Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive2

Moved from main page

Moving off-topic comments from main page:

• Support You guys have no idea how hard my mom worked on this! She stays up past midnight sometimes to edit and cite stuff, and when I see her on the computer she's usually surrounded by a ton of books...that's it.StacyyW (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Hi Stacy. Although we don't speak of "authors" here at Wikipedia, since every article is the product of a community of editors, the life you described above is precisely that of many authors. So too is the process of facing criticism for one's work. This is normal. "Catholic church" is at the same time both a huge topic and a controversial one. Nothing other than what is happening now could have been expected. In fact, looking at the above, I'm struck by how relatively calm things are. Ling.Nut (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to now respond to User:Ling.Nut's comments (specifically '"Catholic church" is at the same time both a huge topic and a controversial one. Nothing other than what is happening now could have been expected.' and 'So too is the process of facing criticism for one's work.'). First of all, Ms. Stacy did not say anything about this article being solely produced by her mother, and I just didn't get that vibe from what she said. She stated that her mom had spent a lot of time on this, well into the night, which is certainly not a reason this should become featured, but it does show effort. We do not speak of authors, that is correct, but it would be nice to not kindly snap at a person for saying her mom did a bunch of work on this article. Second, Ling.Nut spoke the truth when he/she (he from now on for ease of use) said that we're a community, then quickly proceeded to say something about facing criticism for one's work, not the community's work, but one's work. That seemed a bit inconsistent to me, but perhaps it is just me. And I really do agree with him that an article that faces criticism does come out much better. Thirdly, I'd just like to make the point that while he is completely correct in saying that RCC is both a huge and controversial topic, Ling.Nut then goes on to say that these 3 FAC's (or whatever the officially name is) are only to be expected based on the fact that this is a huge and controversial topic. The logic doesn't seem to flow to me: should a controversial article automatically be faced with 3 FAC's just because it is controversial? Is Ling.Nut saying that the reason it's been shot down twice is that it's controversial? I truly, truly, way deep down in my soul, hope that is not true, because that is, pardon my French, one hell of a horrible reason for an article to not be featured. If I expect an article to be NPOV, I expect a person's reason for voting "yea" or "nay" on an article review to be actually based on content rather than the degree of controversiality. I suppose that's all I have to say for now, and I look forward to some wonderful responses. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 00:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I will address Benjamin's comments on his/her talk page, except to say... that characterizing my remarks as "snapping at" someone is... I'm struggling to find an adjective to describe how completely inaccurate that perception is. But will drop this thread here; take it up at user's talk. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Looking back, I do sound a bit snappy myself. However, I did say that you "kindly" snapped if that makes it better. I just got the impression that you were demeaning Ms. Stacy, saying something to the effect of "we don't do this here, nice try though." I sincerely apologize if I misinterpreted your comments. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 01:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

More moves

RESPONSE - I will be addressing punctuation and citation issues brought up by Tony and I thank Tony for his time to come look at the page and give his honest opinion. Understanding that some people have strong negative feelings for the Roman Catholic Church we expected some reviewers to make some very hard comments about the page. We understand that some people would like more expansion on criticisms but since the page is limited in how long it can get, we placed mention of all the important criticisms throughout the page and provided wikilinks to the areas where readers could learn more. Right now, the history section has a SEE ALSO at the top of the section directing the reader to a separate page called Criticism of the Catholic Church. As far as the comment about people coming from all over to view the page and needing people who know what they are doing looking at it, please consider that experts have created this page using top sources. Those who have voted to support, include people who are teenagers, college students, a doctor, a lawyer, and others who chose not to reveal so much about themselves. I think it is very condescending to assume that these people do not know what they are doing by voting to support and I find that comment to violate the good faith rule. Finally, after going through a peer review and extensive collaboration from many experienced editors, I nominated this article because I truly feel it is one of the best you will find on Wikipedia. It would be a loss to Wikipedia's reputation to not promote this article. NancyHeise (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I think you misunderstood Tony. Please assume good faith. I interpreted is comments as meaning people who aren't usually associated with the FAC process are coming forward to support. While not always true, in many cases people who haven't been involved in FAC before don't understand the criteria very well. Karanacs (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a violation of good faith to assume that these people who have voted to support are not intelligent enough to look at the FAC criteria and vote intelligently. I am a CPA who used to audit large companies, one of these people identifies himself as a lawyer, one a doctor, I know at least two others who have emailed me are grown men with careers and wives, one of my fellow editors on the page is a grad student at Yale who presently holds a bachelors in mechanical engineering and masters in Theology, not sure what he is going after with more grad school at Yale but I am sure he is quite a capable person. I don't know who the other people are except my daughter who is quite intelligent also (OK Im biased on that one). I do not assume that any editor of this page is not an equal, respectfully allowed to form his or her opinion. It is interesting to see the vast range of ages and careers of people who have voted to support the page, from all over the place. NancyHeise (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The range of ages and careers of people who have listed objections is also vast and varied. Age and occupation are not relevant to the discussion at all; thorough comparison of the article to the Featured article criteria and detailed support and oppose reasons which follow those critera do. "So-and-so worked hard" or "this is an important topic" are not reasons that comply with the FA criteria. Karanacs (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, exactly. Nancy, please don't be offended by the critical reviews. It doesn't appear that those people have engaged with the criteria because they don't mention them, and offer just a short summary sentence such as "well-written". I think I've demonstrated why that is not a tenable statement at this stage. I note your use of the word "honest" in your thanks to me above; however, that is to assume that FA reviewers are not beholden to high standards of "honesty", or that they (or I) don't normally offer honest opinions. This is not that case. Tony (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Critical reviews are the only road to improvement. I'd just like to put that out there.

