to move those sentences into {{efn}} footnotes .... that way the information is still readily available within the article. But until you identify specific sentences there's no way to decide whether they should be left alone, or moved into footnotes, or moved into other articles. Noleander (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion. FAC reviewers are not obliged (and never have been) to provide such detailed commentary: that is the role of peer review. With regard to your comment "a better question is: is the article overly detailed", I specifically asked if we needed all the "the historical detail pertaining to the discovery and confirmation of the species", but the nominator has not responded. My oppose is not set in stone and I am happy to revisit the article, but I object strongly to your telling me what I should do. Graham Beards (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for causing offense. I believe what is going on here is that your original comment was a bit ambiguous: your intention was to say that the article was overly detailed in areas, but the nominator interpreted it solely as a criticism of the size (which was a reasonable interpretation, since your first sentence was "I think the article is too long."). Your question "Do we need all the historical detail pertaining to ....?" was misinterpreted by the nominator as an example cut that could be made to get the size down to your goal size. The nominator then replied by stating that the size was okay, hence no cuts were necessary. You never replied to that. Ten days later, I drove by and saw there was a miscommunication, and I prompted you to give the nominator a few examples of specific sentences that they should remove, so they could get a feel for what sorts of material you felt were too detailed. Sorry if my prior post was not clear. Noleander (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. Now perhaps could User:Dunkleosteus77 speak for themselves? Graham Beards (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're referring to Discovery and Classification, I would say they're appropriately detailed. Like it's detailing how and why Peking Man became so popular. It's about how incredibly influential Peking Man was to the understanding of human evolution of the time, how it shaped racial discourse in anthropology, and really how it shaped the course of paleoanthropology over the 20th century. Like, this is the fossil that really kicks off paleoanthropology in East Asia or even just outside of Europe in mainstream academia. In regard to specifically the "confirmation of the species", the Peking Man (as one of the most famous and well-studied human fossils) was also at the center of nomenclatural reforms in the field in the mid-20th century. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I'll read the article again and get back to you. Graham Beards (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. My position is supported by WP:Summary style, in particular where it says "Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic need not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs." The fact that a topic, or sub-topic is, "interesting" is a red herring: I found the whole article interesting. I think there are two (perhaps three) articles here: much of the politics could be spun off to a daughter article on Maoism and Peking Man. I think the Background section under Classification can be shortened and the second paragraph under Paleoenvironment deleted. The "Sinanthropus" section is overdetailed as is the Loss of specimens section. Also, and unrelated to the length issue, what purpose does the Gallery serve? There is no explanation of the annotations. This is more like a treatise than an encyclopedia article. Graham Beards (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Peking Man is a historical figure, so per WP:WEIGHT, yes the biggest sections deal with history. Most texts academic or otherwise about Peking Man were written in the context of the rise of communism in China and historical race concepts. Like, that was the time when basically any paleoanthropological paper or pop-science had to mention the name Peking Man or Sinanthropus or Zhoukoudian — when Peking Man was really the star of the show. And yes the fossil was absolutely central to the historical understanding of human evolution. That isn't the case anymore, Peking Man compared to that time is rarely discussed anymore in the total sum of paleoanthropological papers being published. I'd be fine cutting down the Background section since it's only there to get the reader up to speed on what Chinese anthropology and European paleoanthropology were like just prior to Peking Man (so it's not directly relevant), I just wanna make sure I'm not detracting from a reader's understanding of everything going on in the Classification section. The Gallery section is so the reader can see the actual fossils, which is severely overlooked in just science communication in general — everyone always wants to show some fun, speculative artwork/reconstruction. Like before I uploaded them to Commons, you had to go on a journey to track down actual images of the Peking Man fossils. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the gallery, now you have uploaded them, and thank you, they are easily found along with other useful images (that are not in the article). See [9]. I can't see the point of having them in the article without any commentary. They are just decoration. Graham Beards (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's important for people to see the actual fossils instead of just artistic renderings Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't the fossils, they are drawings of them. Graham Beards (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few of them, the rest are scans or scans next to an illustration Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]

I already did a comprehensive review [10], so I am close to supporting this. Some notes, though:

  • I tend to agree with the reviewer above that the article is a bit long, and I see potential to trim it down. We already have the Zhoukoudian Peking Man Site article, which can probably accommodate some of the detail. Another example is the "Stone tools" section, which has a long intro that is not precisely about Peking Man. Of course, it is important for background, but I don't think we need this level of detail there, and the quote (which is also not about Peking Man directly) is unnecessary here. I would include a "main article" hint or similar to point to the Movius Line article instead.
  • Related to that: The "Society" section could probably also be trimmed; while the information is interesting, it seems more pertinent for some broader article (maybe we need an article like "History of study of human evolution" to point readers to?). In any case, I think it could be much more concise while keeping the main points. It is not clear how the Stalin quote is immediately relevant to Peking Man. These are just examples, I think that similar cuts are possible in many places without affecting coverage.
I'll get to cutting sometime this week Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some cuts, but I think maybe the issue is that it's not clear enough in a few places that it's directly talking about Peking Man. Like when Movius said "Eastern Asia" he's talking specifically about the Zhoukoudian Peking Man locality. What other places does it seem like it's going off-topic? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We discussed this in the review already, but I am still unsure if Peking Man should really be introduced as a subspecies (the first sentence says "Peking Man is a subspecies of H. erectus") when most current sources don't see it as a subspecies. It might be better to say that Peking Man the name given to Homo erectus fossils from Zhoukoudian. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main issue here is that species and subspecies names are treated differently for humans than any other group, since anthropology has had a bad history with racism. This describes it as, "Informal N3 names such as 'Bertele Foot,' 'Denisovans,' or 'Neanderthals' (as opposed to Homo neanderthalensis) are a better system for referencing fossils or groups where the biological status of the group as an independently evolving lineage with a unique evolutionary trajectory is unclear". That is, while species names just in general aren't commonly used (I usually just see specimens called out individually than a species), it's not to say people consider it invalid, just they don't normally want to open a can of worms if their study isn't directly discussing nomenclature Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I see this from 2022 which uses H. erectus pekinensis in the title, so I wouldn't say subspecies names are completely invalid, just not widely used Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to removing the taxobox from here (as well as on Java Man, Yuanmou Man, etc. for the same reason that it's not exactly a widely used convention), I'm just wondering if this should be a discussion on WP:PAL, but then again I think I'm the only one there who's really invested in cavemen Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still at 9211 words in the main body.
Page statistics is saying the prose is 8,740 words Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, the fire debate is still heated, with the Chinese palaeoanthropologist Xing Gao and colleagues declaring "clear-cut evidence for intentional fire use" in Layer 4 in 2017,[120] echoed by the Chinese palaeoanthropologist Chao Huang and colleagues in 2022.[121] – This seems out of place in the section "Occupation of the cave", when you already have a designated fire section; the details should appear in the latter.
I wasn't sure what to do here because, like, if they did use fire in the cave then that means they did occupy the cave Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should only have a very short and simple sentence there ("evidence for fire use suggests that the cave was occupied" or similar), keeping all the details for later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph in "Stone tools" could be much more precise while not loosing information. For example, "Archaeological research stalled." and "Consequently, China's Lower Palaeolithic record has generally been viewed as stagnant." are two sentences making exactly the same point. You don't need to repeat.
  • The Movius quote is great for the Movius line article, but I don't think it is pertinent to this article, it is not about Peking Man precisely.
When he says "Lower Paleolithic ... Eastern Asia" he's talking exclusively about Zhoukoudian Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the idea proposed above for a spin-off article Maoism and Peking Man. This is a topic that is better discussed separately, I think. That would also make the "Stone tools" section shorter. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the length problem: I just had a look of your recent article Kabwe 1 ("Rhodesian Man"), where Homo rhodesiensis is a separate article, although that taxon is based on the same fossil. Woudn't that make sense here as well, having Peking Man just about the fossils from Zhoukoudian, and Homo erectus pekinensis as a separate article for the taxon (as the taxon might also include other fossils such as Nanjing Man)? With this solution, you could move many of the taxonomic details into the other article, which can make this article more focused and readable, and you avoid the issue with the unclear scope (the subspecies is not widely accepted). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that kinda reminds of when human and Homo sapiens were 2 different articles, the issue being the entire classification thing is centered around just Peking Man, so you'd just get 2 different articles that appear to have the same exact scope and arbitrarily apportioned content. I mean I could definitely try making a separate Homo erectus pekinensis article about I guess the Chinese Lower Paleolithic, but in order not to make it a 2nd Peking Man article, the classification discussion would stay here Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fathoms Below

[edit]

I'm leaving a placeholder here so that I can get a few comments in. I'm in a busy point of my life right now, but potentially I can give some quick points to help move this along. New topic area for me so bear with! Fathoms Below (talk)

Alright, I have a few comments. Busier than I expected but I have some feedback that might help with the article. So let's see:
  • In the first paragraph Peking Man is the word that begins two sentences in a row. Peking Man was instrumental in the foundation of Chinese anthropology, and fostered an important dialogue between Western and Eastern science. Peking Man became the centre of anthropological discussion, and was classified as a direct human ancestor, propping up the Out of Asia theory that humans evolved in Asia. perhaps replace the second usage of Peking Man with "The subspecies"?
Might be misleading, because it wasn't classified as a subspecies for most of when Out of Asia theory was popular Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bone of the skull and the long bones are exorbitantly thickened. Maybe change the world exorbitantly to significantly?
"extremely" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in addition to other natural processes" What exactly is this sentence referring to?
yeah I guess it's a little open-ended and in reference to kinda older ideas, removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Discovery subheading, I think you can remove the links to foxes, rodents, and limestone, since they seem like terms that most readers would know.
removed links for foxes and rodents Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the war progressed, Weng and Weidenreich unfruitfully tried to convince the head of the college, Henry S. Houghton, to authorise a transfer of the Peking Man fossils to the United States for safekeeping Change unfruitfully to unsuccessfully.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More coming soon. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the meticulousness of the dig teams—going so far as to sieve out unidentifiable fragments as small as 1 cm (0.39 in) long—excavation of Zhoukoudian is generally considered to be more or less complete. Remove more or less
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though these general timeframes are generally agreed upon, the exact date of each layer is subject to debate. Remove general
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • On this matter, palaeogenetic analyses—the first in 2010—have reported that all humans whose ancestry lies beyond Sub-Saharan Africa contain genes from the archaic Neanderthals and Denisovans indicating early modern humans interbred with archaic humans. Remove on this matter
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Cranial Vault subsection, there is a second wikilink to brow ridge that should be removed.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, brow ridge is linked in the body but not in the lead.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fathoms Below (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments will be up by the weekend or earlier. So sorry for the long delay. Fathoms Below (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Postcranium subsection, it says The lunate bone (in the wrist) is modern humanlike, though proportionally small and broad. Do you need the parentheses there?
Yeah it's a gloss of lunate bone, just like "a left maxillary (upper jaw) fragment" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Body Size, it says The torso is poorly known, but because the limbs and clavicle are proportioned like those of modern humans, it is typically assumed the rest of the body was as well. What is poorly known about the torso? Its composition? Maybe changing it to The dimensions of the torso are poorly understood…?
As in there's not that many pieces of the torso in the Peking Man material Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, northerly H. erectus populations tend to be shorter than tropical populations, with colder climate populations including Zhoukoudian and *Dmanisi averaging roughly 150 cm (4 ft 11 in), and hotter climate populations including African and Javan H. erectus 160 cm (5 ft 3 in). I don't think you need Overall, you could remove that word to tighten the prose.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Bone thickness section, you use thickened or similar terms a lot. Are there any synonyms that you can change thickened to to provide variety?
For anatomy, I think repetition of the same words makes it easier to understand, otherwise it looks like I'm bringing in new terms Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mammal assemblage of the Zhoukoudian site indicates three major environmental units: Layers 11–10—a cold and dry, predominantly grassland environment; Layers 9–5—a warm, predominantly forested environment; and Layers 4–1—another cold and dry, predominantly grassland environment. You could remove all instances "predominately" to avoid more repetition.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was quite early on assumed Peking Man was a prolific deer hunter, but since the establishment of non-human carnivores as major taphonomic agents, the dependence on hunting has become a controversial topic. You could remove quite
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, most of the Peking Man fossils were at least fed upon by likely hyenas. You could remove indeed
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • They simply fell into the cave from above. They noted taphonomic debates nonetheless were still ongoing as of 2016. Remove simply and nonetheless.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prospect of "labour created humanity" Would concept work more as a word rather than prospect?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonetheless, in 2004, Shen and colleagues reported evidence of a massive fire at Layer 10—ostensibly as old as 770,000 years ago, during a glacial period—and asserted Peking Man needed to control fire so far back in time in order to survive such cold conditions. You can remove nonetheless
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fathoms Below (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses, I haven't spot-checked the sources (Since you've written numerous FAs before I don't think one is required for promotion, but correct me if I'm wrong). I'll do another sweep of the prose since that's probably the only significant barrier to promotion. I have User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter enabled and the sources all look like they are peer-reviewed, scholarly sources. Two of them were highlighted as unreliable but it seems like that was only because they were accessed through ResearchGate. A question, could you maybe add wikilinks to Wikipedia articles we have on the sources? Such as linking the Journal of Human Evolution in source 33, 43, 75 etc? Just an option to help readers a tiny bit. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've done a look-over and I feel comfortable supporting. Good work. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "discussions on primitive communism and polygenism". You need to explain polygenism here inline or in a note, especially as the polygenism article is about the white supremicist version, not the one advocated in China.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which described Peking Man as a mere offshoot in human evolution". "mere offshoot" is pejorative. I think it is better to say that western science denies that the Chinese are descended Peking Man.
"as an offshoot", since if there was interbreeding then Peking Man would actually be an ancestor of some modern East Asian populations Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peking Man interbreeding with human ancestors is still discussed, especially amongst Chinese researchers." This is a bit misleading. Chinese researchers no doubt discuss the issue specifically in relation to Peking Man, but no paleontologist would deny that modern humans and H. erectus may have interbred.
Generally Western H. erectus (like superarchaic introgression into "Neandersovans"), but introgression of Eastern H. erectus into modern humans (with "hybrid" specimens like Dali Man) has usually not been too popular outside of Eastern academia Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cite this in the text to the Anton/Middleton paper, but as it is 220 pages and you do not give a page number it is impossible to check. They say on p. 111 "The Denisova examples as well as later introgression between Neandertals and recent humans lay bare just how much contact, reticulation, and gene flow there has been recently and what we should probably expect to have been the case throughout Eurasia in earlier times." This appears to contradict your comment, and if I remember correctly I have heard references in lectures to evidence that the Denisovans interbred with a ghost population in Asia, presumably H. erectus. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From Anton 2023, "The current convention is to think of Middle Pleistocene Asian H. erectus (i.e. Zhoukoudian and Ngandong/Sambungmacan) as potentially relict populations with little input to later Homo" but then it goes on to expand on your point that there's still debate Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion in the Anton/Middleton paper on the debate is so extensive that they seem to me to be saying that the "current convention" is no longer generally accepted by western researchers. BTW It is helpful to give page numbers and they are available in the pdf version. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "especially amongst Chinese researchers" in the lead, and in the body I can certainly expand more on the muddle in the middle if you think it's appropriate Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peking Man characterises the classic H. erectus anatomy." What does "characterises" mean here? I would prefer "has".
Peking Man was the first well-preserved H. erectus fossils, so they ended up kinda defining what a "normal" H. erectus really looks like Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would you prefer? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brain volume ranged from 850 to 1,225 cc (52 to 75 cu in), for an average of just over 1,000 cc (61 cu in), within the range of variation for modern humans." You should specify the average for modern humans.
the average of which population? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Normal human brain volume can be 850 cc. I don't like giving averages of living populations because it varies significantly place to place (typically populations in colder climates have higher brain volumes). For instance, the average of say an Aboriginal Australian population can be lower than the absolute lowest brain size for a European population Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is usual to compare the average for H. erectus with that for chimpanzees and modern humans. It is misleading just to say that it is within the range of variation of modern humans. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then which modern human population would you prefer I use? If I use a European male study it'll probably give an average of like 1,350 cc, and the reader comparing that to the Peking Man average would be misled into thinking 1,000 cc is small, and they'll also be misled into thinking brain size at this level is related to intelligence Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is further disputed if Peking Man inhabited the cave". What cave? You need to clarify as you have not mentioned it since the first paragraph.
mentioned earlier in the par Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
added "Zhoukoudian cave site" to the Occupation of the cave section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the lead is unsatisfactory. The third paragraph states that Peking Man had the typical H. erectus anatomy. Discussion of environment and culture should similarly make clear how far it relates to the species and how far specifically to the sub-species.
I don't understand. The last par discusses the environment and cultural complexity of Peking Man Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discovery sub-section could be cut down a bit. I do not see the relevance of the malevolent foxes or the crown prince of Sweden.
malevolent foxes to explain why it's called "Chicken Bone hill" despite being full of rodent fossils, and the meeting with the crown prince is the context for the first public usage of the phrase "Peking Man" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discovered a surprisingly complete skullcap". Perhaps "almost" instead of "surprisingly".
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Excavation of Zhoukoudian began to stall after the Marco Polo Bridge incident on 7 July 1937 and the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War." I would delete reference to the incident as obscure and unnecessary.
it's part of the chronology, when Weidenreich starts scrambling to protect the fossils from the impending war, especially since Marco Polo Bridge is on the road from Beijing to Zhoukoudian. To make it more obviously relevant, I can add that excavation was suddenly halted 2 days later Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Excavation of the Zhoukoudian was so well documented that the loss of the original specimens did not greatly impact their study.[29] According to Tielhard: "The Sinanthrope has been dated, described, measured, x-rayed, drawn, photographed and cast in plaster down to the last fossa, crista and tubercle .... The loss is more a matter of sentiment than a true tragedy for science." These comments are obviously based on ignorance of modern methods. If the original specimens had survived, DNA and molecular analysis might have yielded extremely important results. Also, Teilhard is misspelled.
I mean if you're talking about proteome analysis, we still have some teeth from the pre-war digs Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proteins are more often preserved than DNA, but still rarely. If the original specimens had survived, there would have been a vastly better chances of extracting DNA and proteins. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have a source that discusses all the taxonomic issues that could've been cleared up had dental proteome analysis on the original Peking Man collection been possible. What would you like it to be? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "excavation of Zhoukoudian is generally considered to be complete" As above, these comments are dated, and do not take account, for instance, of the possibility of extraction of DNA from soil. I realise that you may not have sources to qualify the comments, but I think they should be dated and attributed inline as the views at that date.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "within the frame of communism". This is too broad. There are many varieties of communism. As you say above, the Chinese variety is specifically Marxist.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have been busy offline but I should get back to it in the next day or two. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dubois "unfruitfully attempted to convince the European scientific community that he had found an upright-walking ape-man; they dismissed his findings as some kind of malformed non-human ape.". This was only one of a variety of reactions. Curtis, Swisher and Lewin, Java Man, says "No other paleontological discovery has created such a sensation and led to such a variety of conflicting scientific opinions." (p. 75). Dubois had "a suspicious nature verging on the paranoid", and he still found it necessary to defend himself against his critics in 1898 even though their number was diminishing. (pp. 76-77).
Eventually yes it became sensational, but it didn't happen immediately. It's importance in anthropology (as relevant to Peking Man) is detailed later. Dubois kept defending his original description that he'd found an ape man despite everyone else arguing against him. As Arthur Keith said, "an idealist, his ideas being so firmly held that his mind tended to bend facts rather than alter his ideas to fit them" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My problem here is that you still haven't spelled out what precisely is incorrect and what needs to be changed. The initial reaction in European academia was dismissal of Java Man as a human ancestor. Per Hsiao-pei Yen, 2014, "The reception of the Java Man was controversial, as many discredited the fossil, thinking it to be that of a deformed ape, and Dubois completely withdrew himself from the debate in 1900" and per Theunissen p. 80, "Even before Dubois published his official treatise in 1894 there were several reactions to his announcement of the discovery of a missing link. Scepticism prevailed." The existing statement in the article is correct. I can certainly go on a giant tangent about Dubois and Java Man in the decades to come until we reach Weidenreich and Peking Man, but personally I think that's best left at Eugene Dubois or Java Man Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the claim that your source directly contradicts the existing text is untrue because it does talk about the "tide of criticism" after Dubois' initial publication of the Trinil finds which "surged to floodlike proportions when Dubois returned to Europe and embarked on a proselytizing odyssey". Also, that claim in the book of the number of critics diminishing is in the context of Schwalbe's idea that Neanderthals were a direct human ancestor, which loses out to Boule. The claim of it being so sensational came from von Koenigswald looking back 60 years later on everything that became of the Java Man find. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Peking Man, with a brain volume"; next sentence starts "Peking Man", leaving out "The". I think leaving out "The" is correct as not referring to an individual.
  • "To explain the paucity of stone tools in Asia compared to Europe (an apparent contradiction if humans had occupied Asia for longer), he also stated that Pleistocene Central Asia was too cold to permit back-migration by early modern humans or Neanderthals until the Neolithic." I am not clear what you are saying here. Did Grabau say that central Asia was unoccupied because it was too cold? I thought the theory was of continuous occupation, as stated in the next paragraph. This needs clarifying.
2 sentences before this it brings up that Grabau believed that the genus Homo (the living races/extinct allies) evolved in Africa, so it was unoccupied by more proficient toolmakers until the arrival of the western "Neolithic Man" (kind of an echo of Sino-Babylonianism and similar ideas, which became less and less popular especially through the 30s and 40s) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand you. Where was unoccupied by more proficient toolmakers. You say that Grabau believed that proto-man went to NW China in the Piocene and invented fire and stone tools there, so what is meant by saying that "Pleistocene Central Asia was too cold to permit back-migration by early modern humans or Neanderthals (primitive Homo) until the Neolithic"? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Homo and modern man did not evolve in China, his primitive progenitors with less evolved technology did. China was occupied for most of its history by these evolutionarily stagnant races, while the west invented the Neolithic and agriculture. Neolithic Man arrives in the China (mainly in reference to Andersson's finds), bringing that region of the world up to speed. Grabau was essentially describing what would later be called the Movius Line, and what he's saying is similar to Movius' later claim, "Southern and Eastern Asia as a whole was a region of cultural retardation". Of course, into the later 30s and 40s, it was realized that the Far East had invented agriculture independently (Andersson speculated that maybe the West adopted agriculture from the East) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "polycentric hypothesis". This is a rare term which I have not come across. I think it is better to use the usual term, Multiregional origin theory, as the Wikipedia article does.
I'd argue polycentricism is the more accurate term here, multiregionalism is more like the less racially-charged revision almost. It's like a historical term Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's the current modern term. All of the sources use polycentricism because they're describing history, and changing it to "multiregionalism" would be completely incorrect Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"polycentric hypothesis" has two hits in Wikipedia. One is your addition to Peking Man and the other is as an alternative in the Multiregional origin of modern humans, which was added by an editor who was later barred as a sock puppet. It is not a redirect and it is not listed in the polycentric disambiguation. A search in Google Scholar since 2021 yields two hits in the human evolution sense, both by Russian scholars. The term is thoroughly obscure and I have never come across it in extensive reading on the subject. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I keep trying to tell you, polycentrism is a historical term, so of course you don't see it used anymore. You can read up on the difference at https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02436629 and conflation of Weidenreich's polycentrism with Coon's polygenism, and how this relates to modern multiregional Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realise that by historical you mean dated and no longer used. What matters is what the article says. You give a definition there of polycentrism which applies to the multregionalism hypothesis, and link to an article which states in the first line that they are synonyms. if you are using the word because it was Weidenrich's term for what was later to be called multiregionalism, you need to explain that. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While modern multiregional theory evolved out of polycentrism, multiregional and polycentrism are distinct ideas. I can remove the wikilink if it's confusing Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polygenism. You contrast this with polycentric, but it appears to be the same. Do you mean Monogenism?
So polycentricism isn't precisely polygenism, there's a small note detailing that, but at the same time the two were often conflated because people were comparing Weidenreich to Coon Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You contradict yourself on the definition of polygenism. In the lead you say "polygenism (that Peking Man was the direct ancestor of Chinese people)", which is multiregional. Then you say refer to the "polycentric hypothesis, where local populations of archaic humans evolved into the local modern humans, as opposed to every modern population sharing an anatomically modern ancestor (polygenism)". Wikipedia and dictionaries contradict you on this definition of polygenism, stating that it means evolution of different races from different ancentral types. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Peking Man being a direct ancestor is not multiregionalism. Yes, the polycentric hypothesis suggested things like Chinese people evolved from "Sinanthropus", Aboriginal Australians evolved from "Pithecanthropus", etc., in other words the evolution of different races from different ancestral types depending on when in history you're talking about it and who exactly you're asking, because as I said, Weidenreich's polycentricm was often conflated with the classically polygenic ideas of Coon Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Java Man (which at the time was characterised as a giant gibbon by Dubois)". This is confusing without explaining that by the 1930s Dubois had abandoned the view that Java Man was a human ancestor. I would delete as too tangential.
Dubois always believed Java Man was a human ancestor, just not a humanlike one. He believed it was the immediate precursor to a humanlike form, and this is where he took issue with Weidenreich and mainstream academia trying to reconstruct his Trinil fossils with a human bodyplan Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see on further checking that I was wrong about Dubois abandoning the view that Java Man was a human ancestor. His statement that it was a giant gibbon just meant that he thought that human ancestors were gibbonlike and that Java Man was closer in body form to a gibbon than to a modern man. "characterised as a giant gibbon by Dubois" is misleading without explanation as it implies that Dubois abandoned the view of Java Man as a human ancestor. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
" also argued that Java Man had a humanlike body plan" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "argued that, per nomenclature codes". "per" is too colloquial. I would prefer "in accordance with".
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Weidenreich discussed applying the burgeoning field of genetics to physical anthropology with namely Theodosius Dobzhansky and Sherwood Washburn, as modern evolutionary synthesis was being formulated." This is unclear. If you mean that these three scientists developed the modern evolutionary synthesis, this should be spelled out.
There were a lot of workers in the formulation of what would become known as modern evolutionary synthesis, Dobzhanksy himself is a pretty big name in this concept, and Washburn and Weidenreich especially in the context of the Peking Man material and revising physical anthropology Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was pointing out that your wording is unclear, not saying that it is wrong. Indeed, "applying the burgeoning field of genetics to physical anthropology with namely Theodosius Dobzhansky and Sherwood Washburn" is ungrammatical. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems grammatical to me, what should it be? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mayr defined these species as a sequential lineage, with each species evolving into the next (chronospecies).[53] Though later Mayr changed his opinion on the australopithecines (recognising Australopithecus), his more conservative view of archaic human diversity became widely adopted in the subsequent decades.[54] Thus, Peking Man was considered a human ancestor in both Western and Eastern thought.[55] Nonetheless, Chinese and Soviet scientists wholly denounced polygenism, viewing it as scientific racism propagated by Western capitalist scholars under racial capitalism. They instead argued that all modern human races are closely related to each other." I do not follow you here. Sequential evolution implies a single line and a rejection of multiregional or polycentric evolution. It follows that H. erectus is an ancestor, but not necessarily the Peking sub-species, whereas you say that it does follow. You then say that Chinese and Soviet scientists denounced polygenism, but they were multiregionalists (polygenists). Do you mean monogenism? Then you say that they argued that all modern races are closely related, which I would take to be a monogenist view. I may have something wrong or misunderstand what you are saying, and if so please clarify.
Removed, I guess this part isn't relevant enough to explain fully here. It goes back to if polycentricism is or is not polygenism Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In China, Wu Rukang argued that Australopithecus was the "missing link" between apes and humans, but was met with much derision from Chinese peers." For clarity, I would spell out that Australopithecus is only found in Africa.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To counter the declining interest of Eastern palaeoanthropology in academia, many Chinese scientists commonly advanced Sinocentric and often polygenic arguments." I am not sure what "interest of Eastern palaeoanthropology in academia" means. Also, you seem to here use polygenic as meaning multiregional, unlike above where - if I understand you correctly - you use it to mean the opposite.
declining interest as in the shift from Sinocentricism to Afrocentricism, and 2 million year old racial continuity is polygenism Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"with the rise of Afrocentrism" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "namely by the Chinese palaeoanthropologist Wu Xinzhi," I would leave out "namely" as pointless verbiage.
changed to "such as"
  • "Peking Man's ancestral position is still widely maintained among especially Chinese scientists using the assimilation model, wherein archaic humans such as Peking Man interbred with and were effectively absorbed into modern human populations in their respective locations." I am not clear whether this means that Chinese scientists maintain some version of multiregionism, or they just see Peking Man as having a similar input in Asia to the Neanderthals in Europe.
in modern multiregionalism, that's the same thing Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not the same thing at all. The view that different races evolved from different species of ancient human is quite different from the modern consensus that modern humans have a single origin with minor introgressions from ancient human species.
I think the problem is when you say "multiregionalism" you're trying to synonymize it with "polycentricism". I have no idea what your original comment is trying to say Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Still, East Asian H. erectus from China and Indonesia are now usually characterised as relict populations which had little interaction with Western H. erectus or later Homo species." As you accept above, Anton and Middleton go on to extensively qualify this comment.
I mean Anton doesn't specifically argue against that claim either, the rest of that paragraph is about potential evidence of morphological continuity among only East Asian H. erectus and no one else, like, "There is certainly morphological continuity but no identity from earlier...mid-Pleistocene (Zhoukdoudian) to later mid-Pleistocene (Nanjing) Chinese hominins...And there are shared structures...between Zhoukoudian and Ngandong...similarities with Indonesian H. erectus...and mandibulo-dental connections between upper Sangiran and Zhoukoudian that suggest some level of gene flow and population reticulation between these broad regions." Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I regret that I have to oppose this nomination, for the reasons given above. In particular, I have pointed out that in several places that the text is unclear and the nominator has never responded by clarifying the text. I am also concerned about the apparent confusion over the meaning of polygenism and the failure to engage with my quotation of a reliable source contradicting the account of the response to Dubois's discoveries. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]
  • This has been open for more than six weeks and seems to have stalled over the past three or more, only picking up a yet-to-be-resolved oppose from Graham Beards. Unless significant progress is made towards a consensus to promote in the next few days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

