Wikipedia:Peer review/Catholic Church/archive1

Catholic Church

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because over the last month or so I've been working on organizing and better presenting the existing content on this page. In the past, I've worked on several other Catholic related articles.

In the Catholic Church article, I particularly focused on the "Doctrine" section, which seemed more of a long list of ideas, rather than narrative. I've also worked on the "Worship", and "Organisation" sections, but basically did not touch the "History" section, as it seemed fairly mature. Mostly I focused on existing content within these sections, but did work to fill in a few holes, and helped integrate some new content. I also changed the arrangement of these sections to better present the material.

One of big reasons I'd like to open this up for peer review is article stability. I've briefly skimmed the editing history for this article, and it seems every few years, the page is built up, and then torn down again. It seems like a lot of effort is expended, and results are short lived. The content I found on the page when I started working on it seemed to have been fairly stable for the past year. Hopefully this content was consensus driven, so that this article, now organized a little more effectively, can be polished, rather than demolished!

Some content I've noticed to be particularly volatile are sections dealing with the Eastern Catholic Churches. Several different section equivalent to the "Communion of Churches" section can be found throughout the page history, many with nearly identical phrasing. I think such a section really is important, of course with due diligence to the relative size of these churches, and should remain.

I've also noted that social teachings tend to be added and removed, as well as some of the historical and contemporary controversies. I'm not sure how to incorporate these, especially, as the page's size is getting fairly large. Ideas?

Anyways, these are some of my thoughts. Any help this article would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, Zfish118 (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea may be well intentioned but it betrays a lack of knowledge of what happened around this page in the recent past. A sort of peace has broken out in the aftermath of a pruning excerise that took place last year that removed the worst excesses. If you are contemplating the peer review-FAC cycle I think you can expect the wars to break out once again - beginning with the the very first words of the article, and with good cause. The saying "let sleeping dogs lie" comes to mind Yt95 (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the warning. The article was left in shambles after that "pruning", so hopefully things don't get too out of hand this time around cleaning up.--Zfish118 (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting statement: after the "pruning", the article was in the best shape it's ever been in (which may not be saying a lot :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content hasn't changed much, just the presentation, and a few areas that needed rounding out (such as the sacraments, and eastern catholic churches). I agree that maybe some "MOS" issues remain. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I am not sure why the article has been sent for peer review at this point in time, since there are several indications that the article is still under development. For example:-

The lead does not look adequate for an article of this length and complexity. It should be expanded into a full summary of the article.
There is serious under-referencing, with key assertions uncited. See, for example, the "Communion of Churches" section, "Eastern Rites", "Anointing of the Sick" and elsewhere.
There is an expansion tag in the "Contemporary" section
Numerous references, in particular between 57 and 81, are incompletely formatted
Sections (e.g. History) should not consist entirely of links. Summary information, broadly equating to the lead section of the link article, should be included.

As well as these major points, there are specific issues of detail, clarity, grammar etc which I have picked up from my reading of the earlier sections. I would rather continue this check when the development of the article, in its present incarnation, is complete.

Per MOS, bolding should not be used for emphasis in the text.
"so-called" is a hyphenated term
"The title Cardinal is a rank of honour bestowed by previous Popes on certain ecclesiastics..." This sounds as though the title of cardinal is no longer conferred. Suggest delete "previous"
Dioceses, parishes, and religious orders: "even major cities" - the "even" serves no purpose. In the same sentence, "served by" may be better written as "organized into". The introduction of the term "particular churches", even with the link, may confuse the general reader; I would rephrase the sentence: "Individual countries, regions, or major cities are organized into local dioceses or eparchies, defined in canon law as particular churches, each overseen by a Catholic bishop."
In the same section, the "and/or" could be read as implying that some parishes are staffed enirely by unordained ministers.
Headline membership figures should be more directly related to increases in the world's population since 1950. By my calculations the proportion of Catholics in the world's population is largely unchanged (perhaps marginally reduced) since 1950. Perhaps this could be brought out?
"A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each particular church." I think a rather more reader-friendly definition of "rite" is called for.
"Catholics believe that at each Mass, the bread and wine are supernaturally transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ by the consecration celebrated by the priest." Hmmm...This is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, but should not be ascribed generally to "Catholics", some of whom to my knowledge have reservations on literal transubstantiation.

I'll pause at this point for some reaction/feedback. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Check the tool, top right of this page, for disambiguation links. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback. Its a holiday in the United States, so I'm too busy to fully address your comments, but they seem fair and reasonable. I definitely agree the prose needs work and the history section needs trimming. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing this at Peer Review, I glanced at the article and see that it is has deteriorated significantly in Karnacs' absence. Other than the absence of experienced editors like Karanac, I wonder what happened. There are numerous MOS errors in addition to the issues raised by Brianboulton, and I wonder if a revert to an earlier version might not be a better use of time (I saw a February version edited by Truthkeeper88 that had fewer MOS and other errors). The article size is in decent shape now, but the History section is still much too long and that should be better summarized, using summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A revert is absolutely not warranted. The article was in terrible shape earlier, particularly the doctrine section, which was a mere collection of disconnected statements. Even if in the past it conformed to the "manual of style", by any objective measure, the content is now better organized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zfish118 (talk • contribs) 18:14, May 30, 2011

Hello, I used to edit the Catholic Church page and tried four times to get it featured. I found SandyGeorgia's suggestions unhelpful then and I find them unhelpful now so I continue to disagree with her positions in this peer review. Good luck Zfish. I think your effort is much better than what has been presented by the "pruners". NancyHeise ^talk 21:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and encouragement! It helps :) --Zfish118 (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]