When I find myself supporting an article in something, be it AFD or here, I often have trouble saying why it meets the criteria. There's really not much more you can say that: it's well written, NPOV, cites sources well, has a good lead, has nice and appropriate pictures, etc. Are those who vote support merely supposed to list the criteria that are met, or perhaps it would be preferred that we/they cite examples that prove our theses, just like in an essay: "I believe that this article meets blah blah because it is blah blah. This is shown by the fact that blah blah blah." I'll reserve those types of sentences for my English and History teachers, I think. On the other hand, when I find myself on the other side of the fence, I find it much, much easier to go into detail, pointing to examples and instances of bad stuff and what can be improved and what's overall wrong with it and what some conditions are that may merit my support. I guess what I'm really trying to say is that, Tony, it's a hell of a lot easier to say without sounding cliché and 'redundantly repetitive' why you oppose an article's promotion than support it. It's almost like trying to prove a negative. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 03:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a vote

Nancy, it's NOT a vote. No one is going to do a count. Consensus is not 50% plus 1. Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I do agree that this is certainly not a vote, it should be a process where support is given if criteria are met and things that can be fixed to bring the article up the critera are fixed. Consensus to me means overwhelming agreement with one thing, and Wiktionary gives it at "general agreement". As such, while not necessarily a vote, I have found in my experience with many AFD's that the amount of supports (with valid reasons, not just "per [insert user name]" is is inversely proportional to the chances of the article being deleted, or in this case, the article being denied Featured Article status. If there are 100 supports with valid, sensible reasons and 5 opposes with valid, sensible reasons, it seems to me that there is a consensus that the article is worthy of being featured. Therefore, while this is certainly not a vote, it is a measure of support versus opposition. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta/archive1, which was not promoted with 25 Supports and 8 Opposes. FAC is not AfD; it is not a "measure of support versus opposition". If there are valid, actionable Opposes, they should be addressed and the conversation should stay focused on WP:WIAFA. I don't think anyone participating in this FAC wants to see the article pass and then get slapped instantly into featured article review once it appears on the mainpage and is exposed to a wider, critical audience; that's why FAC is not a vote and valid actionable opposes should be addressed before an article is promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

From main page, Kudos to Nancy

• Comment I must give extreme kudos to Nancy for maintaining her composure in the face of some of the extreme POV carping by certain people on this page. She must have spent over 100 hours of intense work on this project since nomination. No sooner does she work to appease one set of objections when a whole shaft more appears. There are vague criticisms saying the article is "too pro-Catholic", with no detail given, presumably because it doesn't follow their own prejudices. Is the "France" article too pro-French, I wonder or the Science article too pro-science? At the other extreme there are people like Dave1 who want the article to conform to their own personal style and word choice preferences, with numerous petty criticisms. References are removed because they aren't from books specifically looking at the Catholic Church, then someone objects that the source is too narrow! Finally when the history and belief sections are enlarged, and heavily referenced to include sections detailing issues that FA reviewers have said need to be included, others then turn up and say the sections need cropping! We will never get anywhere at this rate! Xandar (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To illustrate the extent of some of the ridiculous nit-picking criticism of the article by certain people on this page. Here is a short passage from the Articles of faith section of the already Featured Article Islam, with similar criticisms made.