There is a lot of sources on this topic, I guess there is some kind of method when selecting those to use in the article? Source formatting seems consistent and the sources reliable, but I must ask about completeness. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article extensively uses literature reviews as well as the studies (and related discourse) which are frequently brought up in these reviews Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Dudley Miles is also doing some checking - will defer to them on spotchecking and stuff. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2025 [11].

Gedling Miners Welfare F.C.

[edit]
Nominator(s): Curlymanjaro (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Gedling Miners Welfare Football Club, a small Nottinghamshire team that competes at the tenth tier of the English football pyramid. The article passed GA requirements in January and I now think it's ready for FAC comments. Curlymanjaro (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Gedling_Miners_Welfare_F.C._logo.png: source links are dead
Thanks, Nikkimaria. Source links added and Walker image replaced. Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are the (former) team names in bold font? Graham Beards (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I will try to review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 17:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • ""Anxious to compete" in the league, Gedling was elected for the 1919–20 season" - the source of this quote should be attributed. Is this a statement from the club? Is this being applied to the club by external observers, or a local newspaper?
  • Are there any details as to what those 1930s debts were from?
  • "The club had folded by late May, claiming a lack of support had forced it into abeyance" - so here in the body, we're attributing the declaration of lack of support to the club, while this is presented in the lead as a definite fact. I would recommend attributing this to the club in the lead as well, rather than stating outright that this was due to lack of support, if this can only be sourced to information from the club itself, given that the club was probably looking to spin the failure in the way that placed the least blame on its management
  • "Continuing in the Wartime League, the club also joined Division Two of the Notts Amateur League in 1944–45." - I just want to verify that the intended meaning of this is that the club was in two leagues at the same time?
  • "Gedling's reputation had waned by the mid-1960s as it ceased to compete in the FA Amateur Cup" - could I please get the relevant quotes from the sources supporting this sentence?
  • "Barton, Bob (1984). Servowarm History of the F.A. Amateur Cup. Newcastle: Tyneside Free Press. pp. 169, 172." - the copyright information for this book actually says that Tyneside Free Press did the typesetting and printing, and lists it as "Published by Bob Barton". So is this effectively self-published with Tyneside Free Press actually serving only as the printer? Is this a high-quality RS as required by the FA criteria?
  • "the club left the Notts Alliance to join the Central Midlands Football League (CML) Premier Division" - this is extremely opaque to someone not familiar with the English amateur/semi-professional football pyramid. Is this a lateral move, a move down a league, or something else?
  • When did the club move from being amateur to semi-professional? This isn't clear in the article at all to someone who isn't familiar with the levels of English football. Is the pyramid where it moved into semi-professional status?
  • "Although the team's goalscoring was lacklustre in 2005–06, the following season saw them criticised internally for a perceived lack of effort," - I don't know that it's great to source such broad sweeping statements about seasons as a whole to only a single game summary from each season
  • "Gedling Miners Welfare has been the only name used since it joined the Central Midlands Football League in 2002" - I don't see how this is actually supported by the source, which is only one news piece from 2002
  • As the Gedling Colliery has been closed for several decades, it is clear that this club is no longer affiliated with the colliery. When did this change occur? This topic doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article at all
  • "a period hindered by chaotic form" - is this an oversimplication? The source seems only to be discussing some mid-season blips

I think this needs some work yet. Hog Farm Talk 03:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, I think I'm actually leaning oppose for now. There are some rather significant things here (end of relationship with colliery, unclear nature of semi-professional status, etc.) that really aren't addressed here at all, in addition to the other concerns I had. Hog Farm Talk 02:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been open for three weeks, has received only one general review and that ended in an oppose. I'm sorry, but there is no sign of a consensus to promote forming and so I am going to archive this. I suggest visits to GoCER and PR before bringing it back. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2025 [12].

Men's T20 World Cup

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio 03:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the previous FFAC earlier this year, the article has gone through re-writes and now passed GAN. I think it's ready for an FAC now. Vestrian24Bio 03:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Avoid sandwiching text and displacing headings - see MOS:IMAGELOC
  • Avoid duplicating captions in alt text
  • File:ICC_Men's_T20_World_Cup_Trophy_at_COA_-_BugWarp_(20)_(cropped).jpg: what's the copyright status of the trophy?
@Nikkimaria:
  • Removed two images as otherwise they'd result in a whitespace due to the sidebars.
  • Done.
  • Own work by User:BugWarp.
  • MOS:COLOR doesn't say much about the colors on images; could you be specific about the issue.
Vestrian24Bio 10:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo is own work; my question is about the trophy being photographed.
  • "Avoid using color as the sole means of conveying information. Always provide an alternative method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information." Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria:
    • According to ICC's BRAND AND CONTENT PROTECTION GUIDELINES - "[...] used for news reporting purposes in non-commercial, editorial pieces without the ICC’s prior authorisation" and "Websites that provide information about the Event and are being operated on a purely non-commercial basis [...] are unlikely to infringe the ICC’s rights". - Not sure if this qualifies; if not I'll remove the image.
    • "Avoid using color as the sole means of conveying information" - I'm not sure how exactly that applies to images; but anyhow all of that information are also provided as text in the nearby table.
    Vestrian24Bio 12:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has attracted very little interest. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 5 May 2025 [13].

Daniel in the Lions' Den (Rubens)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Agus Damanik (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about famous painting from Peter Paul Rubens that depicts event in Bible Agus Damanik (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from UC

[edit]

I'm not sure this one is quite there yet. I notice that it's a GA and that you've done all the right things by putting it through Peer Review -- it doesn't play into this nomination's favour that the GA review was fairly light-touch, though did make useful observations on style and concision (courtesy ping to Amitchell125 as reviewer), and that the PR attracted only one comment -- however, you did get a useful suggestion from Thebiguglyalien to chase up further literature, which I cannot see has yet been fully actioned.

  • Sourcing: as noted at PR, there are some missing pieces here. I'm not going to say that a work from 1924 is necessarily indispensible, but did you have a look at Farina's monograph, mentioned at PR? Other sources that come up on a quick scan:
    • This chapter, available via TWL, mentions the painting in its commercial context.
    • This article has quite a lot of useful material on the painting's auction history, including sale amounts currently missing from the article.
    • This article has some context on the Padua lion drawing, which seems to contradict or at least question our/Rubens' claim about the lions being drawn from life (see esp. note 51).
    • There is a useful but brief note on the painting's reception in here.
    • Another useful note on the commercial side here, p. 82, with n. 69.
  • I would be very circumspect about using a Wikidata infobox, which means relying on mostly uncited material that is liable to change without alerting anyone on Wikipedia.
  • There are a few MOS and other "nitpicky" errors that suggest a mentor or a copyedit would have been a good idea: hyphens rather than endashes for ranges, fixed pixel sizes for images, the discouraged possessive "Rubens'" (MOS:').
  • I would strongly advise making the bibliography a bit more formal: we have a curious mix of full citations with different amounts of metadata and short citations. In several of the citation templates, the parameters do not appear to have been filled out correctly, leading to inconsistencies of formatting.
  • Daniel was a Jewish prophet who was thrown into a den of lions for defying a royal decree that prohibited praying to anyone but the king. Despite his dangerous predicament, Daniel miraculously survived, protected by his unwavering faith in God.: we are crossing into an in-universe style here: we need to be clear about what is considered to be within the world of the story. This comes back in the body: He was a noble young man from Jerusalem who was taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar II. Despite his exile, Daniel rose to prominence in the Babylonian court, serving the king and his successors with wisdom and integrity, all while staying faithful to the Yahweh until the Persian conquest led by Cyrus the Great. The painting depict moment from chapter 6 of Book Of Daniel where Daniel is cast into the lions' den by Darius the Mede. Daniel faces the penalty for defying a royal decree that forbids praying to any god or man but the king.
  • I see a few typos and low-hanging factual errors -- for example:
    • The Flemish artist Peter Paul Rubens was born in Siegen, Nassau to Jan Rubens and Maria Pypelincks.: MOS:GEOCOMMA.
    • He was converted to Catholicism shortly before his father's death on 1587.
    • due to the threat from Magistrate of Cologne to expel every Protestant from the city
    • The painting depict moment from chapter 6 of Book Of Daniel
    • Although the painting shows Daniel praying, this detail is not included in Daniel chapter 6, but it is mentioned in the deuterocanonical Chapter 14: this is not the standard means of citing a biblical verse, but in any case our capitalisation is wonky.
  • There are also a few areas where comprehensiveness and detail need a look:
    • Rubens' time in Italy profoundly influenced his artistic style: we haven't said in the lead that Rubens did spend time in Italy.
    • Rubens had returned to Antwerp from Italy at the start of the Twelve Years' Truce in 1609: what was the Twelve Years' Truce, and why was it relevant to Rubens?
    • During this time, he was deeply influenced by classical sculptures by Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Correggio, Tintoretto, Caravaggio, and Annibale Carracci.: none of those would be considered classical sculptors: the term is used for ancient Greeks and Romans.
    • When giving currency amounts from a long time ago, it is useful to convert them into present-day values so that readers have a sense of their magnitude.

I'm going to oppose at this stage and suggest that the best course of action would be to enlist an experienced mentor, who could advise on specific improvements before another run at FAC. There's a lot to admire about the article and it would be good to have it here, when it's ready. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- per above this nom appears undercooked so I'm going to archive it; given we've already been to GAN and PR I concur with UC's suggestion to try and engage a mentor. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 May 2025 [14].

Mokosh

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sławobóg (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Slavic goddess. Article is translated from ru.wiki featured article, which later was updated by original author and me. The article is comprehensive and detailed. It includes all popular interpretations and their criticisms (if any exist). Sławobóg (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, I am afraid. I think this would have been best serviced by going through PR or having some form of rigorous copy edit prior to FAC. As it stands, parts of it are incomprehensible without either extensive prior knowledge, or by clicking away to other articles (eg: "she was reflected in bylinas and zagovory as Mat Zemlya". Why do we have to wait until toward the end of the second para before learning she was a goddess of fate, when this should probably be in the opening sentence? The language could also face being smoothed by peer review ("In academia, the opinion the cult of Mokosh was passed to the folk-Christian Paraskeva Friday, which was associated with water and spinning, spread" being such an example). - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think I should explain what bylina (etc.) is in the article. We have separate articles for that for a reason, and the article is long enough as it explains historical context of primary sources in details, which is more important.
    • Primary sources don't explain goddess functions at all, so it's all about reconstruction. This split was made by other user, and I kinda agree with this. First paragraph is short enough, I don't see a problem.
    • Article was recently copyedited. I changed mentioned sentence, I hope it's good now. Sławobóg (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to not meeting WP:MTAU and general prose issues. Looks like a very interesting subject, but unfortunately the prose becomes rather hard to understand several times per section. In the first couple of body paragraphs alone, we have "secondary adideation", "theonym", "formed by the suffixal method", "Mokosh was a literary fiction", "as part of the first palatalization", "he drives this noun from the v-tematic", "v-thematic words with topographical meaning", and most incomprehensible of all, "pluvial goddess with uranic characteristics".
    In general, I find that articles translated from Russian are very heavy in unnecessary detail and odd tangents, slightly strange word and grammar choices, and odd scope coverage. That seems to be the case here. I would suggest a trip through the the GA process which should help resolve the most obvious issues, before an FA nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is clear that this is not going to get a consensus to promote, so I am going to archive it. Note that the usual ten-day hiatus will apply. It also seems clear that the nominator does not fully understand the FAC process, so I would refer them to the part of the FAC instructions "Editors considering their first nomination ... are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination." I would recommend a visit to GoCER, then GAN, then PR, prior to bringing it back here. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 1 May 2025 [15].

Cherry on Top (Bini song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ROY is WAR Talk! 02:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I nominating this again because I believe this is done now and i want also to nominate on TFA in July. ROY is WAR Talk! 02:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, regretfully. I had a look at this article's talk page and can tell a lot of effort was put into making this nom the best quality possible. I don't want to diminish that impact. At the same time, I also looked at the last FAC for this article. Folks responded back then that the prose quality did not live up to the standards of what a feature article should be like. As it stands, I think that's still true. I won't write a comprehensive list of all the problem sentences I found, so here are the ones that stood out:
  • charted in various counties and garnered one million streams on ITunes" Three things here: "counties" is misspelled, iTunes is not for streaming songs but for purchasing downloads, and "iTunes" begins with a small "i".
  • Speaking of that sentence, why is it under #In other media? It should be under the #Commercial performance section.
  • It seems like there are other sentences placed in sections they shouldn't be. The official music video for the single premiered on the same day is under #Promotion and release instead of #Music video.
  • Several Filipino cultural references include pagmamano,[a] balikbayan boxes,[b] and Filipino snacks such as banana cue[c] and halo-halo. this is very jarring to read. "Pagmamano" is a verb whereas the other entries in this list are nouns (see Parallelism (grammar). Several Filipino cultural references is an awkwardly written phrase; is there a word missing here?
  • I found a lot more confusing and awkwardly written sentences as I read through the article. "with sign language is used during the chorus", "Filipino member Gehlee expressed that the song's concept would also fit on their group" (do not expect the average reader to know what a boy/girl group "concept" is), "the song embraces themes of uniqueness, tackling the 'unique personality of a person that one could never get enough [of]' " (I don't even know what that's supposed to say), "Rolling Stone Philippines listed as Filipino Music Videos that Stole the Spotlight in 2024", and so on.

Considering one GOCE sweep and two (!) peer reviews have already been conducted for the article, I think the next best solution here is to consult an FAC mentor, who can help you prepare for another nomination. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 04:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm a fan of the group that made this song, I also regretfully agree that the article is not yet ready for an FAC. As you stated, there are still many issues with the prose quality. I was planning on solving these, but I'm personally occupied right now.
@Royiswariii, a friendly suggestion from a fellow editor, you may want to look at some of our FA articles in the Philippine music task force as a model. They may help you with restructuring this article to further meet the FA standards. You can also reach out for help on the talk page there; maybe some of our fellow task members may help you, either through suggestions or a helping hand in editing. But I'll check this article and improve it bit by bit when I have time. Good luck! AstrooKai (Talk) 08:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again, @PSA. So about the fourth key point, I have come up to this alternative sentence. What do you think?

