Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Council of Nicaea/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] First Council of Nicaea

Since the last time this article was nominated, it has been improved and cleaned-up (I've done much of the recent work myself). There is now more information and it complies with the featured article crieria. --Coemgenus 14:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment- a few simple minor issues: first, external links located in the References section should be cited according to WP:CITE (see also WP:CITE/ES) - {{Cite web}} may come in useful here. Additionally, headings generally do not start with the word "The" whenever possible. Thanks, AndyZ t 22:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed the subject headings. I left "The Nicene Creed," since that's how everyone refers to it, but I changed the other ones. I'll work on those cites next. --Coemgenus 14:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The web cites are now fixed, using {{Cite web}}. Handy tool, that thing. --Coemgenus 01:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As AndyZ indicated, some cleanup of citations is needed in the references section. In addition, the citations from Schaff (i.e. the links to ccel.org in the body) should be converted into proper references, in general leaving out the title of the work, unless it is of particular relevance (this is why one has citations after all). Finally, the text could use some superficial clean-up. iggytalk 19:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Eh? Anyone? Coemgenus 23:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment See also section contain items already linked-to in text. Jkelly 04:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right - they were all linked above, except for the one about the Da Vinci Code, with is just irrelevant. I erased 'em all. Coemgenus 13:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I like the level of focus and comprehensiveness, and the summary of the Arianism page, for example, is quiet strong. However, there is a general lack of in-line citation in many sections. Generally reads well, except for some places where there are lengthy lists of names.

From WP:WIAFA:

  1. It exemplifies our very best work.
  2. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. Read Great writing and The perfect article to see how high the standards are set. In this respect:
    • (a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant; I don't think it is compelling yet
    • (b) "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details; OK
    • (c) "factually accurate" includes supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). For articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is strongly encouraged; Needs to be standardized (perhaps we could choose to not include the full title in the citation. The full details should perhaps be in the Reference section?)
    • (d) "neutral" means that an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view); and OK
    • (e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. OK. No edit war as far as I know.
  3. It complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects. These include having:
    • (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections; Could be improved
    • (b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and OK
    • (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section). OK
  4. It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article. OK. All of them are ancient works of art.
  5. It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles. OK
  • Object; this is a good article, but are there citations for the sections called "Arian controversy" and "The Nicene Creed"? Also, I'm not a fan of using quotes to tell the story—better to summarize their content and cite the source, unless for some reason the quote itself is particularly significant (like something actually said at the council, not something a researcher has written). --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 23:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)