"According to the Qur'an all Muslims have to believe in God, his revelations, his angels, his messengers, and in the "Day of Judgment".[13] (Untidy sentence. too many commas, clumsy construction.) Also, there are other beliefs that differ between particular sects. (unprofessional clumsy prose) . The Sunni concept of predestination is called divine decree,[14] while the Shi'a version is called divine justice.n (explains nothing) Unique to the Shi'a is the doctrine of Imamah, or the political and spiritual leadership of the Imams.[15]

Muslims believe that God revealed his final message to humanity through the Islamic prophet Muhammad via the angel Gabriel. (clumsy language) For them, Muhammad was God's final prophet and the Qur'an is the revelations he received over more than two decades. (ungrammatical. Mixed tenses.) [16] In Islam, prophets are men selected by God to be his messengers. Muslims believe that prophets are human and not divine, though some are able to perform miracles to prove their claim. Islamic prophets are considered to be the closest to perfection of all humans, and are uniquely the recipients of divine revelation—either directly from God or through angels. (No reference) The Qur'an mentions the names of numerous figures considered prophets in Islam, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, among others.[17] (Poor unprofessional English. Bad Grammar, adding "among others" after "including".

I could go on nit-picking and fault finding in the same way as some people here. However this is of featured aricle status. Lets have consistenccy here, folks. Xandar (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Xandar. While I do think the Roman Catholic Church article ought to be trimmed and tightened up, and the prose is not brilliant, in direct comparison to other FA articles it is pretty good. The push-me pull-you critique of FA candidates is always de-moralizing. While the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy is always invoked, don't forget that Wikipedia:Attack page is also policy. Mind you the critique of SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) and Tony1 (talk · contribs) is very good and must not be dismissed. Ultimately, the article has to be 'about' the Roman Catholic Church and worthy of FA status. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately this page needs to be readable and intelligible, to determine what valid actionable opposes are and if they have been addressed, and I'm working hard to keep it that way :-) Kudos to Nancy and comparisons to the Islam article (which is not the article at FAC) are not relevant to whether this article has consensus that it meets WP:WIAFA. If the two of you don't mind, this last discussion needs to move to the talk page, lest this FAC again get out of control and into personal issues, off the topic of WP:WIAFA. We are not evaluating Islam and we are not evaluating Nancy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I was off topic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize, Wassup, but keeping this particular FAC on task has been a struggle, so I'm trying to keep on top of it and to keep the work focused. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

childish and disappointing

I truly do understand the frustration and impatience of some editors who are keen to get a star put on this article... I have been in your shoes.

However, while I would like to believe that I can rise above childishness and focus on the encyclopedia, I am quite disappointed. The repeated accusations of bad faith, which are now moving from "thinly veiled" to "unabashedly explicit", are both childish and deeply disappointing. The Islam FAC is irrelevant. I haven't read the article, but if it was passed despite containing problems, that doesn't mean we should "curve the scores". The hard work of Nancy and others is also irrelevant — though I spent more than a few words showing my sincere appreciation and gratitude for it. Nevertheless, it is still irrelevant. This is not elementary school. We are not here to hand out gold stars for hard work. We are examining final product.

I have shown my good faith time and time and time again. I am very, very disappointed in the childish comments by folks here. Ling.Nut (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Name-calling like that hardly raises the validity of your points. If you refuse to see that some of the comments and the outright rudeness and non-constructiveness of some of them needs addressing, then that is a problem you face. Xandar (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that if there were not editors keen to get a star on this or any other article, the FA process would not exist. And, though I can't speak for any others, I personally do find myself a bit frustrated, but more with the other stuff going on besides the actual evaluation of the article. The only thing that really keeps me going in this is the hope that, featured or not, this article will come out all the better due to changes made to issues that are brought up. If this doesn't end up starred at the end of the process, then I'm sure there'll be another FAC with an even more improved article, with which more issues will be found that apparently didn't surface in the first, second, or third examinations.

While I do not believe that the Islam article is irrelevant, I do believe that it should certainly not be held as a standard for this article. It smacks of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I don't think that comparisons to other articles should be brought into this process.