Several Filipino cultural traditions include pagmamano, the sending of balikbayan boxes, and snacks such as banana cue and halo-halo.

Don't worry, the wikilinks and footnotes will be retained. AstrooKai (Talk) 08:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would have to oppose too per above. I noticed the lead says "Most music critics praised the song for its playful energy and wide appeal", which i'm confused by since in the "reception" section only one review is listed. 750h+ 04:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I'm going to archive this and suggest following the sound advice of the reviewers above; pls note per FAC instructions that there's a two-week hiatus before you can nominate this or any other article here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 1 May 2025 [16].

History of Christianity

[edit]
Jenhawk777 (talk), ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a broad, concise, but still comprehensive overview of the 2000-year history of the world's largest religion. It has been completely reworked from lead to end by Airshipjungleman29, who spent months aiding Jenhawk777 to understand and meet featured article standards. Any and all success is owed to him. This article is important to Wikipedia, and we believe it now meets the criteria. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti

[edit]

Putting myself down to review. With Easter coming up, I am a bit uncertain if this will happen during or immediately after Holy Week. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Cristo_crucificado.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Good_shepherd_02b_close.jpg, File:Half-length_portrait_of_a_virgin_consecrated_to_God,_from_the_book_Die_Malereien_der_Katakomben_Roms,_plate_80.jpg, File:Lebedev_baptism.jpg, File:Martin_Luther_by_Cranach-restoration.jpg
  • File:Distribution_of_the_documented_presence_of_Christian_congregations_in_the_first_three_centuries.tif: see MOS:COLOUR. Ditto File:Map_of_First_Crusade_-_Roads_of_main_armies-fi.png
  • File:VirgenNino.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag. Ditto File:Christ_saviour_explosion.jpg
    • Virgin nino has a US tag; I have no idea what to do about the source link
      • Is an archived version available? File:Christ_saviour_explosion.jpg is pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • If an archived version is described as such, then no, there is no archived version available. What should i do? Can thi image be left or should it be removed? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have removed and replaced virgin nino with agapefeast that has a US tag and a live feed to its source. Also, File:Christ_saviour_explosion.jpg now has a US license. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          When and where was File:Christ_saviour_explosion.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          Nikkimaria I have no idea. This image pre-dates my involvement in this article. The source section is filled with "it could be this", and it "could be that", which includes "If the author of this work was subjected to repression and rehabilitated posthumously...." There is no conclusive statement, but for obvious reasons, it must have been taken at the sight back in 1931 by an unknown person. There are no other real options, but I don't know if that matters. It is currently in the public domain, and that includes the US: "This work is in the public domain in the United States, because it was in the public domain in its home country (Russia) on the URAA date (January 1, 1996), and it wasn't re-published for 30 days following initial publications in the U.S." Should this image be removed? I can do that if you recommend it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          Would recommend it. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Nicaea_icon.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
  • File:Studying_astronomy_and_geometry.jpg: source link is dead
Thank you for the review. I believe MOS:Colour applies if there is no corresponding explanatory text. It is next to the image of the first centuries. The other two are now removed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Mos:Colour says "Avoid using color as the sole means of conveying information. Always provide an alternative method," which I have understood to mean an explanation in the text. Is that wrong? I now see there are other problems as well. I will fix these, sorry I missed it at first. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Alternative method" generally refers to things like legends or labels, rather than the article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked AirshipJungleman29 to address these. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Images, my nemesis. I'll do my best. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This requires a technical know-how that I am lacking. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Johnbod for help too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria ~~ AirshipJungleman29 Johnbod Thank you everyone for all your help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Is there more to do on the images? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see responses above from yesterday. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't, sorry, I do now. Have answered both - to no avail! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I got them all now! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's everything. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Am I done? Are the remaining images okay now? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YAY! Thank you so very much. You've been awesome. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Do you approve? Do you need to say? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be good to go on images. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Borsoka

[edit]
  • ...(c. 27–30)... I assume this is a reference to his death. Make it clear.
  • ...in the Roman province of Judea...in Judea... What about Galilee?
    • Both Galilee and Judea were part of the Roman province of Judaea. There are a total of six sentences about Jesus. This article is about what came after him, so details about him specifically are limited. There is nothing about the Roman Empire or the Meditteranean environment due to those same limitations. In an article like this one, there is always more that could be said on any aspect, but detail had to be limited. This seems like a less important detail that is easily omitted.Jenhawk777 (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Galilee was not part of the Roman province of Judea, but was ruled by Herod Antipas. (Freyne, Sean (2006). "Galilee and Judaea in the first century". In Mitchell, Margaret M.; Young, Frances M. (eds.). Origins to Constantine. The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press. pp. 538–551 (on pp. 39–40). ISBN 978-0-5218-1239-9.) Freyne also explicitly contrasts Galilee with Judaea, stating that the "The gospels provide contrasting theaters for the public ministry of Jesus. Whereas the Synoptics have a shared focus on Galilee, ... the fourth gospel views Galilee virtually as a place of refugee from a ministry conducted for the most part in Judea and Jerusalem..." (op. cit. p. 37.).
  • ...during the first century... I would delete it, especially because he likely was born before 1 AD.
  • Jesus' existence and his crucifixion are well attested. I would delete it, and mention his crucifixion in the previous sentence. Doubts about his existence could be mentioned in a footnote (if it is necessary at all).
  • ...from King David... I would clarify that he was the king of Israel, a prosperous Jewish kingdom to introduce references to Israel in subsequent sentences.
  • I would link Messiah to Messiah in Judaism.
  • ...in light of the kingdom of God... Could you clarify it?
  • I would link "prophetic tradition" to Prophets in Judaism.
  • His followers believed God's spirit was incarnated (embodied) in Jesus... Did they?
    • The Cambridge History has "The incarnation is what turns Jesus into the

foundation of Christianity." on page 34. I have now rewritten it. See if that's acceptable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Christian church established incarnation and resurrection as its first doctrines,... When? I think the sentence is misleading: no doctrines were adopted by the Church, but early Christians accepted this statements (without it they could not be regarded Christians).
    • Incarnation, the belief that God's spirit was incarnated (embodied) in Jesus. I am not sure that all early Christians believed that God's spirit was incarnated in Jesus, and the quote above does not verifies this statement either.
      • I don't think they all believed the same things either, and early Christology can get really controversial, but somehow we have to figure out the best way to include this, since it was so central to early Christianity.
      • I use Uthemann in the Cambridge History who says on page 460: "The faith of Christians quickly came to be determined by... [belief that] Jesus was the presence of God on earth..." ... "it was the majority formula of faith: Jesus Christ is God."
      • I also use Young from the Cambridge History: "He was, for believers, the ‘wholly human and visible icon of the wholly transcendent and invisible God... Through what became known as the ‘incarnation’ or ‘enfleshment’ of God’s Word or Wisdom, the life of God was communicated to his creatures", from page 34.
      • Larry Hurtado, has a chapter titled "The Binitarian Shape of Early Christian Worship," in the book "The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus" where on pages 187 - 200 he examines early Christian prayer, confession, baptism, Eucharist, hymns, and prophecy and concludes the high Christology of incarnation took place within a few years or even months of Jesus' death.
      • It's an old article but James Dunn has a nice summation of current scholarship in "Why “Incarnation”? A Review of Recent New Testament Scholarship". (In Crossing The Boundaries. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004493513_021): "The view of traditional orthodoxy is that it [the belief in incarnation] emerged directly from Jesus' own self-consciousness of divinity and/or pre-existence. Alternatively, for some it was an inevitable corollary to the conviction that Jesus had been raised from the dead and exalted to God's right hand.3 For others it was very much bound up with the impact of Paul's conversion experience ... For others again it was a consequence of Christianity spreading into wider circles..." He concludes with "the doctrine of the incarnation is at the heart of Christian theology", and that makes it important enough to include - somehow. What do you think is the best approach that won't involve going down a long and complicated rabbit-hole? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Eucharist meal (Jesus's Last Supper)... Rephrase (the two are not one and the same). Clarify that Eucharist was a communal meal to introduce the reference to communal meal in the following sentence.
  • Small groups were self-organized with no central authority. I would either delete it, or elaborate this statement (what about the apostles, the legendary Jerusalem synod, etc?)
    • This is important in sociology: it's about the spread of an innovation. Christianity has never had a central authority, not even in the papacy's strongest period, because the Pope was only over the West, and there has always been diversity. For elaboration there is a link to a whole article on it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It might be important, but contradicts well attested facts: the Council of Jerusalem passed decisions that were expected to be accepted by all Christians, Paul instructed the Christians of several towns in letters.
  • ...; any ceremonial role these early bishops took was initially connected to these more prosaic duties I would either delete it, or rephrase it to make a positive statement about their role in the community.
    • This can already be found in the Ante-Nicene period where it says: "Bishops were essential to the development of Christianity, and they rose in power and influence as they began to preside over larger areas with multiple churches".Jenhawk777 (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...these early bishops took was initially connected to these more prosaic duties Can we describe any role connected to one of the two earliest central elements of Christian liturgy (Eucharist) as prosaic? Could we say that the sprinkling of water is a prosaic act? For us, it may be, but for Christians it is one of the holiest rites. Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right. It now reads, "Elders (called presbyters or bishops) oversaw the small groups, providing for the economic requirements of the meal and for charitable distributions". I like it better too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beginning with fewer than 1000 adherents, Christianity grew to around one hundred small household churches consisting of an average of seventy members each by the year 100. Could you explain the basis for the numbers in a footnote?
  • ...that spread outward from Jerusalem... Did it? For instance, Paul did not start his mission in Jerusalem.
  • I would mention the role of apostles in spreading the faith. Only a reference to Paul can be found in the article.
    • It already says "Paul was one of several apostles who spread Christianity..."Jenhawk777 (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, Paul is emphasised several times, but there is virtually no references to other apostles and no explanation about their role in the early church communities.
      • That's because sources are few, and what they did, and where, is highly controversial. I removed Paul, who was only mentioned twice, though it seems wrong to exclude him but may be the best solution here.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...followed by merchants, soldiers, and migrating tribes I would delete it.
    • Why? Please explain. How it spread is a significant factor in why it spread for many scholars. Jenhawk777 (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because trade routes and travel routes are routes followed by merchants, soldiers, and migrating tribes. I have not read any reference to the role of migrating tribes in spreading Christianity before the 3th century.
  • In the first century it reached ancient Greece,[32] and probably Alexandria, Egypt. I would delete it, because the following sentence clarifies the issue.
  • The largest cities in the Roman Empire... I would name some of them.
  • ...Christianized cities... What does it mean? Were the cities baptised, or were all their inhabitants Christians, or were they home to Christian groups?
  • Christianity in Antioch is mentioned in his epistles. I would delete it, because he mentions Christianity in several towns.
  • Cities such as Antioch and Alexandria gradually became more influential than Jerusalem. Why? Forthermore, there is no reference to the importance of Jerusalem in previous sentences.
  • The Jews of Alexandria had produced a Greek translation of their Hebrew Bible between the third and first centuries BC which the apostles and early Christians used. Did they use it? For instance, could Christ and his apostles speak and read Greek?
  • Unlike Judaism, Christianity has no sacred language. Delete, because there were and still are Christian denominations with a sacred language.
  • In the early centuries, the languages most used to spread Christianity were Latin, Greek, and Syriac (a form of Aramaic). The sentence overemphasise the importance of Latin, and ignores chronology.
  • ...the four gospels... I would say "gospels/earliest gospels", because there were many gospels in circulation.
  • ..., and the Egyptian church likely invented the papyrus codex during the next decades I would delete this PoV.
  • ...to determine if the increasing numbers of non-Jews needed to follow Jewish law A link to Jewish law? Some explanation?
  • Explain Gentile with one or two words.
  • The council decided to allow Gentile Christians their form of Christianity and Jews theirs. Some explanation?
  • I would mention that mainstream Christians began to consider adherence to Jewish laws as a heresy.

Borsoka (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... around the large regional centers Everywhere in the Roman Empire?
  • I think the first section should mention Peter, Paul and James among the apostles, explaining the special status of Paul (who was not Jesus's discipline), and explain his role in Gentile mission, and without a reference to his debate with other apostles we can hardly understand the relevance of the Council of Jerusalem. Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is now done, done and done! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Borsoka I will be back with this later today. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Done - and integrated into the rest - I hope. Though I do not go into detail about Paul and the possibility of debate with other apostles, since it is contested, and I don't mention Judaizers, the issue is alluded to in the sentence on the Council, and in a broad overview article like this one, I am hoping you can accept that as sufficient. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Could you name the sources contesting the debate between Paul and other apostles? Borsoka (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Borsoka You have taken such care and been so thorough in your review, it's hard to believe you're done. I hope you will return and finish. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer. Clearly Paul did have opponents by the mid-50s, but whether or not they were the other Apostles is now disputed. There are multiple publications on this, but one of the best summations of modern scholarship is in the book titled Paul and his Opponents, ed. Stanley Porter, in the chapter STUDYING PAUL’S OPPONENTS: ADVANCES AND CHALLENGES, on page 4, author Jerry L. Sumney.
        Sumney discusses the tremendous influence of Bauer's theory adding that "the number of theories" arguing for alternative opponents "does not show signs of abating. These have ranged from one extreme to the other, and have included Jewish and Gentile, Hellenistic and legalist, elitist and commonplace, and exclusivist and syncretistic proposals."
        Beginning at the bottom of page 7 to page 8: "Baur’s understanding of Paul’s opponents and the shape of the early Church has... not gone unchallenged. Subsequent interpreters have questioned nearly every aspect of his work..." Moving to the top of page 11: Walter Bauer’s 1934 Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity "clearly demonstrates that the early Church included a significantly wider range of diversity than two parties."
        Stanley Porter on page 11: "My own reading of the Pauline letters finds insufficient support for either the constant connection to Jerusalem, or the limitation of Paul’s opponents to a single group. There are anti-Pauline movements by the mid-50s, but there is no good evidence that links them to the leaders of the Jerusalem church..."
        Porter adds: "Important early works that refused the imposition of this [two party] paradigm include those of J. B. Lightfoot and Wilhelm Lütgert... Lightfoot’s modification of Baur exercised sufficient influence to limit the sway Baur’s thesis held over British scholarship. Lütgert offered powerful arguments against Baur’s hypothesis..." also on page 11.
        The next 28 pages are detailed discussions of various modern interpretations of who Paul's opponents might have been. It seems like way too much to get into with no clear agreement among scholars. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for the sources. I would still mention that there were debates in the earliest Christian communities. Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, so right now it has; "At the Council of Jerusalem, (c. 49), the church gathered to determine if the increasing numbers of non-Jews needed to follow Old Testament Jewish law." You want a sentence about debates - instead? - before? - debates with who exactly? In light of current scholarship, I'm confused. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll be back tomorrow with that debate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Borsoka Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Along the lines of this last point, the article as it stands doesn't explain that Jesus' disciples were the apostles, which is a critical point that needs inclusion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I do wish you had mentioned that before now. I will take care of this today. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the "verbosity" from the sentence about trade routes, and have added a paragraph on the Apostles. I am unsure if it meets your expectations. If not, let me know what else is needed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does your lack of response indicate you don't like what I did or just that you have been busy in RL? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the belief that God was embodied... I would link God to God in Christianity, and also mention the Word of God ("the belief that God or the Word of God was embodied"), linking it to Logos (Christianity), for this believe could introduce the transition towards Trinity.
    • "God in Christianity" is already linked in the second sentence of the lead. I went ahead and added the link to logos in Christianity in the Late Antiquity section replacing the one that was there already.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would still mention Word of the God in the sentence ("the belief that God or the Word of God was embodied") for its relevance in the development of the doctrine of Trinity. Borsoka (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, I am having a problem with this one. The "Word" is considered by most scholars to be later Johanine theology, whereas "...the belief that God was embodied..." is described as one of the earliest beliefs. Can I get you to agree to putting the Word in a section on the Trinity and theology instead? I'm afraid this is going to add a whole paragraph. I can't see how to do it otherwise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps, but Johanine tradition begins in the 1st century. I think we do not need a whole paragraph about the early attestation of the dogma of the Trinity. Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, you win. Done. 04:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Out of these original followers, called disciples, Jesus kept twelve close to him. They became Apostles whose function was to bear witness.[26] After Judas Iscariot died, there remained 11 original apostles to which two were then added: Matthias and Saul of Tarsus who became Paul.[27] These thirteen Apostles, which included Peter and James, Jesus' brother, crossed the ancient world to share their message. I would radically shorten, stating that apostles were Jesus's most trusted disciplines, mentioning Peter and James (Peter is to be mentioned to understand the popes' claim to supremacy, and James because his role as the head of the Church of Jerusalem). I would not mention Judas, Matthias (Judas could be interesting if you want to expand the text about Gnosticism). Paul should be mentioned separately, because he had not been Jesus's discipline, but a mystic experience led to his conversion.
  • ...where converts were first called "Christians" Why?
    • Why were they called Christians or why mention it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why were they called Christians?
        • Does anyone actually know? I will have to research this one. I'll be back - again... Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • After doing a bunch of reading on this, it seems to me that "why" does not qualify as important enough to take up space in a broad overview. The fact they were named as a group for the first time has some small significance, but "why" is all guesswork and really doesn't imoact anything else. You have requested the addition of so much, I request that you graciously strike this one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It had spread into North Africa in the first century, and by the third century, it had spread across the Mediterranean region, from Greece and Anatolia into the Balkans in the East, and as far as Roman Britain in the northwest. Trombley does not verify the statement. Pages are needed in citation 53 (Schäferdiek). Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sentence about the theory of apostolic succession is needed to explain how decisions on dogma would be made.
    • There is a sentence on apostolic succession but nothing on how decisions on dogma are made. Since that changed over time, I can't see how this is a good idea. That will become a huge rabbit warren of Catholic church government. No other types of church government are discussed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the early church, canon law did not yet exist. Delete.
    • I would like to request that you reconsider this one. I wanted it here because of the comparison to how much that changed by the high Middle Ages when church law became one of the largest legal systems to ever exist. The non-legalistic church became the heavily legalistic church which later on excluded earlier principles of inclusivity. It seems really important, and I ask to leave it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
Extended content
  • I commend you for tackling such a huge topic, and I hope to see you bring related articles to FA in the future! I'll be commenting mostly on prose, and what I think Christian history was like (correct me, I'm not a historian) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe link grassroots? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The support of the Roman emperor Constantine in the early 300s" because you're talking about a single person, it'd be more specific to say something like, "the Roman emperor Constantine after his conversion in [year]" and maybe you could link Constantine the Great and Christianity here as "his conversion"? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Art, architecture, and literature blossomed" well architecture certainly, but correct me if I'm wrong but early Christianity hit some pretty high peaks during earlier persecution periods? Like when I think of "Early Christianity" I'm thinking of pre-Roman-State, like Origen or Ireneus. Like in a general idea, the only great literary work I'm thinking of in the time of Constantine is Church histories. If you mean to say post-Christian Rome, that's not what I'm getting at least Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Early Christian art doesn't exist at all before 200-300 and then it begins as funeral and tomb decorations, so art really did blossom and flourish under Constantine. The fourth century is also known as the "golden age of patristic literature"; ancient church leaders were classically educated and quite erudite, and they wrote literally hundreds of works in multiple languages, topics and fields of study not limited to religion. There is no pre-Roman Christianity. Christianity was born in the Roman empire. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Does the fact this one is not struck indicate you still don't agree with the statement? I can find additional sources if you would like me to. It is accurate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      On the page cited, Weitzman says that it wasn't until the third century that Christians overcame their aversion to the representational arts, adding: "One of the most crucial turning points in history was Constantine's victory... This in turn led to a flourishing age of frescoes and mosaics to cover church walls..." Matthews and Platt have a long, multi-page discussion of a "flourishing" Christian Late Antique art and architecture seen as "triumphant" over classical art which I did not include but still supports the claim here. Caroline Humfress on page 97 of "Patristic sources." in The Cambridge Companion to Roman Law, (2015): 97-118 has written that "The Golden Age of Patristics is traditionally understood to be the fourth and fifth centuries AD". Are more sources required? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Competing theological doctrines led to divisions, the Nicene Creed of 325," I see you're trying to be succinct (a hard task for such a broad scope), but I'm wondering if there's a way to word this so that the Nicene Creed doesn't seem like a source of division, but maybe a response to it (like a response to Gnosticism)? If that's accurate at least Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and provided social services" not sure if anyone else reads it like this, but it sounds like this wasn't a thing before the Middle Ages Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't early Christian groups run hospitals and orphanages? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Monks cared for the sick early on, but there were not hospitals for the poor until the fourth century. It wasn't until after the fall of the western empire that monasteries took over caring for the people because government was gone, providing schooling, inns for travelers, hospices for the aged, food for the poor, and so on. That lasted until about 1000. But the article makes no comment on what was provided before Christianity since this is an article on Christianity. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this still a problem? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if I don't respond, assume I don't have any further comment on it Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that, but not being struck looks to others like it's still an unresolved issue - I think. Maybe. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

