Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Council of Nicaea/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] First Council of Nicaea

I believe that the great changes that this article has undergone since it was withdrawn from candidacy last year (see here) indicate that it's time may well have come. I also believe that all of the then-current objections have been addressed. Thoughts? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Previous debate archived at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Council of Nicaea/archive

• Comments
  • The box at the beginning is awfully wide and squeezes the lead unattractively.
    • Wholeheartedly agree withbox ugliness. Was WP:BOLD and edited it myself. Hopeit looks better now.
  • Second paragraph of the lead begins with a too long sentence.
  • Is the term "Character" as used in the section heading normal for this topic? I'm aware of the sense it's being used in, but seems odd to me. Not sure what I'd replace it with though.
  • The one-sentence paragraphs (such as under "Attendees" and "The Nicene Creed (symbol)") should be expanded or consolidated.
  • It's not clear what "A special prominence was also..." has to do with "Attendees".
  • Standardize citations -- a couple footnotes, at least one parenthetical, and an external link
• Tuf-Kat 06:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Looks good; appropriate use of illustration, generally well-written prose. However, some of the sections could use a little more detail, for example the section on 'Character' in particular could be expanded. Furthermore, all the red links need to be removed, as they are generally considered to be annoying clutter and are off-putting to some readers. A good, concise conclusion needs to be written to summarise and evaluate the topics covered by the article. Also a few more footnotes would be helpful. If some effort is put into addressing these relatively minor issues, I would consider changing my comment to a support. Bigdaddy1204 00:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Looks fine to me, from a language point of view. Tony 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose on a few issues:

1. Notes should be in numerical order in the text and in the notes list, ie the first not in the article shouldn't be note 4.
2. Html links in text need to be converted to notes and fully cited for future reference
3. There are "harvard style" cites fro sources texts like: According to Duchesne (Revue des questions historiques, xxviii. 37); that could also be converted to notes.
4. Only the first word in a section heading should be capitalised (unless it's a propper noun) see MoS
5. The format of the list in "other problems" is inconsistent with other lists in the article, the first words should probably be capitalised.
6. The lead is not a summary of the article and contiains information that only appears in the lead. it is also (probably) too long considering the articles length. I would suggest moving most of the information on the historical significance to the body of the article (where there is currently no mention of this) and adding some detail on Councils that followed and the impact this council had on the church.
7. There are lots of short paragraphs that could be merged into related paragraphs.

--nixie 01:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comments - Oh dear - why is there a {{POV-section}}? And are the items in your "Bibliography" section references? If so, please call them such. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Content disputes need to be settled before an article attempts FAC. Durova 07:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK article, but one comment I have is that it is written (correctly) that "No follower of Arius could say these words as a profession of faith." It would be nice to say why - I know why, but then again I did a course on Church History at Bible college. Outsiders most likely won't know — I fear that the average uninformed reader (this is why they read our encyclopedia you know!) won't know why this is the case without a bit of background. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Further to this, another issue is that it needs to be made very clear why the idea that Jesus was of one substance from the Father was so crucial to the debate. It should also be made clearer about the debate over the term "Homoousian" and why this was so crucial. Again this would be dealt with both by a brief overview of the Arian controversy. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: what is a conciliar letter and what is a circular letter? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)