I do not intend this as accusations of bad faith, but I do politely disagree with your comments that the hard work of Nancy and others is irrelevant; I find that so completely wrong that I am scared. Without the hard work of editors, this article simply would not be. If the actual goal of this process is to examine the article and provide feedback, then their hard work is integral to the entire process. Ling.Nut, I notice that in the top right hand corner of your userpage, you have 3 FA stars and a GA plus-sign-thingy: these are certainly things to be proud of (I wish I had some), but I suppose that your hard work on them is and was irrelevant along the path to their statuses, according to your comments. While effort should certainly not equal FA status, I think that, in most cases, when a person or group of people work on an article, it improves. As such,it seems to me that the amount of time spent improving an article and bringing it up to snuff with the FA criteria is proportional to the likelihood of an article becoming featured. Therefore, I don't believe that the hard work of certain editors should be seen as irrelevant. I am told all the time to Be Bold (WP:BOLD), and I have told others to Be Bold, but are we now saying that Being Bold is irrelevant to an article during the FA process? Perhaps at my childish age of 15 I am not fit or able to see the logic in that, but I think that working on an article is key to garnering an FA star, the symbol that "this article is one of the best on the Wiki." I guess what it all comes down to is what the purpose of an FA is, and I believe that to be showcasing how great we, a hodgepodge community of editors around the world brought together by a desire to share knowledge, can make article, and I believe that the articles are brought to that status through the hard work of many people. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view, he's not discounting the work Nancy and others have placed on the article; on the contrary, I am certain he has great respect for it. What he is attempting to refute is Nancy's assertion that the article should pass this nomination simply because so much work has been put on it. The quantity of work is irrelevant - the quality of the work is what matters. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That certainly would make more sense. And I do agree with that. But I guess where I'm coming from is that so much work has been put into it, not necessarily quantity-wise but quality-wise, that it is up to snuff. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 03:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm washing my hands of it like Pontius Pilate.--Mike Searson (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points here. The Islam article IS relevant, particularly on the issue of what standards are being applied. There is meant to be ONE standard for all featured articles, not a moving goalpost, so consistency is vital. I could make countless criticisms of the grammar, wording and balance of the Islam article. What needs to be ascertained is WHICH CRITICISMS ARE RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT. In an article on a huge subject like Roman Catholic Church it does not take a genius to see that some people will have strong reasons for disagreeing with an article that does not totally reflect their own views or prejudices. That is why all comments need to be constructive, and that comments which are not so should be ignored. Therefore people who come in rubbishing the article and the people who have worked on it in general terms are not helping the Wikipedia process. Cavillling about the placement of commas, or using "amongst" or "among" is pointless in an encyclopedia where anyone can edit each article on a daily basis. No article would ever attain or keep FA status. If people state, for example, that the article is too pro-catholic that is a meaningless or irrelevant criticism unless they can say precisely WHERE this pro-catholicism exists, and defend that argument. If they say they don't like the style, or that they want "someone else" to rewrite it on the basis of style or content, then that is not a relevant comment. What they are saying is that only certain people should write Feature Articles, or that they don't have any precise points to object to, but they hope someone else might. Either produce these wonderful people, with their precise points, or stop cavilling. Sorry, but this needs to be said. Xandar (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