** Are you looking at an old version? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will add it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the body in the section on heresies. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid both names in the lead would just be confusing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know those are two names for the same group, right? The Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East are the same church. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What kinds of church rolls and religious activities? Especially in the context of replacing goddess worship Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
page 82 of Cloke has "widows [who were more ancient as a category and more numerous than "virgins" dedicated to the church] are attested from the earliest apostolic times in their own category, the "roll of widows" (1 Timothy 5:9)." Church rolls are the records we have, and as to activities, women fulfilled about a half dozen roles early on, though I don't think one should assume this has anything to do with replacing goddess worship. I have no data on them switching from one to the other. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does this clear things up or is there something in addition you would like to see? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the sense of replacing goddess worship, but compared to contemporary goddess worship, how were women more involved in religious activities? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speech, in the form of polemical rhetoric, was the main form of violence" I mean, didn't St Augustine at one point start riots to destroy every pagan figure in Roman Africa? I think in The City of God he mentions that pagan writers are too scared of physical violence to publish anything Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may have some things conflated. At any rate, modern scholarship has made a significant move in the last 50 years away from the idea of conflict between pagans and Christians. I am copying here from our article on the Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire but I can't use 'tq' so just know this is copied: Peter Brown writes that much of the previous framework for understanding Late Antiquity has been based on the dramatized "tabloid-like" accounts of the destruction of the Serapeum of Alexandria in 391, its supposed connection to the murder of Hypatia, and the application of the Theodosian law code.[1][2] ... New archaeological research has revealed that the Serapeum was the only temple destroyed in this period in Egypt.[3] ... Temple destruction is attested to in 43 cases in the written sources, but only four have been confirmed by archaeological evidence.[4]. ... Hypatia's murder was largely political and probably occurred in 415 not 391.[5][1] There is no evidence that the harsh penalties of the anti-sacrifice laws were ever enforced.[6] ... In a comparative study of levels of violence in Roman society, German ancient historian Martin Zimmermann [de], concludes there was no increase in the level of violence in the Empire in Late Antiquity.[7][8] ... Jan N. Bremmer has written that recent evidence shows "religious violence in Late Antiquity is mostly restricted to violent rhetoric: 'in Antiquity, not all religious violence was that religious, and not all religious violence was that violent'."[9] ... Archaeologists Luke Lavan and Michael Mulryan of the Centre for Late Antique Archaeology indicate that archaeology does not show evidence of widespread conflict.[10] I won't re-document all the refs here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Brown 1998, pp. 26, 47–54.
  2. ^ Cameron 1993, pp. 121–123.
  3. ^ Lavan & Mulryan 2011, p. xxv.
  4. ^ Lavan & Mulryan 2011, p. xxiv.
  5. ^ Watts 2017, pp. 114–115.
  6. ^ Bradbury 1994, p. 133; Salzman 2006, p. 265.
  7. ^ Drake 2006, p. 10.
  8. ^ Cameron 2011, p. 19.
  9. ^ Bremmer 2020, p. 9.
  10. ^ Lavan & Mulryan 2011, p. 155.
Recheck the source, surely there's a reason it says specifically 640 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the end of his 37 page theological discussion on reconciling the two nature of Jesus that marks a shift in understanding: "By emphasising what combined the two interpretations of Chalcedon, Maximus, in order to save the Cyrillian interpretation in which he remained embedded, arrived after 640 at a definition of the one hypostasis which fundamentally refrained from fitting it out with religious, intuitive contents. For these, Maximus maintained, were always related to the natures, while the hypostasis as the principle of the ultimate independent subsistence – in contradistinction to individuality – can only be conceived as ‘empty’ or ‘metaphysical’, that is, as a self or centre that is principally not defined by categories of nature. With this highpoint of human endeavour to think through, in an appropriate way, the confession of Christ as ‘the new human being’, who is God, and to safeguard the paradox of God’s incarnation, the Christology of the early church comes to a fitting conclusion." I have no clue how to include any of that. Do you have a suggestion? Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I am back to, would you like me to remove the date and use mid-seventh century instead? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced it with "As theology evolved into the mid-seventh century..." Does that work? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The word "pope" comes from the word for "father", and was used synonymously with the word "bishop" until the 5th century in the Roman Empire. That's how we have the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have never before in my life ever even heard of this. Just goes to show, no matter how much you think you know... I do know Rome argues primacy based on Peter. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what kind of change would you like to see here? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reword so it doesn't sound like the bishop of Rome is the only person with the title "pope" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like you mean many people in the Roman Empire Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I made an adjustment. Is it clearer? Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what is "a vibrant Christianity"? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a dull one? I don't really know any specific detail. It will require additional research to find out. I'll either do that or remove it I guess. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reference to the presence of the school of theology in Syria that Ware also mentions on page 12 of The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity. Casidaay and Norris describe the same thing saying "Syria was home to vibrant and creative theologians for centuries." In the pursuit of being concise, I reduced it, but if there is another way to say it that you prefer, I am happy to make that change. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's not a meaningful description. As if theologians anywhere else in the world were dull and unimaginative Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! Some theologians are pretty dull. :-) Both Casiday and Norris are pretty illustrious theologians themselves, however, and probably know what they are talking about. Perhaps I could combine the references and simply say "Syria was home to a thriving school of theology". I'll add Ware. Done. Does that work for you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dunkleosteus77 That's really disappointing. There has been substantial effort and agreement between us, I thought. Can you not even give some partial support? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe

[edit]

Not able to post a full review but I do have some comments. I am glad that some of my comments on previous revisions have been actioned.

  • "In 1900, there were just under nine million Christians in Africa; by 1960, this number had increased to 60 million, and by 2005, to 393 million, about half of the continent's population, a proportion which has remained constant as of 2022.[569][595] This expansion has been labeled a "fourth great age of Christian expansion".[601][note 16]" Africa has also seen explosive population growth in the same time period. It would be more helpful to provide these stats as percentage of the population rather than absolute numbers. The content in the footnote is excessive detail in this article, please move to a sub-article.
    • It already says "about half of the continent's population, a proportion which has remained constant as of 2022." Is that not adequate?
    • Airshipjungleman had the content of the note in the body of the text, but since it is detailed evidence, I moved it into a note. I have my doubts about removing this entirely, but I have. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is biased to focus on growth in absolute numbers while down pedaling the reality that there hasn't been growth in relative terms. The former is not directly related to Christianity but population growth overall which is not super relevant to this article. (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "the reality that there hasn't been growth in relative terms?" The growth in Christianity has not been directly related to population growth. Numbers of Christians after WWII grew faster in Africa than the population grew, and the latest PEW report [17] says "The share of the world’s Christians living in sub-Saharan Africa will rise from 24% in 2010 to 38% in 2050."
There is a predicted drop in Europe, while PEW's latest indicates a leveling off of decline in America: [18] Islam seems to be outgrowing Christianity - at least that's the projection for 2050 - but that isn't relevant to this article nor is the decline in the numbers of the unaffiliated. So what exactly do you mean by "relative terms?" Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A drop in numbers of Christians compared to population numbers is considered evidence of decline according to PEW. If Christianity's growth in numbers keeps up with the population growth, it's still growth, by definition. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm also seeing some bias in how the more recent history is presented.

  • I don't think this is fair or accurate or representative of what is actually said in the article. How can this be biased if both views are presented? Decline is only in the West. Christianity is growing at a remarkable rate around the world, and that's simple fact. There is no bias in that. The sentence immediately preceding the one referenced here says "leading to a decline in church attendance in the West" before making any other claims, and those claims are all substantiated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bias here is presenting Christianity as growing based on absolute numbers, while it's been mostly flat in terms of percentage of the global population and projected to continue that way. I think it would be more neutral to state, "The number of Christians has increased at the same rate as the global population" or "The number of Christians as a percentage of the global population has remained constant" (t · c) buidhe 22:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I really like your reference, but it doesn't say what you are saying. The context begins with "The impact of religion is on the rise on a global scale. By the middle of this century, the number of people affiliated with a religion is expected to grow by 2.3 billion, from 5.8 billion in 2010 to 8.1 billion in 2050." Then it says "The growth of the global Christian population [in the future] is projected to be about the same rate as overall global population growth between 2010-2050." It is not a claim about past growth since WWII, it's a projection that two separate things will grow in the future at the same rate. It doesn't say "has" it says "will". What is in this article are statistics from the past and present. Percentages and absolute numbers of Christians "have" declined in the West, but grown in the global south. Your source does not say anything different. I could add more on projected decline if you like, but otherwise your claim is mistaken. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, in the late twentieth century, religion around the world left the private sphere and revitalized its public role, undermining theories of secularization.[623]" The source is from 1994 and I don't feel that this has held up: the percentage of Christians has continued to drop at an accelerated rate in the US[19] and other countries. Religion has never been so irrelevant in countries like the UK and Ireland.
    • Again, that drop is in the West. That theories of secularization are challenged by examples outside the West is representative of current scholarship, but a more extensive discussion of a disputed theory of sociology seems inappropriate. How is this: "However, in the late twentieth century, religion in other places around the world left the private sphere and revitalized its public role, leading to arguments that theories of secularization were not universal." Does that work for you? I can add some more to elaborate challenges in the West, but I do think both pro and con views should be presented. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If your sources say there is a bifurcation between the West and the Rest why not specify it in the text rather than make general statements that are not true across the world? (t · c) buidhe 22:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The latest PEW report referenced above says "Some social theorists have suggested that as countries develop economically, more of their inhabitants will move away from religious affiliation. While that has been the general experience in some parts of the world, notably Europe, it is not yet clear whether [theories about economic development leading to secularization] are a universal pattern." We don't know what's "true" across the world. There's a theory and there are its doubts. It's two sentences. All they do is highlight the question. There are no general statements about what's "true".
    Decline in the West needs to be included, and how is that possible without including possible causes, and how is that unbiased without including questions about it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the collapse of communism, Christianity also expanded in Eastern Europe and Russia.[597][598][599][600] " It saw a temporary expansion but in many Eastern Bloc countries the percentage of religious is lower than it was in 1989. Countries like Poland and Czechia have never been less Christian than they are now.

I believe that you're following what the cited sources say, but you need to reword these to avoid misleading readers. Saying that it expanded is also vague, it's not clear if you mean more believers, more church services, etc. (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can modify the claim to "many Eastern European countries" to make it clear it is not all of them. Will that do? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which ones are actually seeing a percentage increase in the Christian population? I looked up Russia & Ukraine and both look flat. Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Czechia have been on the decline. (t · c) buidhe 22:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What dates are you looking at? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    buidhe I don't want to get into listing country by country, so I have now changed it to "With the collapse of communism, Christianity also expanded in some Eastern European countries and Russia while declining in others." Does that work? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree you shouldn't be breaking it out by country but also not using generalities that don't necessarily hold up when you look at the details. (t · c) buidhe 11:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If I can't go country by country but also can't speak in generalities, what is there? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    buidhe You acknowledge that the article is "following what the cited sources say" about growth since WWII, yet you tell me to "reword" to reflect your interpretation instead. The source you use says nothing about "flat"; it too predicts growth, it just says that growth will be at the same rate as population growth. Decline in the West is in the article. The shift in Christianity's geographic center resulting from that decline, combined with growth in the South and East, is part of the "headline" of the post-WWII era according to PEW and every other source I can find including the one you use.
    Changing to your wording requires OR. It isn't right to ask me to do it. Please strike that request. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the latest PEW findings at the end of the first paragraph, will that do? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am switching to oppose here. Unfortunately, I think there is bias in how the "growth" of Christianity is presented in terms of absolute numbers, while de-emphasizing or not mentioning relative stagnation. (t · c) buidhe 11:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope others will see that the problem here is not in the article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jenhawk asked me to look at the History_of_Christianity#Worldwide_growth section, and I don't see any obvious problem. It speaks of growth and decline, starts with "Before 1945, about a third of the people in the world were Christians" and ends with "It is the world's largest religion with roughly 2.4 billion followers constituting around 31.2%" which indicates little change, possibly some retreat. Perhaps that last bit should have an "as of" on it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you all don't mind if I comment here: I looked at the History_of_Christianity#Worldwide_growth section, and overall it is not bad. But I can see two important improvements:
(a) there is a BIG difference between number of people and percentages. They are both important. The section is now emphasizing number of people, which is only painting half the picture. I realize that the 1st sentence of the section says "about a third of the people in the world were Christians, ...." but that is just a single point in time; in contrast to the % trend over time (is % going up or down?) which is what I'm talking about here. The percentage value trends (% of people in Africa; % of people in Europe;  % of people in USA, etc) is critical to understanding the church participation growth/decline (independent of the continent's popluation growth/decline. Emphasizing # of bodies (in countries with growing populations) is sort of biased. So I think the article needs to present the % growth/decline trends (e.g. for each continent) early on in the 1st paragraph. Maybe even in table format.
(b) I've read a lot of news articles about decline in church membership and/or belief in religion in younger generations in Western Europe, UK, US, Canada. It makes headlines, like major headlines, every year, going back about 10 years. Since this is the English WP, the trend of % of people in those places is of tremendous importance, and should be in this section - at least for Western Europe & USA; and maybe UK. Noleander (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander I can check for additional sources and see what I can find. Since two people have mentioned it now, I'll try. Decline in the West is already in the article. How much more do you think it should be emphasized? Growth in the South and East is the big news on the PEW site, so I went with it. Partly because the first attempt at FA failed due to "Western bias" - that it focused too much on the West - so w/o falling into that alternate failure, how much in your opinion would be enough? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe Noleander has supported your call for percentages. I consider that a sufficient consensus and have now reworked the "After WWII" section. Please tell me if it suits. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does your silence indicate you don't agree? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe Please look it over again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ErnestKrause

[edit]

Some comments to add on various aspects covered and not covered in this article.

Part one of comments

  • First paragraph of lede should mention that 'the Son of God' seems to be a central ascription; it is presently not there.

Thank you for showing up and commenting. Theological discussion is too much for the first paragraph of the lede which only has to introduce and show notability. Without the jargon, the concept is mentioned in the body. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not much mention of the Trinity throught the article; its related to the 'Son' issue, which does not appear to receive significant attention throughout the article.
    • Since this is on the history of the religion overall, I opted for as little discussion of particular theologies as possible. I can add the Trinity, but I'm afraid doing so will then open the door for all the differing theologies in all the different eras. Someone will ask, "why include one and not the others?", and doing that would make the article prohibitively long; then I'd be told to split it, and History of Christian theology is already a separate article. Theology is a rabbit hole for this article. Please don't make me go down it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By all means summarize the main points, though walking away from "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," is a tough choice to make in the history of Christianity. Even Hollywood movies seem to acknowledge this manner of crossing oneself as emblematic of this religion based on the Trinity. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause Sarcasm will in fact get you a lot of slack from me. :-) A second person has now requested adding in the Trinity, so it looks like you were right, I was wrong, and I am doing this one. I'm having a really bad attitude though, does that count? I'll ping you when It's done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not much attention to the Nicene Creed although it is mentioned; are not each of the verses in the Creed meant as a summary of various debates and outcomes from the early councils of the church. There appears to be not a single quote from the Creed in the whole article?
    • There's an image - though I'm not sure if it will be allowed to stay. This is a broad overview article of 2000 years of history. Each era can only be brushed across. I know it's hard, it took me a while to adjust too, but I had to accept that details like those cannot be included. AirshipJungleman29 spent months editing out such details in order to give this a chance - however slim - of actually making FA. This is an important article. It needs to be one of WP's best; it needs to be FA. Adding in a lot of theology that the average reader will not understand will not help its chances. Please understand. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stick with the article; and if AirshipJ is assisting then that is a plus. Like many editors, its the hope that comments made during nomination are constructive and lead to more success. Make you own decision about coverage to give to the Creed, though in itself it is usually read as a concise summary of the many Nicean and Constantinople debates of the early Ecumenical Councils. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hypostasia is a significant issue in early Christian debates however its not covered in the article.
  • The article is already over 200Kb in system size, though there seem to be many aspects not covered. Should there be some mention at the start of the article as to what approach is taken by the article about the level of detail which is present. What is the criterion which states that 'hypostasia' is not to be discussed, along with many other doctrines and dogmas of the Church?
    • This is a parent article. WP:Summary Style says, "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own." This article covers main topics and major events, and they are all covered w/o excessive detail. There are so many of those that none of them can be covered in detail. "Hypostasia" is a technical term, its jargon used by those in this field. It has a very specific meaning for theologians, but it is not a term commonly understood by our average reader. Its definition is discussed - w/o using the term - in the body of the article. Let that be sufficient. Please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You state: 'Anglicanism preserved Catholic doctrine and the church's established role in society, but changed its authority from the pope to the king.' It seems like the king's name should be mentioned and linked.
  • There is also a useful comment on state sovereignty which should be added, for example, does Rome prevail over any state and not just England? Is this important to the subsequent development of the history of Christianity.
I'm not sure that you can walk away or minimize the 'politics' of all this history; many hold that politics is a form of religion, and that religion is a form of politics. For the history of Christianity, I'll single out Jesus brought before the Roman Pilate, Jesus brought before the Judean Sanhedrin, Emperor Constantine converting pagan Rome over to Christianity, etc. 'Politics' is not a dirty word here; it enhances the concise presentation of the history. Your rewrite of Henry VIII is good, and you now state: "Still, Henry preserved Catholic doctrine and the church's established role in society". The main difference that Henry insists on is that Rome no longer competes with the sovereignty of the King of England; England's sovereignty is no longer a point of any compromise at all for Henry VIII. A short phrase on this in the article should be added. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. What comment on state sovereignty should be added, and do you have a source? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its in the Church of England article and states: "In November 1534, the Act of Supremacy formally abolished papal authority and declared Henry Supreme Head of the Church of England." There are also cites there. ErnestKrause (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's there now. I added it when I added the source and Henry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you cover Jefferson, and the history of the separation of state and religion. Is there any to be mentioned about how a high wall of separation between state and religion, as in the USA, might affect the history of Christianity.
    • Separation of church and state is very briefly mentioned - as almost everything is very briefly mentioned - in two places. No of course Jefferson isn't mentioned. The US is barely mentioned! Any more and someone else will come along and accuse me of a western bias. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In reality, there are only a few countries where Christianity is currently the state religion. Separation of church and state isn't about the US (t · c) buidhe 17:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm needing to agree with Buide here that this could be clarified at least a little in the article; Jefferson was for a high wall of separation between state and religion for the USA, other countries were not so emphatic. A short addition would he useful to the article as a whole. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause Could you be more specific about what you would like to see? buidhe is talking about current practices, while you are talking about Jefferson - I don't think you two are on the same page. The article's one sentence is about the eighteenth century, so if you have content on Jefferson that is relevant to the History of Christianity, I can add it. Do you have a source? That would really help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association interpreting the First Amendment as "building a wall of separation between Church & State". As covered by the Wikipedia article Baptists in the history of separation of church and state, early Baptists pressured the Founding Fathers to impose a separation of church and state to ensure that their religious minority would not be trampled by rival sects. While recognizing your worry about excessive coverage, I nonetheless agree that Jefferson's role should be included in the "Ideological movements" section because he was also instrumental in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen protecting freedom of religion in France's Catholic-majority society. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 16:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause and ViridianPenguin I ask you to consider that this is likely to cause me more grief and make buidhe even more unhappy with me since her position is that "Separation of church and state isn't about the US." Focusing on Jefferson makes it even more about the US than it is now. I've gotten no response to the reasons listed below for seeing this as a sub-topic/side issue that should not be further explored in an article of this type, so I wonder if you have considered that perspective. Please take the time to do so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to cause you stress, but like ErnestKrause expresses above and below, buidhe seems to be arguing for discussion of the separation of church and state because it is not a US-specific trend in the history of Christianity. As I noted, Jefferson tried secularizing both the American and French governments. As I continue my copyediting down the page, I will make a first pass at briefly mentioning Jefferson, and I will be sure to ping you to confirm an agreeable wording/weight. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 22:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my point. This is not specific to the history of Christianity. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenhawk777, here's your ping that I attempted to concisely include Jefferson's role in the history of Christianity. I only edited two existing sentences in a way that takes them from a collective 39 words to 64 words. Hope this is a small enough addition to address your WP:OFFTOPIC concerns. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 22:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it and I'm leaving it as is. ErnestKrause you can now strike all of this long discussion on Jefferson - please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe I'm sure your comment is correct, but I don't know what it has to do with what's in the article. There is one sentence saying that the US was the first mostly "Christian nation" to make that principle official back in the eighteenth century. That's what the source says. Are you saying that's wrong? I also don't know what exactly could make Christianity a "state religion", today, or where, but I do know there is no discussion of any of current practices anywhere in this article, and I have no desire to expand into such a discussion of current policies by country around the world. I don't think that much focus on that one idea would be appropriate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both Buidhe and myself are speaking to the same issue. Jefferson started the historical pattern which comes up to the present day about the separation of state and religion. A high wall of separation exists today in the USA, but in Germany citizens pay their taxes to support Lutheranism (unless they choose to opt out). Other examples are theocracies in the Middle East where there are numerous nations with explicit ties to Islam. The main point here is that principle of the separation of state and religion is pervasive in governments around the world with different degrees of strictness. Some attention to Christian nations which apply this principle to different degrees seems notable. ErnestKrause (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause I will ask AirshipJungleman29, who is on vacation right now. I personally find this problematic for these reasons - please consider them. All that you say about governments around the world is true - but world governments, especially non-Christian ones, are not Christian history, they are a side subject, and WP warns against digressing into a side subject. Several different Reformation principles affected economics and politics and culture and education and all sorts of things, and they are not discussed beyond a single mention because they are side subjects. WP:Summary Style says, "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own." Furthermore, though all that you say about Jefferson is true, a discussion of Jefferson cannot go in the WWII section, just as a discussion of current policies cannot go in the eighteenth century, which means it will require mention and explanation in both places, giving this one principle Undue weight. Staying on topic has been critically important in keeping this article a reasonable readable size. Considering all of this, I think adding this would be outside the scope of this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 This long page of back and forth started with a request to add in "Jefferson, and the history of the separation of state and religion" which seems like a side-issue to me. I need you to weigh in on this as I am getting nowhere. Should I add this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any source-based justification for that, so currently no. If such an argument is provided,... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause, ViridianPenguin🐧 and buidhe please see AirshipJungleman29's response to adding Jefferson. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since four editors are responding to this thread, I'll add that its a large topic and the article for Separation of church and state has about 150 sources. The point I'll add is the emphasis on disestablishment which was not present when Constantine established Christianity as the religion of Rome. With Jefferson, the emphasis was historically to reverse this precedent by stating, throught the Bill of Rights, that there shall be no establishment of religion in the government of the USA. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause No one doubts that what you are claiming is true - (although it's wrong to say Constantine established Christianity as the religion of Rome, and improbable that Jefferson had that in mind) - but no one doubts what he did. Jefferson is important in the history of human rights, in the history of America, in the history of the Enlightenment era, in politics, in democracy, and probably even more - but not the history of Christianity. We are arguing against its inclusion in this article because it is not a major aspect of the history of this religion. If You can find a couple quality sources that indicate Jefferson was a major player in Christianity itself, I will by God add him in! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides my above link to this 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, here are some sources discussing how Christian sects persuaded Jefferson to separate church and state in America and France to ensure pluralism:
While separation of church and state allows all faiths to flourish, this topic's relation to the history of Christianity is a philosophical rejection of the factionalism underlying the European wars of religion. As offered above, I will suggest a concise insertion of Jefferson's impact when my copyediting reaches that section. Hope this helps! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 14:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To legitimately include him, your sources must indicate Jefferson was a major player in Christianity itself, not that discussions with a few Christians affected American government. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also state: 'Protestants advocated for religious tolerance, the separation of church and state and moral reform while nineteenth century missionaries laid the foundation for many nations.' The wording appears to miss on a significant part of the comparison you make; they 'laid the foundation' for what? For the separation of church and state, or for moral reform. Your wording does not state what foundation is being made; for 'tolerance', for 'separation', for 'moral reform'. Its not clear which you are emphasizing here.
    • I can adjust that somewhat, but it's the lede. It crams together several separate concepts that are explained in the body. Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look. I understand that anyone who cares about Christianity - in a good way or in a bad way - is going to find this article inadequate, but if you look at a timeline of Christian history, all the major events are covered, in every era. It is comprehensive; but of necessity, it is also concise. It has to be limited in scope. If you can find a timeline of major events in Christian history that includes theology at a level of discussion beyond that which is already here, I will gladly use that source and add it in - and take the heat. I've spent two years on this article. This is my third attempt at FA. I am familiar with heat, but without some reference indicating these are major topics, I cannot accommodate most of these changes. Instead, I ask for your understanding and support of the article as it stands. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments to address some of these issues. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part two of comments

