Wikipedia:Featured article review/Christianity

Article is no longer a featured article

I must admit that I have not read through this article completely, but my first impression is that it is very messy. It has no images except a chart at the beginning, it uses bullet points in the middle of a paragraph (#Beliefs), and most of it consists of a table "Christianity By Country", which could well be moved over to an article of its own. It just doesn't look featured. And the page documenting its featurification (that's not a word, is it?) is practically non-existant. I would very much like to see a featured article on Christianity, but it better be good. Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 14:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I like this article and find it to be finely written. I posit my vote to keep it as a featured article. -JudgeX (User's only edit)

• Remove. Fails Criterion 2(a) (poorly written throughout). Here's an example of clumsy writing, taken at random, from the start of the history section:

'The history of Christianity is difficult to extricate from that of the European West (and several other culture-regions) in general. By way of summary, we may note ...

Fails Criterion 2(c) miserably ('the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations')—take, for example, the numerical estimates that are trotted out in the lead: who says?

Fails Criterion 2(b) ('does not neglect any major facts or details'). The history section is one para long.

BTW, the lead might mention that it's one of the great 'revealed' religions.

Tony 04:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove I side with the nominator and Tony on this. The lead is a mishmash, the table "Christianity by Country" is overbearing, and the prose is a long shot from "compelling". It could use a copy edit for starters, and a fact check to boot. To pick a random example, the article treats the story about Hypatia getting murdered by a mob as, if you'll forgive the phrase, gospel. It's a great story, but the last time I read any scholarly work on her, it wasn't proven, and the details are still up for grabs. Anville 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, FAs can be cleaned up. Good article. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 03:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove Also in agreement with Tony. The balance of the article is wrong and the prose is in many places wanting, such as this: Again, while some churches take exception to some of these articles, to the extent that they do so, this usually represents a conscious departure from the Christian mainstream. Some Christian traditions, such as those of the Baptists and the Churches of Christ, would accept these beliefs, but not the creed itself, since all creeds are regarded as unnecessary and even counter-productive in these circles. Also the list by country is unnecessary in the main article, and including the entire Nicene creed is offputting, given the summary nature of most of the article. The text should be referenced to the main article on the Nicene Council. Also, missing is any pertinent overview of early Christian conciliarism and fracture (obliquely offered up in this convolution: Obviously, not all Christians have accepted all of these articles of faith, or else such a creed would never have been written. The Creed's lines frequently target certain opposing beliefs of other early Christians, which the council regarded as heretical. Examples would include Ebionite groups which denied Jesus's divinity, a well as Docetist groups which denied that Christ was a human being, or Arians, who disputed that the Father and the Son were "of one being". Other early heresies included Simonianism, Marcionism, Gnosticism and Montanism.). This article is really, in its implicit function, a clearing-house for the numerous sub-articles on the different aspects of Christianity and should thus provide much more synthesis in a way that interested readers can be directed to more detailed articles. Eusebeus 10:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After seeing some of the issues brought up with this article, I went in and repaired several major problems, including moving the "Christianity by country" table to a sub-article. Nevertheless, there are several problems with prose that I am still trying to resolve (notably in the "history" section), and would appreciate someone helping out on this. Pentawing 01:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove Agree with critiques; this article simply does not deserve featured status at this time. --Zantastik 10:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article dates back to the old "brilliant prose" days; the vote which raised it to FA can be found here. Also, does anyone see a way to make Note #3 an encyclopedic statement? "Many Christians identify themselves as such not by the adherance to a set of religious rules or rites but instead by their personal relationship to Jesus Christ" sounds like the sort of statement which desperately needs elaboration, rephrasing or something. The footnote in question is actually attached to a section title ("Worship and practices"), which is an unbelievably gauche practice. This statement may reflect the views of modern-day evangelical Protestants, for example, but how does it square with the strife between Homousians and Homoiusians, between those who crossed themselves with two fingers and those who crossed with three? Anville 12:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I am amazed this is a featured article. I recall saying on IRC not too long ago how surprisingly short and uncomprehensive this article was. Little did I know it was a featured article. Definite and strong remove. Johnleemk | Talk 20:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Remove - This is a travesty of an article about a major subject, let alone a travesty of a featured article. - Cuivienen 04:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove another article that is not ready yet. Like Johnleemk I also think that the article is too uncomprehensive and also long to be a FA. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove -- contains a couple of stunners, one of which really took my breath away:

If Christians largely agree on the content of the Bible, no such consensus is forthcoming on the crucial matter of its interpretation...

Christians "largely agree" on the Bible's content? This sentence blithely passes over the literally thousands of disputed/variant readings in the texts, not to mention the fierce partisan disputes that have played out for five hundred years or so concerning how (and, not infrequently, whether) to print translations of the Bible in local languages. Christians do not largely agree on the content of the Bible, and I invite anyone who thinks they do to explain why no two contemporary authorities seem to be able to agree on what to translate -- or even, in many cases, where to put what has been translated. For instance, the placement of the story of the woman caught in adultery, or the end of Mark's gospel. These are not minor issues. Protestants and Catholics can't even agree on how many books there are! Right now we've got (in English) Catholics who swear by Challoner-Rheims (derived, not from Greek, but from the Latin Vulgate) and fundamentalist Christians who swear by KJV (derived from Greek sources consulted by Jacobean scholars whose work is now hopelessly archaic and out of date). If you think those two versions "largely agree" with each other, you haven't read them. Major problems here. BYT 22:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove. - Mailer Diablo 08:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove could be a lot better, will read through it more carefully after Christmas to say why I think so. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove. CG 22:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove - I side with the other people who are saying Remove in this debate. The article has many poorly written sentences, the organization is terrible, and the article pretty much lacks sources except for The Bible, which it takes as the inerrant truth. Maybe this is going to "offend" some people but just because it's written in a single book doesn't make it a verifiable fact. See the above example about Hypatia, for instance. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]