Talk:Reformed baptismal theology/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 16:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll review this. Relentlessly (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

General comments

This is really good: clear and well written.

Thanks!--JFH (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The period from the Reformation to the eighteenth century seems well summarised, but the entire modern era seems to be Schleiermacher and Barth. Important as they are, could there not also be a summary of the general trends in nineteenth and twentieth-century theology? I don't know enough about the subject to say what this could be, however.

Added some.--JFH (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Specific comments

• I'm not sure whether the opening sentence complies with WP:BEGIN. It seems to me that "reformed baptismal theology" is a descriptive phrase. I'm open to persuasion here.

 Fixed

Yeah, that's much better. Relentlessly (talk)

• I feel that the opening sentence of the second paragraph of the lead should begin "According to Reformed theology..."

 Fixed

• "it would not be beneficial to someone who placed an obstacle in the way of the sacrament" It's unclear what this means.

 Fixed

• Link justification (theology)?

I ended up removing reference to justification, I think the new content is more accurate.--JFH (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• "He also, however, argued against" – this feels clumsy. I suggest "Nevertheless, he also argued against"

 Fixed--JFH (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• "essentially identical to circumcision of Israelites" – needs "the" before "circumcision".

 Fixed--JFH (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• "sacraments as God's promises to the baptized person attached to outward signs" – I think I see what this means, but it could be a little clearer.

 Fixed I think --JFH (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Link Regeneration (theology)?

 Fixed--JFH (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Baptism also represents forgiveness or remission of sin by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ" This concept seems obscure; it's unclear how it's related to the other imagery of baptism.

I added some to (hopefully) clarify--JFH (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Reformed Christians do so on the basis of the continuity from the old covenant between God and Israel and the new covenant with the church" – is this because infants were circumcised?

 Fixed (and I'm told it's much more painful for adults!)--JFH (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

As I say, though – really good! On hold. Relentlessly (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, Relentlessly! Let me know if there's anything else to improve. --JFH (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant stuff. Promoted. Relentlessly (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)