  • In the WWII section, it might be useful to add at some examples of the prominent names; I'm recalling that Karl Barth, Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr seem to occupy positions of prominence at that time. Later in the century Pope John Paul from Poland would occupy much influence during the fall of the Soviet Union after the Cold War at about 1990. Another prominent name was probably Mother Theresa for global missionary concerns, though its your choice who to highlight. One or two names would be useful to add.
    • Hmm, I am sympathetic toward this idea, but frankly, the article has avoided most names unless unavoidable - like Constantine and some of the Popes and Martin Luther. I had originally included some small vignettes about various individuals (I mentioned Niebuhr and his theology) and AirshipJungleman29 berated me and cut it all with some of his most colorful language and images of people pulling out their hair. If I include them, I have to include an explanation of why, and if I do that, I expect I will get yelled at again. Hmmm. It might be worthwhile anyway. If I'm pushy about it and argue well, he will accept. Do you have an idea of what you would like to see? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you are covering Dante in the article, then I recommend adding his De Monarchia as his central book about Christian doctrine, and lilnk it.
    • Not famous enough I'm afraid. Do you know, this article doesn't even name the Summa Theologica or any of Augustine's works? It's a crying shame, especially since many Christian writings have had extensive cultural and artistic impact, but I am back to: it's a broad overview. I should probably remove Dante, but I wanted something in there about someone! I wonder if I could expand it a bit to say something about the impact of Christian literature and just use Dante as an example? What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under your discussion of Luther, you might consider the strong political support he had in Germany; otherwise he is unlikely to have been able to prevail as much as he did against Papal authority. The politics of all this was significant for the Reformation.
  • The death of god movement following Nietzsche and after WWII was also significant in many cultural quarters opposed to religion; should this be mentioned somewhere in the article.
    • I'm actually an admirer of Nietzsche, (one of my undergrad degrees is in philosophy), and I can see why you suggest this. I'm not against it, though I'm not yet for it either. How many philosophies should be mentioned? Is this off topic - a side street? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the death of god movement and/or Nietzsche is relevant to this article - at the board overview level at which it is (appropriately) pitched. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, going with that. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current test of the degree of separation between church and state in the USA appears to be the Lemon test and related constitutional cases. Possibly this fits into the closing sections of your article, though you'll have to decide if the 'state of the art' and the state of religion today would warrant it in importance.
    • I have no desire to get into a discussion of the current state of one principle. There is lots more that could be said - on every topic - but is there more that should be said? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if your article would benefit from a "Background" section to introduce all of the history sections which follow the lede without any introduction. Your comment about the difference between the History of Christianity (the article's subject) and the Theology of Christianity is something that you should stick to and which keeps the article within reasonable size limits. With a brief "Background" section or "Introduction" section, then you can state that the article is about the History explicitly and not Theology. Even though you use 'theology' over 30 times in this article, the meaning will still be clear if you state this separation of subject matter as you have stated it to me. Make this separation of the subject matter a stated delineation of what the article is intended to cover and what it is not outlined to accomplish. It might work to your advantage.
    He has now responded and agreed. I must say I am a bit at sea over what to include however. What do you suggest? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. I've previously given 3 items to cover, and you could ask AirshipJ which topics he thinks are the most appropriate to cover in a Background section. Four other editors in this section have also stated that the history of the 'establishment of religion (Christianity)' is important to them (separation of state and religion) and you could state that you will, or will not, cover it in this article with your best reason for your choice. Both you and AirshipJ should be in agreement on what to include in the Background section. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll chime in that on the separation of state and religion front, Jenhawk777 and I have agreed on (see above) and implemented wording to include Jefferson's role in securing freedom of religion for America and France. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 16:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its likely that other editors will be sympathetic to your need to use a large article to cover all this material at about 200Kb in system size. Try to stick with it since its also clear that you have been putting in a good deal of time on behalf of this subject. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and bless you for understanding. I will absolutely do as much of this as I possibly can or explain what I can't, but it will be next week since this is Easter weekend and I have company. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause Do you have any arguments in favor of this idea that I could use? I will need to convince him of its right to be in this article on main topics only. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you asking about the possibility of including a Background section or Introduction section, for when AirshipJ returns, then it might be possible to suggest that the transition straight from the comprehensive looking lede straight into "c.27" might look a little abrupt in its current form. A Background section would allow you to make the transition from the lede look less abrupt, and let you position that start date of 'c.27' a little better, as well as any other useful Background material for the article as a whole. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with more theology; I definitely remember bringing up the non-mention of the Trinity before. However, I'd be inclined to integrate theology into the article rather than dealing with a separate "background" section, which will be hard to precisely define the scope. I don't feel that the current lead-body transition is abrupt—an article on "History of Christianity" is well-entitled to begin at the beginning of the history of Christianity. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause That is a very polite no to the background section. Sorry. He is my guru, so I will support him. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple issues with the article which could be dealt with succinctly with a short Background section, and I'm not sure that AirshipJ would object. The first point is to make plain that this article is not about the History of Theology but that it is about the History of Christianity (as a religion). Adding that as aground rule helps to focus the article. The other point is your starting point for Christianity as being c.27, which seems to have the potential to disrupt conventions as presented in the Gospel of Matthew article, where Jesus comes after John the Baptist (his recognized precursor), and that c.27 comes significantly after his flight to Egypt with Joseph and Mary. Arguing that the flight to Egypt is not part of History of Christianity might cause a clash of opinion with the editors of the Gospel of Matthew page and the other Synoptic pages. Similarly, Matthew emphasizes the long intergenerational patriarchal line which leads to Jesus from the pages of the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) all the way back to King David and this seems to go in the opposite direction from stating that c.27 starts it all. By having a short Background section, you could deal with all these issues in a quick passage and return your article to your preferred sections of transitional historical eras, which seems to work fairly well for you. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He answered above. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause There is now a second request for a background section from Gonzo_fan2007. If I were to create one, can you give me 3-5 key points that you would like to see included there? AirshipJungleman29 is opposed to this idea, but if you can convince me, I will do it anyway. He will then edit me down with comments like "meaningless babble", so I want to be sure that annoying him is worthwhile. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main three points would likely list the following:
(i) The first point is to make plain that this article is not about the "History of Theology" but that it is about the "History of Christianity" (as a religion). Adding that as aground rule helps to focus the article.
(ii) The second point is your starting point for Christianity as being c.27, which seems to have the potential to disrupt conventions as presented in the Gospel of Matthew article, where Jesus comes after John the Baptist (his recognized precursor), and that c.27 comes significantly after his flight into Egypt with Joseph and Mary. Arguing that the flight to Egypt is not part of History of Christianity might cause a clash of opinion with the editors of the Gospel of Matthew page and the other Synoptic pages. Similarly, Matthew emphasizes the long intergenerational patriarchal line which leads to Jesus from the pages of the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) all the way back to King David and this seems to go in the opposite direction from stating that c.27 starts it all. If you are excluding the Gospel of Matthew approach, then you will need to state this with strong reasoning of why you would choose to exclude the strong Old Testament emphasis which Matthew prefers.
(iii) The third point to cover in a Background section would be your decision not to dwell or even mention the many personalities, saints, and Christian scholars which readers would expect to see mentioned. If you are selecting not to include them, then make your strongest statement of why this is best choice for you by stating it in the new Background section being discussed here. The better your reasons, then the more likely it is for you to make points with the readers and reviewers here. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can, perhaps, see a place for 1 and 3, but since this is a history of the religion that followed after Jesus' death, and not a history of Jesus' life, I am dubious about including point #2. I think it's a side street. I'm worried about where to stop with #3 too. The list is pretty long. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause I have been looking at "scholars and saints" and which of their writings were significant enough to include here, and I am gaining some enthusiasm for #3. So far I have 47!!! Though I'm hoping that will get cut down some. Even with one sentence apiece, each one needs its own source with some statement of significance, which will add considerable word count - and take awhile. Whatever happens with the moderators below, I think I will do this. It won't be in "background", it will be in its appropriate time period, but perhaps this addition, and some of the extra theology, will obviate the need for a background section altogether. Thank you for the suggestion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add that I know of no parent article that has a background section that explains "This is a parent article." There are heading to say 'this is not such and so', and we could add that for theology, but it would just be a single line. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

[edit]
  • First, I want to offer thanks on behalf of the WP community for your efforts to bring such a large and complex article to FAC (three times!) Size is 9,200 prose words which is not excessive ... I got W.E.B. Du_Bois through FAC at the same size, so it can be done.
  • Picture captions are not as useful as they could be. The captions are nearly all simple noun phrases, identifying the picture. They read like the "alt" text used for visually impaired users of WP. In this day and age, many readers of the article will primarily look at the pics. Is it possible to enhance the captions to state an essential fact (from the prose/body) and lure readers to explore further? Here are a few examples (I'm making-up the blue facts for purposes of illustration):
  • A page from a 15th century book of hours (prayer book) with a decorated initial -> Monks in Ireland created prayer books, like this 15th c example, and distributed them throughout Europe.
  • Jesus as the Good Shepherd; catacombs of Rome, c. 300 -> Jesus is often metaphorically refered to as a "shepard" of his worshippers, as illustrated in this 300 AD mural from a Roman catacomb.
  • The facade of St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican City. -> St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican City was built in the 14th century and today houses the papal residence and administrative offices of the Catholic church.
Those are three random examples. Again, the facts in blue are invented by me for illustrative purposes. The article is so nice, and the photos are so nice .... tying the captions into the body text would put this article over the top! If you want any assistance with this, I'd be happy to spend some time working on the captions. Let me know.
  • Per-century template at bottom of article: {{Christianity by century}} That is not very inviting to the general reader. Many readers will have no clue what "C3" means ... I'm not even sure where that shorthand comes from ... is that a thing for historians? I realize you are probably not the creator of that template, but it would be a lot better to spell out "3rd century" or say "3rd c.". Maybe you can contact the person that created the template and ask if they can create an alternative version that is better for general/lay readers?
  • I just created {{Template:Christianity by century verbose}}. Feel free to use it if you want. I'm not saying it is better than what is already used in the article, but many readers will have no idea what "C7" means.
Christian history ("c" is century)
B.C. 1st c. 2nd c. 3rd c. 4th c. 5th c. 6th c. 7th c. 8th c. 9th c. 10th c.
11th c. 12th c. 13th c. 14th c. 15th c. 16th c. 17th c. 18th c. 19th c. 20th c. 21st c.
Done. I think it looks better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the layout of the sources within the section History_of_Christianity#Books_&_periodicals begin single column, then after the Shelton source, it splits into two columns {{refbegin|2}}  ? I've never seen that before. Is that required by the WP MOS when the list of sourcs gets beyond a certain stage? If possible, that whole section should be 1 column; or all 2 columns. The issue is one of confusion: When I saw that change from 1 to 2, I spent a minute, wondering if my browser app was broken; or you the article editor had made a mistake. I refreshed my browser twice. For an FA article, you don't want to confuse readers like that. Of course, ignore this issue if that 1-to-2 transition is required by the WP MOS or limitations of the WP "reflist" software.
  • Wording not ideal Christianity was initially a grassroots movement spread by apostles, in cities, reaching critical mass by the third century .... that parentehtical "in cities" does not scan as smoothly as it should. Consider: Christianity was initially a grassroots movement spread within cities by apostles, reaching critical mass by the third century ....
  • Wording could be better in this very significant Lead sentence: The Western Schism and various European crises in the 14th century led to intense criticism of the Church and the 16th-century Reformation, out of which arose Protestantism. Consider: In the 14th century, the Western Schism and several European crises led to the 16th-century Reformation, which saw a new Protestent branch split-off from the Catholic church.
  • Confusing: East/West: Orthodox Christians in the East tend to be more conservative on most issues than Westerners. It took me a couple of seconds to figure out which East/West this sentence was using. W vs E Europe? Europe vs the Orient? W v E coasts of the USA. Finally I figured it was Rome vs Constantinople, I think? If the article is using "East" "West" that way throughout, I guess it is okay because the reader maybe has been acclimated. But if that sentence is the first/only that uses the words "East" "West" standalone, consider adding more words to qualify it: Orthodox Christians (of the Greek, Russian and Balkans branches) tend to be more conservative on most issues than Protestants and Catholics. or something like that.
  • Linking first usage: movement grew, reaching Antioch, ... This is the first use of Antioch, but it is not linked. Link occurs 1 or 2 sentences later.
  • Word choice in lead: Christianity declined in parts of the West but grew vastly in the East ... "vastly" kinda hurts my ears. I cannot think of a better word, so consider deleting that word from the lead: Christianity declined in parts of the West but grew in the East ... and letting the body of the article describe the magnitude of the growth.
  • "main" templates for sections? Some sections start with a main template (e.g. Main article: Christianity and colonialism but some do not (e.g. History of Christianity#Reformation). Was that a deliberate choice? In this article every section has a full WP article available, so I expect to see a template (either "main" or "See also") in each section. Not saying that is required for FA status, just curious what the rationale was.
    • Templates have been a big bugaboo with some editors adding them by the handful while others delete them with expletives. :-) I can't keep up. Want to volunteer to be the template monitor? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jenhawk777 If there is some contention about the "See also" or "main" links, that could be an obstacle to getting final FA approval. The article has to be in a stable condition. The WP template Template:See also says that see also templates are usually okay: "This template is used to create hatnotes to point to a small number of other related titles at the top of article sections (excluding the lead)." Contrast with "main" template Template:main which can only be used if the section is summarizing another article (and the "main" template links to that other article). "See also" are more common & less objectionable. Is there a centralized place above where there is a discussion on this issue? Can you point to a discussion where a reviewer (or editor?) removed "see also" templates from a section? Noleander (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is stable. There are no current discussions about this and haven't been for awhile. The last one is in Archive 6 when another editor asked about adding "Main" and "See also" links. I answered: "during one of the peer reviews, two separate editors complained about the many "See also" etc. links. They went through and removed them all saying there were sufficient links and references in the article body. In their view, it only added clutter not clarity. So. I have already been dunned for this, and I am willing to bet someone would come along and fail it for that reason if we put them back. Jenhawk777(talk) 9:48 pm, 4 October 2024, Friday (6 months, 17 days ago) (UTC−5)
    He answered, "I would tend to agree with that? In general, I feel like the "responsibility" to link all the important articles is slightly misplaced: the natural links should be guided by the prose, with a central repository for links being facilitated better by an Outline article or navbox. Remsense ‥ 论 10:08 am, 5 October 2024, Saturday (6 months, 16 days ago) (UTC−5)"
    We did our best to meet both requirements, but if you have something specific you feel is lacking, by all means, let's add it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that makes sense. Sorry about the confusion: I thought that you were saying that here in this FA nomination, there was some dispute about "see also" templates. I don't feel real strongly about it, so I withdraw my suggestion. Noleander (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

[edit]

I commented in the first FAC, was too late for the second, and had this on my to-do-list, when Jen invited me to look at the "After World War II" section. I will do that now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide growth

Modern movements

Theological revolution

  • I have difficulties to connect the header with what follows. What does it even mean? I don't see one revolution anywhere, rather questions regarding theologies.
  • "The Holocaust forced many to realize that supersessionism, a replacement theology begun in Late Antiquity, can underlie hatred, ethnocentrism, and racism. Supersessionist texts are increasingly challenged." - That looks shortened so much that it becomes hard to understand. - Admitting that I never heard of supersessionism. "underlie" seems almost too weak.
  • "It's" is no formal writing.
  • "Liberation theology combined with the social gospel to redefine social justice and expose institutionalized sin to aid Latin American poor, but its context limited its application in other environments" - I don't see the verb in that sentence construction, reading "combined" as an adjective. Could be less ambiguous, I think.
  • "Feminist theology developed at the local level", - how about "Feminist theology developed at local levels such as" because I'm sure the three listed are not the only ones.
  • "The missionary movement of the twenty-first century" - is there an article to link to, like for the other movements? Can that statement be seen as a fact, or is it a view? I can't see the two sources for it.
  • Is it a good way to end the article?

I am amazed by the wealth of sources consulted! It must be hard to reduce to the essentials. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose from UC

[edit]

I am hugely impressed by the progress that this article has made since its last nomination. Restricting my comments strictly to the Late Antiquity section: I am in broad agreement with most of it and find little to fault in the details, but I do think there is a slightly selective -- perhaps somewhat biased -- treatment of the picture of violence in this story. At the moment, we have quite a rosy picture of smooth growth and inter-faith convivencia, which was certainly not uniformly the case:

  • I have been waiting for this one, since modern historiography has reversed many previous views on violence and oppression. Peter Brown began the change back in the 60's when he observed that "The belief that Late Antiquity witnessed the death of paganism and the triumph of monotheism, ... is not actual history but is, instead, a "representation" of the history of the age created by "a brilliant generation of Christian writers, polemicists and preachers in the last decade of this period".[1] But let's go through this point by point. I very much want to set your mind at ease.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We say that relations between Christians and non-Christians were generally peaceful: this may not be untrue, but elides that they were occasionally very not peaceful. The famous example here is the murder of Hypatia, but we have a lengthy article on the various official and semi-official persections of "pagans".
    • First, Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire is a good example of an article that desperately needs updating. Second, copying from Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire where all the references are readily available (and I don't have to take the time to put them all here): It is true that "Written historical sources are filled with episodes of conflict, yet events in late antiquity were often dramatized by both pagans and Christians for their own ideological reasons.[2] For many earlier historians, this created the impression of on–going violent conflict between pagans and Christians on an empire-wide scale with the destruction of the Serapeum being only one example of many temples having been destroyed by Christians.[3] New archaeological research has revealed that the Serapeum was the only temple destroyed by violence in this period in Egypt.[4] Classicist Alan Cameron writes that the Roman temples in Egypt "are among the best preserved in the ancient world".[5] Recent scholarship shows Hypatia's murder as largely political and probably in 415 not 391 when the Serapium was destroyed.[6][7]". Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brown 1998, p. 633.
  2. ^ Raschle & Dijkstra 2020, p. 5.
  3. ^ Bayliss 2004, p. 68.
  4. ^ Lavan & Mulryan 2011, p. xxv.
  5. ^ Cameron 2011, p. 799.
  6. ^ Watts 2017, pp. 114–115.
  7. ^ Brown 1998, pp. 26, 47–54.
    • See also the section on "riots against spiritually transgressive outsiders" in this 2017 DPhil thesis.
      • Quoting "There were a few ugly incidents of local violence, but there was also a fluidity in the boundaries between the communities and what Salzman describes as "coexistence with a competitive spirit."[1] In most regions of the Empire, pagans were simply ignored. Current evidence indicates "Jewish communities also enjoyed a century of stable, even privileged, existence" says Brown.[2] Jan N. Bremmer has written that recent evidence shows "religious violence in Late Antiquity is mostly restricted to violent rhetoric: 'in Antiquity, not all religious violence was that religious, and not all religious violence was that violent'."[3] Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Salzman, Sághy & Testa 2016, p. 7.
  2. ^ Brown 2012, p. 643.
  3. ^ Bremmer 2020, p. 9.