All articles must follow WP:MOS and WP:NPOV. That's the bottom line that's being enforced here. Practically all the opposes are actionable - whether they be copy-editing concerns, MOS breaches, or POV problems. This article must meet the relevant criteria, and as of now, it does not. The only consistency we're implementing here is that articles meet the criteria, and this article only. The Islam article isn't relevant here because it's not the article at FAC. As for your complaints over how nit-picky people are being, it's going for featured status. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it better come pretty damn close, and the grammar should be practically impeccable. This is the reality of FAC; if you're not willing to address the opposes, many of whom have tremendous experience in reviewing featured articles (Tony, Karanacs, etc.), then don't nominate the article. Throwing at every single oppose allegations of bad faith, prejudices, and other nonsense is utterly unacceptable also. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm sorry. Your belief that this article does not meet FA Criteria is not backed up in any way. I have read the First Article criteria, and in many ways this article exceeds them by a long way. I am quite prepared to address sensible opposes, but when opposes are either just vague, "I don't like the article" like yours seems to be above, above, they are unhelpful and not a valid part of the process. If you allege the article is ungrammatical, point out the ungrammatical parts, so we can see whether your claim is valid. This is where the Islam (and other) articles IS relevant. If there is a standard for Featured Articles it should be the same standard for all articles. If the accepted standard for Islam is X, and an impossiblist standard is being called for for Roman catholic Church, then something is wrong with the system. This is the best way of checking whether a particular objection is genuinely aimed at ensuring a uniform FA standard, or is being made for other purposes. Xandar (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I expect and believe this article to meet the FA criteria. That is the standard, and it is not impossible, since those (of us) who support promotion feel that it has reached that level. If the Islam article does not meet the criteria, then it should either be improved or go through a FAR. We should not hold the article at FAC to a possibly substandard other article. The FA criteria are the uniform standard, and there should be no other. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 14:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not backed up in any way? If it wasn't backed up in any way, then Tony, Karanacs, Ling.Nut, Awadewit, myself, and everyone else who has raised concerns are clearly on a campaign to sink this nomination because we don't like it right? Please. The reality of FAC, especially for critical topics such as these, is that it simply must be as good as it can get. Every oppose is actionable. If there are copy-editing concerns, go read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (that Tony wrote that and is raising 1a concerns here is rather telling also) or similar guides and go down the article or request the aid of uninvolved copy-editors. If there are WP:NPOV or comprehensiveness concerns, then crank out more sources, work towards incorporating more points of view, and make the language more neutral. Simply because they don't list every single problem doesn't mean you aren't entitled to fix them all. If they want to fix the problems themselves, then it is on their prerogative, not yours, as they aren't the ones who nominated the article. As for Islam, again, it isn't the article at FAC. You can use it for modeling the article in terms of section and content, but it isn't a free pass for ignoring objections here. Certainly, with all the commentary here, it could be taken to WP:FAR in the future. The fact of the matter is that this is an article on a rather critical subject that has an extraordinarily expansive set of material to cover, and as such, such a subject better damn well have a good article on it. Expect articles of this importance to receive more scrutiny than say Defense of the Ancients simply because of the topical importance and sheer scope. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy Week

Moved from main page: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment How ironic is it that this lovely debate is going to run into Holy Week? Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 20:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, This is our cross to bear. I’ve already thrice denied the article ...and I actually like it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So the nomination will fail on Good Friday and rise again three days later in triumph? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that joke. That rocks. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It will fail on Good Friday for all of the sins we have committed, then I'll come back to see it on Sunday, but will find that it's "former featured article candidate" message is missing, and that it has arisen and become a featured article. Any objections? Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 20:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Closing notes

Because this FAC attracted a high number of both Support and Oppose declarations, I've decided to explain my closing rationale.

There are 10 Oppose declarations, mostly from regular participants and experienced reviewers at WP:FAC and including several editors who state they are practicing Catholics. I saw no evidence of WP:CANVASSing or any reason to discount any Oppose as invalid or not actionable; opposes were good faith and correct interpretations of the criteria. The opposes encompass 1a–prose, 1b–comprehensiveness, 1c–sourcing, and 1d–neutrality as well as ongoing but fixable 2–MoS issues (like image captions, capitalization, reference formatting, which I did not consider to be of concern relative to the other, more serious deficiencies). There were WP:SIZE concerns early on, when the article was 71KB of readable prose; current readable prose size (57KB) is reasonable for this topic IMO, and up to 65KB could probably be defended if the article made appropriate use of summary style. However, viewing MikeSearson’s list of unaddressed topics, along with concerns several editors expressed about coverage of sex abuse scandals relative to other topics, it's not clear that the article has struck the right content balance within this size framework. For context, not only is there a broad number of issues deemed deficient wrt WP:WIAFA, the number of opposers is also high even relative to controversial FACs.

There are 12 Supports, which are evenly divided between regular WP:FAC participants and Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Members; one Support was from a single purpose account who last edited Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami six months ago.

I refer editors again to the Preity Zinta FAC, which was not promoted with 25 Supports and 8 actionable, valid, ongoing Opposes.

IMO, the nomination has reached the point of diminishing returns, where Opposes are overwhelming and substantial, and article improvements can be better effected without the pressure of FAC. I hope the volume of information generated during this FAC will be useful, and the editors who have put so much work into the article will enjoy their Easter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)