References

  1. ^ Cameron 1991, pp. 121–124.
  2. ^ Trombley 2001, pp. 166–168, Vol I; Trombley 2001, pp. 335–336, Vol II.
  3. ^ Lavan & Mulryan 2011, pp. xxiv–xxvi.
  4. ^ Drake 2006, p. 10.
  5. ^ Cameron 2011, p. 19.
    • Ramsey MacMullen, in Christianising the Roman Empire (1985), gave a major role in that story to pagan violence against Christians: see this review (with its reservations), and MacMullen's last chapter. Granted, most people now think MacMullen went too far, but we can't completely do away with the problems his line of work raises.
      • In response to new discoveries "Ramsay MacMullen writes that: "We may fairly accuse the historical record of having failed us, not just in the familiar way, being simply insufficient, but also through being distorted".[1]
    • There's a good book in open access on Christian book-burnings and suppression of pagan texts here. Staying on the topic of violence against stuff and ideas rather than human bodies, see this 2013 book all about the destruction of pagan artworks by Christians. Of course, you might suggest that the distinction I've made there between violence against people's things and violence against people isn't a great one: remembering what Heinrich Heine said about those who burn books...
      • Christians learned it from pagans who had been burning their books for three centuries, but if this were a major trend and not one that you acknowledge was relatively rare, I would still include it. However, "Archaeologist David Riggs writes that evidence from North Africa reveals a tolerance of religious pluralism and a vitality of traditional paganism much more than it shows any form of religious violence or coercion: "persuasion, such as the propagation of Christian apologetics, appears to have played a more critical role in the eventual "triumph of Christianity" than was previously assumed".[2][3] Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ MacMullen 1986, p. 4.
  2. ^ Riggs 2006, pp. 297, 308.
  3. ^ Salzman 2006, pp. 266–267, 272, 285.
    • Alan Cameron, cited in the article, does downplay the "battle" nature of the Pagan--Christian conflict, but does also make clear that explicit state-ordained suppression was a major part of the story as to how Christianity became dominant.
      • Not anymore. "There is no evidence that the harsh penalties of the anti-sacrifice laws were ever enforced.[1]
    • Peter van Nuffelen here (biblio here) does a similar thing to what the article is doing: arguing that the "traditional" view overstates how violent the interactions between pagans and Christians were. However, it's still important -- as he does -- to be clear about what we're winding it down to -- there's still plenty of destroyed temples, riots, lynchings and so on in this account. See in particular this article about the destruction of the Serapeum of Alexandria: to quote from the abstract, The attack on the Serapeum was a deliberately staged, high-profile act of religious violence designed to demonstrate to the wider imperial community that the Roman state was no longer interested in protecting targeted cult sites from Christian militants ... [conducted] by a Christian mob ... with the approval of the reigning emperor
      • It was. But it was the only one out of thousands of temples and shrines. Not a trend. Temple destruction is attested to in 43 cases in the written sources, but only four have been confirmed by archaeological evidence.[2] "According to historian Raymond Van Dam, "an approach which emphasizes conflict flounders as a means for explaining both the initial attractions of a new cult like Christianity, as well as, more importantly, its persistence".[3] Archaeologists Luke Lavan and Michael Mulryan of the Centre for Late Antique Archaeology indicate that archaeology does not show evidence of widespread conflict.[4] Historian Michelle Renee Salzman writes that, in light of current scholarship, violence can not be seen as a central factor in explaining the spread of Christianity in the western empire.[5][6]" Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bradbury 1994, p. 133; Salzman 2006, p. 265.
  2. ^ Lavan & Mulryan 2011, p. xxiv.
  3. ^ Van Dam 1985, p. 2.
  4. ^ Lavan & Mulryan 2011, p. 155.
  5. ^ Salzman 2006, p. 285.
  6. ^ Lavan & Mulryan 2011, pp. xxiv, xxx.
Essentially, we need to thread the needle here -- yes, violence by Christians against pagans was relatively rare (at least by comparison to how often it pops up in contemporary accounts of the period, which is a lot), but it is/was a major part of the story, and the use of indirect violence through the power of the state is an even bigger one.
Empirical laws effectively stamped out the practice of blood sacrifice by the end of the fourth century - because that's what was actually against the law - but as this article states in the body of text, "There was no legislation forcing the conversion of pagans before the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I (r. 527–565), and polytheism remained in some places into the ninth century." Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a similar note -- we need some sense of just how beastly Christians could be to each other -- again, I don't think we need to tell the stories of every heresy, riot and so on, but...
    • It's telling that Brent Shaw's book on inter-Christian violence, just in North Africa, is nearly 1000 pages long.
    • Another book on Donatism and violence, if you're so inclined.
    • See also this chapter: Cameron, Averil (2008). "The Violence of Orthodoxy". In Iricinschi, Eduard; Zellentin, Holger M. (eds.). Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity. Mohr Siebeck. pp. 102–114. ISBN 978-3-16-149122-1.
      • This might be a fair comment. In the section on heresy, it does say heretics were a higher priority than pagans. Mostly all they did was ecommunicate each other, back and forth, but the example of the Donatists in North Africa is a parrticular exception. Secular governments have the right of violent response to law breakers, and Augustine's response to Constantine's is in a note, but it could be put back into content if you feel strongly that it should be in a broad overview article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are more clearly out of step with the mainstream: while the direction of travel on pagan–Christian violence is to downplay it (though again, it's important to remember where that conversation is starting and how far it is(n't) going) -- but nobody downplays the importance of bashing "heretics" in establishing orthodoxy and Christian identity, or the propensity of the early Church to eat its own.

"Bashing heretics" was mostly verbal. The only exception I know of - before the Middle Ages - were the Donatists. Do You have other examples? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Priscillian would be an obvious one, and Theodosius II made it a capital crime to possess Arian works. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looking back at the lead, I'm going to break my rule about sticking to Late Antiquity. Obviously, we have to be selective about we include, but there is a huge skew in places to emphasise the positive and downplay the negative. This, for instance, is our picture of Christianity in the Middle Ages:

In the Middle Ages, western monks preserved culture and provided social services. Early Muslim conquests devastated many Christian communities in the Middle East and North Africa, but Christianization continued in Europe and Asia and helped form the states of Eastern Europe. The 1054 East–West Schism saw the Byzantine Empire's Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Europe's Catholic Church separate. In spite of differences, the East requested western military aid against the Turks, resulting in the Crusades. Faced with internal and external challenges, the church fought heresy and established courts of inquisition. Gregorian reform led to a more centralized and bureaucratic Catholicism. Artistic and intellectual advances among western monks laid the foundations for the Renaissance and the scientific revolution

I'm struck by how we talk of the Muslim conquests "devastating" communities (no "helped form the states of the Levant" here!), but then so blithely pass over exactly what was involved in "helping" Eastern Europe on its journey to its modern states, or exactly what "resulted" from the "aid" given by Catholics to the Byzantines, or exactly what "fighting heresy" looked like on the ground, or exactly what happened in (or after) a court of inquisition. On a separate but important note, I notice that this is really a history of Catholic Christianity in the Middle Ages: stuff was going on in the Orthodox world as well.

Again, I appreciate that we can't cover everything, but we do need to maintain WP:NPOV: the article does a good job of telling the story of the grandeur and the glory, but it also needs to be clear that much of this history is a story of brutality, persecution, prejudice and straight-up violence -- at the moment, we pass very lightly over this in most of the places where it gets a mention at all. None of this diminishes my respect for the work that has been done and the progress that has been made here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist I know this is a hard shift to make. Writing on Christianity as I do, I've gotten a bit used to it over the last ten years, but this shift in scholarship has been going on for over fifty years. It's past time WP recognized that "multiple new discoveries of texts and documents, along with new research (such as modern archaeology and numismatics), combined with new fields of study (such as sociology and anthropology) and modern mathematical modeling, have undermined much of this traditional view. According to modern theories, Christianity became established in the third century, before Constantine, paganism did not end in the fourth century, and imperial legislation had only limited effect before the era of the Eastern emperor Justinian I (reign 527 to 565).[1][2][3][4] In the twenty-first century, the conflict model has become marginalized...[5][6] I'm hoping you will be open-minded enough to be willing to admit what contemporary sources support w/o holding on to older outdated theories. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hopkins 1998, p. 192.
  2. ^ Judge 2010, p. 4.
  3. ^ Trombley 1985, pp. 327–331.
  4. ^ Humfress 2013, pp. 3, 76, 83–88, 91.
  5. ^ Scourfield 2007, pp. 2–4.
  6. ^ Collar 2013, p. 271.
Thank you for your responses, and I appreciate the time you've taken over them. At the moment, my concerns stand: I think there is a systematic downplaying, in the article, of the level of religious violence and persecution that run throughout this story. In particular, I think we misunderstand scholarship saying "this process was not as violent as it has previously been imagined" as giving us licence to write things to the effect of "violence was not an important part of this process". You've often met one scholarly work with another that contradicts it, which isn't how our policies work: if a perspective is offered in scholarship, we have to treat it in proportion to its prevalence there.
Not necessarily. [[20]] "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

UndercoverClassicist has not named any current advocates of their position. If there are any - not from 1985 - they would represent a tiny minority. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Some other examples where I think the balance is a long way off:
  • This is our treatment of the crusades in the body: Drawing on powerful and prevalent aspects of folk religion, the First Crusade connected pilgrimage, charity, and absolution with a willingness to fight. It gave ordinary Christians a tangible means of expressing brotherhood with the East and carried a sense of historical responsibility. The Crusades contributed to the development of national identities in European nations and, eventually, increased division with the East. Again, there are some obvious elephants in this room -- the crusades are much more memorable for giving thousands of violent men the chance to sail abroad and kill non-Christians and feel holy while doing it. Ballpark estimates for the number of people killed by the crusaders are in the hundreds of thousands, and sometimes in the millions. Without making the obvious and facile comparisons, it is clearly limited and arguably offensive to talk about a process of mass violence while giving no real sense of the violence involved.
    • Bloody war was the norm. Estimates of numbers are unreliable, but what sources there are, though varying widely, indicate more Christians died in the Crusades than Muslims at a rate of about ten to one - up to ten percent of Europe's population. Current scholarship on crusades leans toward recognizing that they saw themselves as defenders, and they were no more violent than anyone else at the time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral misbehaviour and heresy committed by either laity or clergy were prosecuted in inquisitorial courts that were only established when needed and were composed of both church and civil authorities.: this seems like we're being apologists for the inquisition: in Spain, for instance, the point of many inquisitorial courts was to persecute people who (or whose ancestors) had been forced to convert to Christianity from Judaism, because even their being Christians wasn't enough to make Christians do away with their antisemitism. We seem to be saying that this was a necessary thing to do! See also The Medieval Inquisition brought between 8,000 and 40,000 people to interrogation and sentencing; death sentences were relatively rare: even the low estimates here are in the thousands, and then there's all the torture...
    You're right, and I apologise for mixing those two up -- though I think my point about "only when needed" stands -- under what circumstances is it "needed" to round up people, and potentially torture, expropriate or kill them, for believing in the wrong thing -- as the Medieval Inquisition certainly did?
    When we do come to the Spanish Inquisition later, I think the problem is even more marked: there, we have:

    Between 1478 and 1542, the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions were initially authorized by the church but soon became state institutions. Authorized by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478, the Spanish Inquisition was established to combat fears that Jewish converts were conspiring with Muslims to sabotage the new state. Five years later, a papal bull conceded control of the Spanish Inquisition to Spanish monarchs, making it the first national, unified, centralized institution of the nascent Spanish state.

    Again, I see the same pattern: lots of effort made to downplay the role of religion in what was a fundamentally religious operation, dubious, possibly-justificatory rationale ("to combat fears that Jewish converts were conspiring with Muslims to sabotage the new state" sounds like this was a reasonable thing to do: we wouldn't say that lynching was a means of "combatting fears that black men were raping white women".) Here there's absolutely no mention at all of what the inquisition actually did. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was Spain's version of the KGB. Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nobility of Eastern Europe prioritized subduing the Balts, the last major polytheistic population in Europe, over crusading in the Holy Land. In 1147, the Divina dispensatione gave these nobles indulgences for the first of the Northern Crusades, which intermittently continued, with and without papal support, until 1316. The clergy pragmatically accepted the forced conversions the nobles perpetrated despite continued theological emphasis on voluntary conversion.: another case where we seem to be justifying/apologising for truly horrific acts (we seem to be implying that the religious establishment wasn't really on board with this, but cleverly and "pragmatically" swallowed their opposition). At the same time, the thousands of people killed don't get a mention.
  • Later, on missionaries: Colonialism, which began in the fifteenth century, originated either on a militaristic/political path, a commercial one, or with settlers who wanted land. Christian missionaries soon followed with their own separate agenda. "Companies, politicians, missionaries, settlers, and traders rarely acted together" and were often in conflict. Some missionaries supported colonialism while just as many took stances against colonial oppression: this is much too rosy. We need to be clear that Christianity and Christian institutions played major roles in endorsing colonial expansion and in providing an ideological backing for racialised slavery.
    • Does anyone dispute that the nobles were in charge of the Baltic Crusades? This is current scholarship. The stated view of colonialism is as well. Again you have conflated events in time. The "supposed "curse of Ham" was not used to justify slavery until the 1800s in America especially by Mormons who didn't exist before the Second Awakening. "Ham" was not an aspect of colonialism which had begun 300 years previously. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some other questions of balance: the Second and Third Great Awakenings each get a chunky paragraph, despite being almost entirely limited to the United States: the French Revolution gets a short sentence, by contrast, and the European wars of religion are barely mentioned except to make the claim that they weren't about religion. I note that we write most historians argue that the wars were more about nationalistic state-building and economics, and less about religion. and cite Onnekink, who is making precisely the opposite claim in the cited material -- he is saying that past historians wrongly downplayed the religious aspect of these wars. The claim does not appear to be verified by either of the other two sources cited: the cited page of Murphy is about a completely different topic.
    • Onnekink, page 3: "To most historians, these struggles for power merely occurred 'under a cloak of religion'." Efforts to put religion back into the wars of religion have required redefining religion as sociocultural rather than as a set of beliefs - as religion defines itself.
    • Onekink page 6: "...no consensus has emerged from all this about the religious nature of these conflicts..."
    • Murphy page 481: "For example, although the ‘‘wars of religions’’ in early modern Europe are often described as showing the necessity of the modern secular state, many historians deny that these wars were about religion at all."
    • Murphy page 484: "many historians argue that these ‘‘wars of religion’’ were not really about religion but about state-building, nationalism, and economics." Jenhawk777 (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pope Pius IX gets off very lightly: we mention that that the Catholic church opposed the Nazis and fascists on various points, which is true, and was persecuted by both, which is true, but we seem to pass over that they also tried to make accommodations with both regimes, which included giving at best a very muted response to some of the worst acts of the early Nazi regime. The other major missing piece here is the collaboration between the Catholic Church and Francisco Franco.
Throughout, there are also errors of formatting, MoS and prose: the "Modern movements" section, in particular, could do with some work for prose and balance. For instance, we mention several fairly small postcolonial, feminist and other generally "nice" schools of thought, but make no mention of the Christian right. We mention Liberation theology but not how the church reacted against it and those who preached it. In the bibligraphy, there are a couple of Harvard errors, a few mistakes of formatting, and a couple of sources that raise an eyebrow: we cite a 1947 guide to papermaking for the importance of the Cistercians to technological advancement.
I see the challenges of synthesising a massive amount of information, and that full context can't always be provided everywhere, but I don't think that's the issue here. At the moment, I see a consistent skew downplaying the acts of violence and persecution done by Christians, in Christianity's name, or with the endorsement of Christian institutions, while there is also a consistent theme whereby Christian (particularly Catholic) resistance to persecution and autocracy is over-emphasised. I don't think the article is ready yet, and can see that fixing this would be a tremendous job, so have put my vote to oppose -- I am very happy to revisit this if the article changes. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I do appreciate these remarks UndercoverClassicist, it all seems a little tinged with a sort of WP:RGW-feeling. To take your first point about the Crusades—yes, hundreds of thousands were killed and immense suffering was caused, but these are things that you would expect an overview article of the Crusades to cover. For any other article, on the other hand, you would expect details of how the Crusades affected the article subject. The Ninth Crusade led to the deaths of thousands of people, but it would be unreasonable to insist that Edward I of England#Crusade and accession include references to all that suffering just because they happened: the focus must remain on the article subject.
In the case of the history of Christianity, any reasonable encyclopedic article would include references to the short-and-long-term effects the crusading movement and associated people had on the religion as a whole, not moral judgements on the ethics of those involved. You will probably find that high-quality academic sources will follow that same logical reasoning. With an article of this size there will always be some elephants in the room. WP:NPOV tells us the only viable path is to write purely from the sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we're going to agree here -- which is fine; it would be odd if everyone's views on an article like this were the same. I'll try to keep this brief, therefore: I think this is probably going to end up with the coordinators making a call rather than one or the other of us coming round to the other's perspective.
I do see the RGW charge, but I'm not sure it's justified here -- to use an example from above, if there were indeed a huge body of scholarship on mujerista theology, while next to nothing had been written about the Christian Right, the current balance would make perfect sense -- but my view is that the situation is the other way around. Likewise, if there were no scholarship on the connections (ideological and institutional) between Christianity and imperialism, it would be WP:UNDUE to mention it, and so this article's balance would be correct -- but that's very far from the true situation.
If I understand your second point correctly, it's that an article (a biography, for example) should focus only on how that thing affected that thing (so Edward I's article should only include things that affected Edward). We don't have a lot of FA biographies on "complicated" historical figures, but if you look at (for example) Genghis Khan, that has a very balanced "Assessment" section which talks about the role of his empire in pushing development in Eurasia, his status as a national hero -- and the immense destruction done by his conquests and the failings attributed to him by biographers. At a rough guesstimate, the balance between good and bad is about even. Edward I, similarly, is very open about how Edward is viewed in Ireland and Scotland, and his role in medieval antisemitism: the careful and even-handed tone of the "Legacy" section there is very different to what I see in this article.
Again, I do see that there will always be things left out, but my main issue here isn't that the article misses things -- it's that there is a consistent, non-NPOV pattern to what we choose to include and what we don't, which isn't a good reflection of the scholarship. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Christian Right is politics not religion imo. I don't mind adding it, but no one asked me to do so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask the arbitrators to intervene. The references UndercoverClassicist cites are misleading; they don't support his position.

His first reference is a PhD thesis, so it isn't a high-quality source, plus, it is a study of lower-class violence only and does not directly discuss how violent Christianity might have been on the whole in Late Antiquity. In the chapter he references on "outsiders", her conclusion is on page 287: "...outsiders were not likely to trigger urban unrest unless their behaviour – whether religious or secular – was considered unacceptable. If moral or normative boundaries were overstepped however, urban communities in the late antique West clearly had a certain degree of agency to violently redress the situation, whether the authorities were sympathetic, disinterested or indeed hostile to that response." That does not claim what UC asserts.

His next reference is to the book "Violence in Ancient Christianity", which is a collection of papers delivered at a conference by that name. In the introduction by Albert C. Geljon and Riemer Roukema, page 1, it has: "After Christianity had become the dominant religion, testimonies to Christian violence against pagans and their temples do exist, but [Jan] Bremmer points to those scholars whose critical analysis of the literary and archaeological sources contests their historical reliability. In his view, cases of destruction of pagan temples by Christians were exceptions". The next three papers are not directly on this topic of Christian violence, until pages 3 and 4: "Elizabeth Boddens Hosang (PhD Tilburg University) studies the attitude of Christians toward Jews showing that "at [the] grass root level, Christians continued to interact with Jews, were not opposed, e.g., to giving their daughters to Jews in marriage, and were interested to obtain blessings from Jews... until fifth- and sixth-century Gaul...". Hans van Loon discusses Hypatia. On Page 5: "Van Loon concludes that the widespread view that the archbishop [Cyril] was directly responsible for Hypatia’s death is not correct." The next few pages discuss three specific examples (Priscillan and Donatists) questioning traditional interpretations, and the third on reception of the Christian doctrine of "love your enemies" as "ambivalent." This is the state of current research. Coverage of anti-semitism could be beefed up, but otherwise, there is no statement supporting Christianity as overtly violent in Late Antiquity in any of these papers.

Next is Ramsey MacMullen, in Christianising the Roman Empire (1985) which is too old and outdated to be used here.

Then he references an article by Dirk Rohmann titled "Christianity, Book‑Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity" which, again, does not support his position. Let's just skip to the conclusion on page 301: "If a wide definition of censorship is accepted, which involves the active refusal to copy certain texts because current (religious) authorities effectively prohibited this, then the polemical discourse of Christian authors, along with imperial and ecclesiastical bans on literature described with similar terminology, can practically be understood as censorship". Not violence.

In chapter 25, "Religious Violence in Late Antiquity" by Peter Van Nuffelen, he traces the traditional narrative on pages 512 to 515, then on page 516, begins his analysis leading to his conclusion on page 519: "new avenues in scholarship provide a more profound contextualisation of religious violence and lead, in effect, to a dissolution of that very concept. Once freed of the idea of an all-encompassing religious violence that is born in late antiquity, we may be able to return to the evidence and reassess it with fresh eyes." He goes on to page 520: "This does not mean that Christians did not engage in violence (man does contravene moral injunctions), but their justificatory strategies play out against a background of moral condemnation." [of violence]. On page 524 he says, "Christianity self-identified with peace and a rejection of violence". And on page 527: "This chapter has argued that the traditional identification of late antiquity with religious violence has obstructed [understanding]... Of course there were acts of violence perpetrated by religious individuals and groups, but it is questionable that these should set the tone ..." of how we view the period.

AirshipJungleman29's response to elephants in the room seems reasonable and justified. While UndercoverClassicist attempts to make "proof" statements concerning POV in this article, his statements are factually incorrect and contrary to the sources. For example, he says "We need to be clear that Christianity and Christian institutions played major roles in endorsing colonial expansion and in providing an ideological backing for racialised slavery." That's factualy incorrect. It was, in fact, social-Darwinism and anthropology that provided the ideological justification for racism. Scientists like Charles White, advocated for Polygenism, the belief that different races had separate origins and were distinct species. Europeans were seen as the original, most "perfect" race, and other races were "degenerate" or "primitive". This was never supported by Christianity because it contradicted the biblical narrative in Genesis of a single first couple, Adam and Eve, from whom all humanity descends. Christianity was ridiculed for its primitive theological views and its failure to accept the science of the times. I asked AirshipJungleman29 about including this, but he deemed it off topic. The sources say colonialism was equally supported and opposed. UC offers nothing beyond this bare assertion.

There was at one time a listing of the various views on the wars of religion, but since the sources said the majority of historians now say those wars were more about state building, AirshipJungleman29 edited it down to that one majority position. This was based on the idea that, in an article of this type, all the minority positions cannot be discussed. The Nazis were likewise reduced - see Talk page discussions. If there is consensus that these are inadequately covered, I am happy to adjust accordingly.

UC's misrepresentation of what his supposed sources say, combined with the multiple references I quote and have page numbers for, clearly demonstrates that UC is simply mistaken. I request that the moderators here weigh in. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: see the above request (which I also endorse) for a judgement. If the oppose is viable, the article will have to undergo considerable revision, and that will not possible within the temporal and logistical confines of FAC, so if that is the case, please archive this nomination here. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's going to be helpful for me to continue the discussion here -- this is already an antisocially long review. I've made one comment above, partly to acknowledge my own mistake. I'll put on record that I've read Jenhawk777's replies to date and my oppose stands. Thank you to both nominators for their civil and constructive responses -- we disagree, but I'm pleased that we can do so collegially. Even though I don't think it meets the FA criteria at this time, my admiration for the improvements they've made to this article remains undiminished. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As UC and JH both note, this is a content dispute, based on the sources. My view is that it would be helpful to have more discussion on what the current scholarly consensus is in an attempt to reach a Wikipedian consensus. This is regardless of whether the nomination is eventually archived on other grounds - not suggesting nor judging, just covering the implied eventuality. Such discussion may reach a consensus that the current wording is acceptable, or only in need of mild tweaking. So I don't see this oppose as a show stopper at the moment. I am, as ever, open to correction and or differing opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we disagree on the facts of very much (there are some important areas where that's not the case, but I'll come back to that), though we do disagree on the reading of some sources. What I generally see above is a disagreement on which facts ought to be included. Without wishing to speak for Jenhawk777, I think their general approach is to try to seek a single historical consensus for contentious points -- we see this in the approach above, where their response to sources (or parts thereof) presenting perspective A is to find different sources arguing for perspective B. This is a big and contentious topic: in most cases, we're not going to be able to determine "the answer", but will have to, as Airship says above, write from the sources. Again, I'd bring up those biographies of Edward I and Genghis Khan as good examples: it would be a huge mistake to try to find the "consensus" as to whether Edward was a villain or Genghis Khan a good thing for the world's development.
Although I've written the most on Late Antiquity, I think we're probably closest in view there: we agree, I think, on the following:
  • Christian writers in Late Antiquity presented the process of Christianisation as an extremely violent one -- first a matter of huge state persecution of Christians, then as a titanic popular struggle between pagans and Christians, in which Christians defeated paganism through force.
  • The latter was centred upon the destruction of pagan sites, text and objects, and to a lesser extent physical violence against pagan believers. There were certain "canonical" moments of violence, such as the destruction of the Serapeion of Alexandria.
  • This was largely taken to be an accurate picture of the period until the 1980s: since then, scholars have placed greater emphasis on the ideological importance of these violent narratives, and their role in creating a story of Christian triumph as well as intimidating those pagans who remained.
  • At the same time, scholars have reduced their impression of the amount of physical violence that occurred between pagan and Christian communities, and no longer consider violence to be the dominant mode of interaction between them.
In most other cases, I think we disagree not on the facts but whether they should be told. There are others in this conversation much better placed to comment on whether our portrayal of the Crusades is congruent with what you'd see in a balanced but brief scholarly overview, but I don't think we have many disagreements as to exactly what crusading looked like. Likewise, I don't think JH is ignorant of the ambivalence involved in the relationship between Catholicism and C20th dictatorships, or the existence of Francoism -- we just disagree on whether it's important to talk about those things.
There are a couple of areas of factual disagreement, however. Flicking through (well, scrolling through the PDFs of) the Cambridge World History of Slavery, I notice (describing the period c. 1400 – c. 1800:

Religious institutions also became important owners of slaves, particularly among the Christian churches in the Americas. In South America, the Roman Catholic orders depended heavily on African slaves for labor in their monasteries, missions, and landed estates. In Russia, church and state held large numbers of serfs on large estates. (vol. 3, p. 499)

That's a very different picture to what we have in the article, where the only mention of religious activity in the Americas is:

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, reductionist villages for natives in regions of Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil were established by Jesuits and other orders. Jesuits promoted local skills and technical innovations, working exclusively in the native language to form an "agrarian collective" kept separate from the rest of colonial society, with serfdom and forced labor forbidden.

One claim that particularly caught my eye for WP:EXTRAORDINARY was Some missionaries supported colonialism while just as many took stances against colonial oppression. In an age when colonial expansion was overwhelmingly accepted, that's a remarkably progressive bunch of people! It's cited to this paper -- I can't access the full text, but it seems to be a slightly polemical politics/economics paper titled "Economic Colonialism: The New Empire Building of the 21st Century", published in Academy of Business Journal. I need some convincing that that's a WP:HQRS on early modern religious history. Meanwhile, we have this essay in the Journal of Jesuit Studies (published by Brill), which describes how the Jesuits, despite initial qualms at the fact and implementation of colonialism, ultimately accepted (notably not including slavery) and fuelled it:

Maldavsky demonstrates that as the Spanish, Italian, Belgian, and Portuguese missionaries arrived in the Andes, the ideal of a pure mission was complicated by the Society’s entanglements with Spanish colonialism. ...

[T]he development of the Jesuit province of Peru ... depended on royal patronage. Jesuits from Europe traveled to Spanish America on board Spanish vessels, their passage and stipends paid for by the Spanish crown. In the 1570s, (José de) Acosta was keenly aware that the presence of the fathers formed part of Philip II’s plan to strengthen royal authority against the unruly encomenderos in the Andes. ... Yet, Spanish policy provoked strong condemnation ... the Spanish Jesuit Luis López questioned the legitimacy of the conquest and described the Spaniards in the following terms: Their principal aim was to acquire and get rich, and to this end they undertook spiritual things, if anyone was up to it at all, which was a most regrettable thing. ... A decade later, the outspoken López was arrested by the governor and shipped back to Spain. There were no more critics of Spanish conquest; the Society made its peace with the colonial order.

In accommodating with Spanish colonialism, the Jesuit enterprise in Peru was acquiring more and more European characteristics ... In the 1610s, after the splitting of the Peruvian province, the Jesuits found a renewed sense of vocation in the so-called missions for the extirpation of idolatry. The aim of these missions, as their name suggests, was to root out native religious and cultural traditions that remained in practice even after Christianization. The main targets for these missions were the huacas, mummified ancestral remains, and sacred pre-Christian sites, which still attracted native allegiance. Attributing the inadequacy of native Christianization to the low quality of the parish clergy, and equating the survival of native traditions with potential subversion, the colonial state appointed Jesuit missionaries as experts in these campaigns of repression.

This article on the changing historiography of Catholic missions is also worth a read: again I'll quote:

Written by Australian anthropologist Inga Clendinnen, Ambivalent Conquests: Maya and Spaniard in Yucatán, 1517–1570, offered a new paradigm in the field of missionary history ... The story of colonization and evangelization in the Yucatan during the second half of the sixteenth century was one of misunderstanding and violence. ... The discovery of purported sites of this rite [human sacrifice] in the 1580s infuriated the Franciscan protectors of the Mayans. Diego de Landa, Superior of the Friars Minor in the Yucatan, exploded in a rage of anger and cruelty, applied with secular violence against the arrested and alleged perpetrators of this cult. Over time, coercion succeeded in consolidating the "spiritual conquest".

I'm sorry to have created a wall of text doing exactly what I said was the problem above -- "you have sources saying A; I have sources saying B" -- but I hope this illustrates where I think some important scholarly views are, and why I don't think this article yet does a good job of reflecting them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am mistaken but both at the time of your writing and now, isn't the cited source for that claim on colonialism Gardner and Roy's 2020 book The Economic History of Colonialism, rather than the 2014 paper "Economic Colonialism: The New Empire Building of the 21st Century" by Garfolo and ĽHuillier of your EBSCO link? Gardner and Roy are accomplished economic historians and the cited pages of their book do support the current wording, such as:
  • "As Chapter 6 discusses in greater detail, colonial government investments in education were minimal until the very end of the colonial period. Thus only a relatively small share of colonized people was able to access education. However, those who did so generally did it through mission schools (sometimes subsidized), in which the vast majority of students were enrolled." (p.11). This quote establishes that missionary aims were often counter to the subjugation sought by colonialism.
  • "In a study of British Africa, Ewout Frankema (2012) argues that it was primarily African demand rather than European decisions that influenced where missions were located." (p.70). Again, the missionaries are said to have acted independent of imperialist aims.
Coupled with the authors' qualifications, this book heavily relies on the economic history research of Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson that won that trio the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics definitely qualifying it as a high-quality reliable source. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 21:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll do that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I had idealistic visions of moderators working late into the night, studiously researching this topic of violence in Late Antiquity for themselves, becoming fully informed and returning armed with a verdict from on high. Sigh. Another idol smashed. Do you want more discussion here or in the article itself? I am happy to do either or both. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The coordinators (not moderators nor arbitrators) judge whether a consensus to promote has been reached. A formal oppose is a strong, but not overwhelming, indication that it hasn't. Several editors agreeing - anywhere on Wikipedia, but here is good - that they are not wholly convinced by the reasons for an oppose may lead the coordinators to overlook it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist No worries, your wall of text is just fine. It's probably even appropriate. That's less gracious than it sounds because I am going to respond in kind. If we can establish some agreement on certain basic points, perhaps we can work this out between us.
  1. If at any point we have simply disagreed about a reading of a source, tell me, I am happy to back off, freely admitting I could be the one who misunderstands. But I think we do disagree about facts as well as about what facts should be included.
  2. Much of this topic is controversial, and yes, I do try to present the consensus - if and when there is one. I could be wrong, but I think that's what MOS tells us a WP editor's job is. If there is a majority view, we are supposed to find, source, and present it, and only include minority views when they are significant enough to warrant it. Do you agree with that basic point? That matters.
  3. Next, biographies are not a good comparison with this broad history. It's no doubt accurate to say "it would be a huge mistake to try to find the "consensus" as to whether Edward was a villain", but that is not applicable to the question of whether or not Christianity triumphed in Late Antiquity through violence. The first is an assessment of moral character, the second is a question concerning factual events. Apples and oranges.
  4. You write: "Christian writers in Late Antiquity ... presented Christianization...as a titanic popular struggle between pagans and Christians, in which Christians defeated paganism through force." Agreed. No argument.
  5. "There were certain "canonical" moments of violence". Agreed. No argument.
  6. "This was largely taken to be an accurate picture of the period until the 1980s". Agreed. No argument.
  7. Then you say, "since then, scholars have placed greater emphasis on the ideological importance of these violent narratives, and their role in creating a story of Christian triumph as well as intimidating those pagans who remained." I think this might be the source of our problem. This is not correct.
  8. After 1975, evidence expanded beyond ancient narrative and traditional literary works. It wasn't just our interpretation of literature that altered. The evidentiary basis grew beyond literature to include coins, gravestones, inscriptions, philology, architecture, archaeology, and the exciting discoveries of papyri previously lost; economics, demographics, legal practices, the history of ideas, and the new sciences of sociology and anthropology all made great new contributions; in the 1980s, computers synthesized large studies of multi-layered work pulling together results which were more detailed than anything than had ever been done before. The evidence changed, not our point of view.
  9. This is important to note. Modern scholarship does not simply reflect a change in perspective. It reflects new facts, new knowledge, new information.
  10. James B. Rives' wrote a journal article titled "Graeco-Roman Religion in the Roman Empire: Old Assumptions and New Approaches" that discusses some of the shift in hegemony of old vs. new. His article is in "Currents in Biblical Research" dated 2010, [doi=10.1177/1476993X09347454|s2cid=161124650] It is 15 years old now, but much of what it says about the state of modern scholarship - and why it's in that state - is still pertinent.
  11. Philip Rousseau and Jutta Raithel edited "A Companion to Late Antiquity. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Ancient History" (isbn= 9781405119801). On page 3, the author explains that "the simple decision to conduct an archaeological dig at Kellis (Ismant el-Kharab) in recent years... has demanded the adjustment of a range of assumptions... New discoveries of doublets of already existing texts can also lead to dramatic reappraisal."
  12. Still, even with a misunderstanding of cause, you are, remarkably, still able to arrive at the majority view: scholars have reduced their impression of the amount of physical violence that occurred between pagan and Christian communities, and no longer consider violence to be the dominant mode of interaction between them.
  13. Where, then, is our problem? I don't understand. What are we disagreeing about? I thought you were advocating for including violence as a major player. Have I misunderstood you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. In most other cases, I think we disagree not on the facts but whether they should be told. and you use the Crusades as an example. I agree this is our biggest bone of contention. Using your example, the Crusades are an important topic with lots of scholarship. In this article it has three sentences. Scandinavia is covered in two. Renaissance only gets a couple of sentences. I don't think there is a single topic that gets more than a paragraph. Every topic is inadequately covered by any standard. It is impossible to do otherwise, and that is all about space and word count - 100% - it has nothing to do with an inability to be neutral. If you were to choose, what would you say are the three most significant points to include about the Crusades? I thought their cause was far above numbers of deaths in importance as numbers can mislead and have little probative value.
  15. I also ask anyone else following this to weigh in: What 3 main points on crusades would you include and why?
  16. In the article, there is one sentence on slavery The 300-year-old trans-Atlantic slave trade, in which some Christians had participated... that does seem inadequate. But I'm concerned that this already has half a paragraph! Keeping in mind that the French revolution has two sentences, the American revolution has one, the invention of multiple Christian denominations barely gets one apiece, and so on, how much more do you think is appropriate to include? I need to know because I like your source and want to use it.
  17. Some missionaries supported colonialism while just as many took stances against colonial oppression. This is not extraordinary in its claim. It's Lamin Sanneh. He died a few years ago and books are now being written about him, but he was Professor of Missions and World Christianity at Yale Divinity School and Professor of History at Yale University. I reference a couple of his books and an essay, I think, maybe his article first published in "Christian Century" magazine titled "Christian Missions and the Western Guilt Complex". But what I wonder is whether we can at least agree that colonialism is even more complex than the Crusades, and it already has three paragraphs.
  18. Again I ask anyone weighing in here: what are three to five key points about colonialism as it relates specifically to the history of Christianity, not military or economic history, that you think should be included?

So, now I'm exhausted! I have hope we can work this out if we can agree on a base-line. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- one small point and then some big ones.
On Sanneh -- the book cited is here. In the chapter we cite, he explicitly presents his argument as revisionist and against the (current/then) scholarly consensus -- which is an odd choice if we're seeking majority views! Even then, the quote in question is The evidence paints a complicated picture of the diverse and unpredictable indigenous responses to Christianity because the premise of missionary hegemony is faulty. There were equally as many examples of Christianity coalescing with anti-colonial activities and movements as there were of imperial collusion and acquiescence., which is very much not the same as Some missionaries supported colonialism while just as many took stances against colonial oppression -- it covers, for example, Christianity being used as an idea by non-European resisters to colonialism. In fact, he then goes on to be clear that he's talking about people from within colonised societies, and throughout, he's clear that missionaries were inseperable from colonialism while also being important parts of anti-colonial resistance. So we have a source which acknowledges itself as outside the scholarly mainstream, and even it isn't making anything like as strong as a claim as we're making.
UndercoverClassicist Thank you for hanging in and continuing to make the effort here, but I have to say, this one confuses me. The sentence you reference sounds exactly like what I say. Indeed, as you yourself sum it up: he's clear that missionaries were inseperable from colonialism while also being important parts of anti-colonial resistance. He is no longer outside the mainstream, if he ever truly was, but there is additional sourcing demonstrating agreement with his view of the ambivalence of missionaries.
  • Gardner & Roy have a whole chapter on the origins of colonialism. They list four, and Christianity wasn't one. "Missionaries in the 18th century did not carry a vision of an empire nor, as far as we can know, the desire for one..." (page 20)
  • Gardner & Roy, page 11: "Missionaries are also credited with important influences in the economic legacies of colonialism through their role in the provision of education."
  • In "The Oxford Handbook of Nineteenth-century Christian Thought", page 282: "European colonial and capitalist expansion... provided the context - and sometimes the contest - for Christian missions... the popular ...caricature of missionaries as cultural imperialists [needs] a closer look..."
  • Oxford, page 283: "missionary intellectuals often stood in a tense and ambiguous relationship with colonialism...Missionary activities could both disrupt and empower indigenous cultural traditions... The dominant theological tempers... ensured the movements essentially orthodox and conservative theological character throughout the period... page 287: "a missionary was bound to remonstrate if he believed the great principles of justice, humanity and Christian duty to be violated..."
  • In "Converting Colonialism: Visions and Realities in Mission History, 1706-1914", edited by Dana L. Robert, beginning on page 4: "Rather than assuming that missionaries in all times and places supported colonialism, it is more accurate to speak in ambiguous terms of missionary efforts to 'convert' it. Forced to operate within a political framework of European expansionism that lay outside their power to control, missionaries and early converts variously attempted to co-opt aspects of colonialism deemed compatible with missionary goals and to change what seemed prejudicial... In some cases, missionaries directly challenged the political and economic systems that sustained colonialism. In other cases, they welcomed the benefits..."
This list could continue and would continue with the same results. The sentence Some missionaries supported colonialism while just as many took stances against colonial oppression. is an accurate representation of current scholarship. Advocating to add back into this article the old "caricature" is just wrong. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily disputing that, but it isn't stated in the source we currently cite, and I don't see that any of the quotations above actually say it either. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like Jenhawk777, I am confused by your interpretation of the Sanneh quote because his first sentence calling the premise of missionary hegemony faulty means that anti-colonial Christianity sentiments were shared by at least some missionaries, rather than just acting as an idea for non-European resisters. Regardless, the third source for this claim comes from The Cambridge History of Christianity series, which is as mainstream as it gets. On the cited page, Gilley writes "Missionary Christianity often had a difficult and ambiguous relationship to the spread of the colonial empires, which had quite separate agendas: sometimes, as in India and the Sudan, in opposition to missions," which again establishes that missionaries and colonialists were often at odds. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 21:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but that's not what the article says. The article says that an equal number of missionaries supported and opposed colonialism, and we've yet to find a source that actually says that. It's a relatively small point, but I'm concerned that I have made a couple -- admittedly, not anything close to a systematic survey -- of looks in detail at specific points of sourcing in this article, and every one has turned up basic problems of WP:TSI and/or sources of questionable reliability. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my above response that your claim of questionable reliability for this sentence seems to be founded on confusion between the actually cited book The Economic History of Colonialism and similarly titled article "Economic Colonialism: The New Empire Building of the 21st Century". While Jenhawk777 and I think that "while just as many took stances against colonial oppression" does not imply numerical equivalency, but rather establishes that missionaries acted independent of colonialist aims, would you support the following rewording: "Some missionaries supported colonialism, but many took stances against oppressive colonial practices like the Spanish encomienda labor system." with an added citation to Tiedemann 2008, p.454-456 of the mainstream Cambridge History of Christianity series, which documents such conflict over the encomienda labor system as an example of missionary opposition to colonial oppression? ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 13:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Just as many" is a numerical statement.
That change would have benefits, but it still has drawbacks -- the weight is clearly not equal between the two parts, for example, so it ends up emphasising the resistance much more than the support. We would still have practically nothing in the article about the collaboration of missionaries and churches with colonialism, and the only mention of those in connection with slavery would be abolitionism, which is a problem when we also have scholarship saying that churches were major participants in slavery.
Moreover, it's a comparatively small fix to a widespread problem: it would be a positive step, but I don't think it would by itself shift the overall balance of the article very far, and so I wouldn't want to give false hope that it would make much difference to the outcome of this review unless accompanied by a fairly broad rebalancing across the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside perhaps irreconcilable differences over whether the article is sufficiently negative on Christian violence, what do you think about: "Missionary support for colonial oppression varied, as missionaries oversaw the forced assimilation of Native Americans but opposed the Spanish encomienda labor system." citing Tiedemann 2008, p.454-456; Gilley 2006, p. 3; and Child 2022?
As for your other major concern over the church's role in slavery, I agree that slaveholding by missionaries deserves greater mention, given that slave labor was used to build still-standing religious institutions like Georgetown University. How about: "Support for the Atlantic slave trade was split between Christian denominations, as Jesuits were among the largest slaveholders in the Americas, while Quakers were early proponents of abolition." to replace the current sentence beginning with "The 300-year-old ..." ? ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the intention here, but neither of those are particularly good fixes: as before, they go some way to solving the problem, but introduce new problems of their own. We're also still at the place of rearranging relatively small parts of a very long article with the same issues running throughout, so little tweaks like this aren't the way forward. Fixing these problems will need time, care, expertise, and above all to be done patiently without the pressure and deadline of an FAC. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I say go ahead anyway; whether they like it or not, you and I agree. It's a good suggestion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I can find the place in Sanneh where he actually says "just as many" but I have removed it until I have the time to look further. But I like your suggestion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More generally, though, to If there is a majority view, we are supposed to find, source, and present it, and only include minority views when they are significant enough to warrant it. . The policy in question here is WP:DUEWEIGHT, which has:

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. (emphasis in original)

So, no, finding only a majority view and ignoring minority ones is against policy -- not least because Wikipedians are particularly poorly placed to determine what is the majority view, particularly in a massive field where nobody can claim to have read everything. Instead, minority views should be presented according to their prominence in scholarship. The FA criteria say a similar thing in slightly different language:

* Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
* Well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; (emphasis mine)

UndercoverClassicist You have made a couple of unfounded leaps in logic here. First, you have assumed that because old views existed in the past that they qualify as current minority views. That's false. It is only a current minority view if someone is advocating it now. The past isn't current.
I have spent a great deal of time on this particular topic, since I first came to Wikipedia seven years ago. My first article to attempt editing was Christianity and violence, and it turned into my first experience with an aggressively combative editor. I did a lot of study to cope. Subsequent articles also required a great deal of reading on this topic, so I have been studying this for years now.
I generally spend a week researching multiple sources to write a few sentences of content. I want to be careful and sure because, like it or not, we are told to represent the majority view and to only include minority views that have some clout - to not include those that are too "tiny" to be of significance. To be significant it needs to be current. I'm telling you honestly: current scholarship does not view violence as a major aspect of Christianity in Late Antiquity. Anyone who researches it will find that.
Your assumption of what constitutes a minority view has enabled you to conclude minority views have been ignored in this article. Since that's based on a false assumption, that's wrong. Genuine minority views have NOT been ignored. They would be included - if they existed.
Please accept that "the past isn't current", or provide enough current sources that show your view of violence is a valid minority view that requires inclusion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these replies, but I don't see that they really address my concerns. See particularly my comments on DUEWEIGHT and the FAC criteria, and their implications for what should and should not be included. The sources I cited on slavery and colonialism (as ever, examples rather than exhaustive) were 2015, 2014 and 2011 -- OK, if you want to argue that the field has done a total about-face on everything they said in a decade, fine, but we would need some pretty WP:EXTRAORDINARY sources to do that. Incidentally, you'll also need to rewrite the whole article, as only a handful of sources used are from the 2020s, and by my very rough scan about a third are C20th, a good number of those are 1980s or earlier, and we have one from 1919 -- there seems to be some selective pleading going on as to when "old" material is acceptable. But, as I've said in this conversation before, "I have other sources that take a different view" (particularly when you proceed to snip very short quotations from them) doesn't get to the root of what the policies require, and so isn't going to solve this problem or resolve the oppose. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, there are no extraordinary claims. Multiple sources listed here and in the article support that the statement on missionaries as divided is both correct and representative of current scholarship. It is not biased.
Next, you only have one source on slavery. It's a good source, but this topic is not its topic. I think this is pretty much everything it says on missionaries:
  • on page 257, it says Spanish missionaries promised to suppress the trade in slaves, and that the Spanish did attempt to do so in the Caribbean.
  • Page 263 has an instance of missions hiding fugitive slaves.
  • Page 550 has missionary activity being extended to the enslaved,
  • and on page 552, it says conversion of slaves became a central feature of John Wesley's mission, and that he was fully committed "by 1774, to an anti-slavery position predicated on religious grounds."
  • It goes on through page 553-554, saying the message of Christianity appealed to a growing number of slaves because it emphasized their value as human beings and depicted them as equals to whites.
  • Put all of this together with your one paragraph, and the view of the Cambridge History of slavery can be summed up as "some supported and some opposed". Your source supports me.
On colonialism you reference one essay "Jesuit Foreign Missions. A Historiographical Essay" on Brill. It's a review of recent scholarship, but it's only about the Jesuits. It says "With few exceptions, central-European Jesuits served on indigenous missions. Their presence confirmed the tensions between colonialism and missions in the Jesuit enterprise already manifest in 1600 Peru". It discusses how they tried to side-step by opposing slavery amongst the Indians by allowing it for blacks, and as profits soared, it too says "some supported some opposed". It says "colonialism and evangelization were not inextricably linked". Your source supports me.
I can't find any other source that you use, but I'd be willing to bet on getting the same results because this is the state of current scholarship. I have not found anything that contradicts the sentence in the article - and neither have you. Please see ViridianPenguin's reasoned and on-point responses. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand getting frustrated, but this paragraph doesn't deserve a response. I have no doubt of good faith on your part, but you've been wrong and have failed to effectively demonstrate or support your position. This entire discussion, along with your vote, should all be struck. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said above, I don't think extreme parsimony really is the problem here, because it isn't the case that the article is representative but extremely concise: we do have plenty of detail on plenty of things, but those are consistently things that present Christianity and Christians in a positive light, while the missing pieces seem concentrated upon things that don't, or on things that don't relate to Catholic or Protestant Christianity. However, if the concern is fitting the material into the space available, I've given advice on this before -- start with the sub-articles, polish them up with all the detail and nuance they need, bring each one to GA, PR and FAC, then use it to build a piece of the big one. I think comments like Again I ask anyone weighing in here: what are three to five key points about colonialism as it relates specifically to the history of Christianity, not military or economic history, that you think should be included? , which seem to be a recurring feature of this review, indicate that we're looking at a re-writing job rather than the sort of small tweaks that can be well handled at FAC. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist You say the missing pieces seem concentrated upon things that don't show Christianity in a positive light. This article is not a critique of Christianity. It's a simple history of main events and a few important people. If all the major events are included according to current scholarship, then evaluation should be left to the reader. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to demonstrate a willingness to compromise. I will add a paragraph that discusses current debate on violence in Late Antiquity. Will that meet you half way on that particular topic? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it would hurt, but I think the problems in the late antiquity section are a comparatively low priority versus the issues evident across the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


@FAC coordinators: Previously, there was a stated desire for more info on violence in Late Antiquity. Everyone who knows anything about this topic, or this period, knows that for over 200 years, the meta-narrative was about Constantine imposing Christianity, violent Christians, temple destruction, and the forced elimination of paganism by the end of the fourth century. In the last 50 years, there has been an evidence based shift away from this. According to recent understanding, Christianity became established in the third century, before Constantine, paganism did not end in the fourth century, imperial legislation had little enforcement and limited effect before the sixth century, and Christianity was not generally violent in Late Antiquity as previously believed. There are some who still assume the old view, but it has no "prominant" adherents and no new research that upholds it. I originally thought that meant the old view fell under Due weight's statement that "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". In an article pressed for space, I followed that guideline. UndercoverClassicist claims this is evidence of bias.

In an effort to compromise, I offered to put in a paragraph on these different views, but now I am concerned that would give them equal weight - as if there really is disagreement among contemporary scholars about this.

But the real problem is that this has now morphed into a statement of bias in the whole article. This assumes the old view of violence is left out of Late Antiquity because of bias, but it's left out because it's no longer supported. I have shown, repeatedly, and VeridianPenguin has shown, that the example UndercoverClassicist uses concerning colonialism is properly sourced and represents the current majority view. I've shown that the sources UC uses actually support what the article says. None of it has had any impact on how they feel. The demand for numbers of deaths in the crusades can certainly be accommodated - if you think that's an appropriate use of space - but I doubt it will affect their feelings.

I'm now afraid it is not possible to bring an article about Christianity to FA on Wikipedia - that it has offended too many people who want to WP:RGW. This article is not a critique of Christianity. It is a simple history of main events and a few prominent people. It seems to me that evaluation of 'good and evil' should be left to the reader. I thought that was WP policy. Inserting what UC wants to say about Christianity, especially since it's unsourced, would produce bias not correct it. But your experience here is greater than mine. Please tell me what you think I should do, and I will do it. If you think nothing can be done, and I should just give up, please tell me that too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like one FAc coordinator (at least) to read the whole article and see what they think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gonzo_fan2007

[edit]
  • Christian art, architecture, and literature blossomed. can we merge with the previous sentence?
Done. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Competing theological doctrines led to divisions, which were responded to in the Nicene Creed of 325 is clunky, specifically the "to in the" part. Recommend rephrasing.
Done. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Figured I could handle some uncontroversial spot-fixes for you, Jenhawk777, but revert as needed! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Bless you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main concern though is any lack of discussion of the basis of Christianity: the Old Testament. A "Background" section at the beginning providing a brief summary of the historical basis for Christianity, prior to Jesus, seems essential for the understanding of the formation of Christianity. This would cover the overall system that Jesus and his teachings built off of to form Christianity. Christianity does not discount pre-Christ teachings, so at the very least this needs to be discussed. This could follow the "Origins" section in Early Christianity. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now a second call for a background section. AirshipJungleman29 has already turned down the suggestion once in an effort to keep word count down, but this may be important enough to include. With that possibility in mind, give me 3-5 points of key importance that you would most like to see if I were to create such a section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Every time I added something along those lines, AirshipJungleman29 took it back out saying it was unnecessary. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I would wholeheartedly support such an addition. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WHAT?!? Since when? Nevermind!! Okay by me! Including what? Background on Judaism? The Old Testament? Gonzo says OT. The Roman Empire? Pagan religions? Geography? ErnestKrause suggested including that this is not a history of theology. Can I say that inside the article? What do you think is most needed? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ViridianPenguin

[edit]

Huge props to Jenhawk777 for incorporating the feedback from the Oct 2024 and Dec 2024 FAC attempts and spending the past two weeks dedicated to quick fixes. Finished with my top-to-bottom copyediting, I appreciate that she has reverted wherever my new wording seems to have created a new claim beyond the scope of the sources. I will proceed with which of those reversions I seek to contest, either by adding new sources or based on the existing footnotes as needed:

  • Instead of "Former slaves returned to West Africa 'with Bible in hand' preceding European Protestant missionaries, founding Freetown which would play a central role in the Christianization of West Africa.", I suggested "Former slaves returned to West Africa 'with Bible in hand' preceding European Protestant missionaries, and they founded Freetown, which would play a central role in the Christianization of West Africa." before reversion. Per Koschorke 2025, you intend to say that former slaves founded Freetown, as opposed to typical colonization under missionaries, and say that Freetown was a hub in the Christianization of West Africa. My rewording clarifies that the thing playing a central role in the Christianization of West Africa is Freetown, not the former slaves returned to West Africa, at least according to Koschorke 2025.
  • Instead of "Baptism was free and there were no fees, which made Christianity more affordable than traditional Roman religions.", I sought "Baptism was free and there were no fees to attend church services, which made Christianity more affordable than traditional Roman religions." Matthew 23:23 shows that Jesus expected tithing to continue as a Christian tradition and the Third Council of Mâcon in 585 punished failure to tithe with excommunication. The cited page of Welch & Pulham 2000 alludes to the free-rider problem being firmly handled, presumably with tithing, and only says that "Early Christianity offered a financially inexpensive, popular form of worship," rather than calling it free, so we should clarify that while entry to church services was free, there were other kinds of fees.
  • You write "This was an age of uncertainty, and the role of relics and holy men able to provide special access to the divine became increasingly important. Donations for the dead to receive prayers (with that special access) provided an ongoing source of wealth." I sought to modify the second sentence to "Marketing that special access, church offers that donations would fund prayers for the dead provided an ongoing source of wealth." to eliminate a parenthetical interruption. As your reversion was made without explanation, I am unsure what aspect of this rewording is objectionable.
  • Instead of "State administrations were also centralizing, and competition between church and state, who claimed legal and tax jurisdiction over the same populace, created conflicts.", I suggested "The centralization of governance during this period created conflict between church and state officials competing to claim legal and tax jurisdiction over the same populace." Again, that unexplained reversion leaves me unsure whether you object to this rewording, which I proposed to avoid frequent interruptions by comma-bound clauses.
  • You write "For the church, ending lay investiture would support independence from the state, encourage reform, and provide better pastoral care. For the kings, who could better control the powers and revenues of appointed bishops than those of hereditary noblemen, ending lay investiture meant the power of the Holy Roman Emperor and the European nobility would be reduced." I sought to delete the second sentence's middle clause because it interrupts the flow of "For X, ending lay investiture would do Y" to make a statement that is both unnecessary and not necessarily true. Kings had the power to dispossess nobles of their land, which would be more devastating than being a priest passed over for bishopships. Moreover, the comparison to noblemen is unnecessary because it is already clear why ending lay investiture would reduce the power of the Holy Roman Emperor. Again, that unexplained reversion leaves me unsure whether you object to this rewording.

Again, regardless of how this third nomination goes (and I hope it passes), amazing work improving this vital article! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 23:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ViridianPenguin Bless you and thank you for the opportunity to explain and answer.
  1. Your wording might clarify, but it's awkward to read. Perhaps dividing it into two sentences would accomplish both goals. Try a period after "...missionaries. They founded..." But perhaps that pronoun then becomes indefinite... One can only say 'former slaves' so many times... Perhaps awkward is the best we can do?
  2. Sources on early charity are abundant. Everyone gave for the most part. And while I know there have always been "free riders" - and probably always will be - that's the nature of charity - Christian communities developed strategies for coping. That mostly revolved around preaching on the importance of giving - not on requiring tithing as far as I know. The Jewish Temple could do that, but Christianity didn't have the clout for another thousand years. Unless you have a source, you cannot assume tithing was considered a "fee". But my primary objection is the phrase "church services" which is ambiguous because it means something different in our modern day than I think you intend.
  3. Marketing. No, no, no. Not a thing yet.
  4. I don't have a problem with this one.
  5. I agree. Your version is better and still reflects the sources.
The whole thing got reverted because you made all the changes in the same edit and I couldn't revert some and not the rest. I meant to get back to you and explain, and reinsert, but instead I got absorbed by the appeal to the coordinators. I apologize for my lack of a timely response, and I appreciate you giving me this chance anyway. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, I have split those sentences and used "freedmen" in place of "former slaves" in the second sentence for variation. I concede the second point because on further analysis of the Stark 1997 book that Welch & Pulham 2000 reviews, the response to free-riding was requesting greater devotion, not tithing, as I had assumed. I am convinced that during the Ante-Nicene period, Christianity lacked the clout to demand tithes. As for the third point, I meant "marketing" as promoting the value of donations to the congregation, not modern televangelism. Accordingly, would "Promoting that special access, ..." work? No worries as to the confusion over the reversion, as I could have split my copyediting between more edits. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know they promoted it? My sources didn't say that. Do yours? Just don't use the term "Marketing". Readers can't read your mind. They don't know your intent. They come with their own internal vocabulary and will interpret accordingly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The existing footnotes to Bonser 1962 and Brown 2012 seem sufficient to support my rewording:
  • After establishing that relics were understood to support the sick and dead, Bonser writes that after the Second Council of Nicaea required churches to place relics during their dedication, "if a monastery was poor, it was a great temptation for it to secure some relic which would be a source of wealth for it as a result of the pilgrimages which would be made to the shrine thus created." In other words, early churches were promoting spurious relics to the extent that non-residents would travel to fund relic-supported prayers for the dead.
  • In Chapter 11 of Brown 2012, he demonstrates that church leaders like Pope Gregory I and Gregory of Tours helped establish veneration of saints and then writes that "In the course of the fifth and sixth centuries, these very ancient burial practices changed significantly in only one respect as a result of the cult of the saints. To be buried near a holy grave was to gain the hope of standing beside the saint, one’s patron and protector, on the day of the resurrection." Again, the church's claims created the market for prayers for the dead, rather than medieval Christians passively donating. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 16:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ViridianPenguin Securing, in this case, means obtaining. It is not a synonym for promoting. The church may very well have promoted relics, but I don't have a source that says that. Your "other words" - "promoting" and "spurious" - are not in what you quote above. Unless you have another source making those two claims, they qualify as OR. Please do not put OR into this article. It is also incorrect to say the church's claims "created the market". Martyrdom had a powerful influence on the early development of Christianity, and relics were venerated by the people from the second century on. A close reading of the source, without personal interpretation, is necessary here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if my limited quote of Bonser 1962 gave the wrong impression. Here's further info from the prior paragraph: "With the decay of moral standards in the medieval Church, the laudable employment of relics became subordinated to the desire of each monastery to better itself, and relics were found to be a very paying proposition [...] This necessitated the fabrication of a relic if no genuine article was to be had." Bonser directly states that relics were being fabricated, which inherently involves creation of a promotional story to justify the object's supposed relation to saints. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 18:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The decay of moral standards sounds like either High or Late Middle Ages, not early, where this is currently located. Is there a date? It would be a good addition if we could place it correctly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The [...] of the above quotation is the sentence "It was decreed by the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 that no church should be dedicated without the placing of relics," so it seems safe to interpret that the decay of moral standards being discussed came immediately after (i.e., Early Middle Ages is appropriate). The following paragraph of Bonser 1962 discusses a faked head of John the Baptist in 458, so immorality regarding relics already existed going into the Early Middle Ages. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That settles it then. It's important enough to include. Go for it. Add your source. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite writing that "the date of the Fall is disputed" in a prior edit summary, you have settled on "For five centuries after 476 and the breakup of the Western Roman Empire, Western culture and civilization were primarily preserved and passed on by monks." to open the After 476 subsection. Sure, as the Western Roman Empire article notes, the year 476 is historian Edward Gibbon's subjective demarcation, but it is the same year accepted by the cited Matthews & Platt 1998 book and one of two "end of Rome" points accepted by Herrin 2021 in Chapter 1. Accordingly, while I can accept your choice to leave out a wikilink to the deposition of Romulus Augustus, I would make that sentence confidently concise as "For the five centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, Western culture and civilization were primarily preserved and passed on by monks."
Perfectly fine. Go for it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, there is an evolution of thought in the Patristic writings, then the development of the canon, and later in the theological controversies of the fourth century, that shaped the concept's development, and gradually created a new, more technical, Trinitarian vocabulary." has a whopping seven commas winding the reader back and forth. Rewording to "The fourth century saw the writings of Church Fathers develop a canon of technical Trinitarian vocabulary, often spawning theological controversies." does not seem controversial because the Arian, Macedonian, Luciferian, and Appolinarist schisms during that century all involved the Trinity. In reverting, you wrote "this change does not accurately reflect the sources," but in my view, Chapter 8 of the cited Oxford Handbook of the Trinity provides strong support for my rewording, such that we only need to change the pages cited in the sfn reference to this book.
I'm against this one. In the first place the church fathers didn't develop any canon, which is what the changed version says. In the second, it was the fourth century process of agreeing upon what was canonical, and what wasn't, that helped define the concept of Trinity. Third, this makes it sound as though the vocabulary spawned controversies instead of the other way around: the controversies over meaning are what led to a new technical more precise vocabulary. Three things went into forming the formal doctrine from the earlier more informal one. Each of those is a separate influence. Your "lumping together" is misleading. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about "The theological controversies of the fourth century prompted the writings of Church Fathers and canons of ecumenical councils to develop a more technical Trinitarian vocabulary." ? On review, I agree that the Church Fathers were responding to theological controversies, rather than creating them, but accordingly, the sentence structure should be theological controversies prompting the Church Fathers and ecumenical councils to change, which in turn produced a new "grammar for Christian speech" (quoting Ch.8 of the Oxford Handbook of the Trinity), rather than presenting three separate causes for the change. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 13:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's chronologically backwards - if I understand the source correctly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me. You convinced me that "the controversies over meaning are what led to a new technical more precise vocabulary" because debate over Arianism in the early 300s prompted the canons of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and writings of Church Fathers, such as Gregory of Nazianzus's Theological Orations in 380 per Ch.8 of the Oxford Handbook of the Trinity. Which part of my rewording's chronology seems backward according to the source? ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 22:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are using canon differently. You are using its meaning as church law, and I am referring to the biblical canon. I am referring to church Fathers in the second century such as Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian and Irenaeus who wrote on the Trinity. You refer to Gregory a solid 200 years later. My chronology has not been your chronology. No wonder we're confused. I think mine reflects the source, but that should be checked. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your clear reply! Yes, I fully understand your intent now and agree that these are three successive causes. I would still make a small change to "However, there is an evolution of thought in the Patristic writings, then the development of the canon, and later in the theological controversies of the fourth century, that shaped the concept's development and gradually created a more technical Trinitarian vocabulary." This removes three commas as 1) "gradually created a more technical Trinitarian vocabulary" is not an independent clause, so the sentence's second "and" does not need a preceding comma and 2) "created a more technical Trinitarian vocabulary" already implies that this vocabulary is new. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my view, the Golden Legend deserves a one-sentence mention, perhaps following the current final sentence of the third opening paragraph of the "High Middle Ages (c. 1000–1300)" section as an example of how increasing literacy manifested. As Wikipedia's article on this collection notes, it was one of the most widely published books of the High Middle Ages with more editions than the Bible. It was both a reference guide on the calendar of saints and popular reading that connected the populace to the saints that shaped Christianity in the centuries after the events of the New Testament. Thus, while the Golden Legend would never be Wikipedia's source on the life of someone like Pope Gregory I, it was the primary literary source on such figures during the High Middle Ages. I am not a stickler that this gets added, but I figured that I should make the argument for its short inclusion. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 03:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ErnestKrause asked for more mention of important Christians with names and their writings. I'm working on that now, so I ask you to allow me to reserve judgment on this one until I can see how that might work together. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't just hope, vote! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first contribution at FAC, but I think my significant involvement in copyediting the article and proposing changes is enough to confidently support that all WP:FACRITERIA are met. For the FAC coordinators, note that Buidhe voted to oppose based on issues subsequently addressed and is yet to respond to requests to re-assess at the time of writing. @Buidhe, pinging to hopefully get your attention. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a standing oppose from UC and I agree with their concerns about the overall tone of the article being biased in favor of seeing Christianity in a positive light and downplaying negative aspects such as colonialism. (t · c) buidhe 19:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That oppose has been appealed to the coordinators. But be the fair and reasonable person I have experienced in the past - don't "hand-wave" about the "overall tone" - be specific. What negative aspects of colonialism - genuinely caused by Christianity - should be included and aren't? If you're right, you know I will add them. Hasn't that always been your experience with me? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, what I mean by that is that in both the parts of the article that UC and I were looking at, the information was presented in a way that is biased in favor of Christianity. Whether that's emphasizing "growth" while the overall percentage of Christians remains the same, or the issues UC raised that are still outstanding AFAIK. While the revisions to the demographic information I raised has been an improvement overall, I still think that the way the information is presented is biased. (t · c) buidhe 20:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The change you wanted used wording that wasn't in any source, so I couldn't use that exact wording, but you asked for percentages that demonstrated your view, and they are there. It declines in one area and grows in another. If it only declined it wouldn't stay the same overall percentage. It has stayed the same global percentage - by declining and growing. This is very frustrating. Those are simple facts. How is that biased? How should these simple facts be presented in a way that you would not see them as biased? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe If you can explain it I will fix it. Please give me the chance. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UC looked at Late Antiquity not the modern era. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks for the clarification! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ViridianPenguin Thank you. I have found you incredibly easy and pleasant to work with. I hope we get another chance sometime. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Coord note

[edit]

I was looking at archiving this before Borsoka opposed because, regardless, it's clear we're not going to achieve consensus to promote anytime soon. I'd be taking to PR after this to try and get consensus on content and tone before a future run at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose Thank you. It's already been through peer review twice, and GA review, and FAC 3 times now. It's simply never going to make it here no matter what I do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2025 (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/Archived_nominations/May_2025&oldid=1293203474"