Talk:Catholic Church/GA2

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: LeftAire (talk · contribs) 21:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I suppose that I'll start off as the reviewer of this article. I wouldn't be surprised if other reviewers came into the mix by the time this process is over, but I'll do what I can by aiming to give this article a thorough read, and check sources wherever I can. Please give me until roughly 7-8 days to read through this article; I should have some comments up by then. Thanks! LeftAire (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article twice, I decided that due to the depth of this article, it would be best to divide the review this article in parts. This first review deals with the lead to the Virgin Mary and devotions subsection of the Doctrine section. Please bear with me, I'm still a relative novice at this craft!

• Regarding citations #9 and #10, please fix all of the links and re-assign them to the proper ones.

• Done; strange issue indeed. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If the Assumption of Mary is already cited in the Virgin Mary subsection, it doesn't have to be in the lead. (possibly be a minor quibble of mine)

• Comment Left for now (cites in lead are a sticky issue, would like additional feedback). --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 'The name "Catholic Church" is the most common designation used in official church documents' citation doesn't seem to point to this directly. Though this is likely true, if possible find a link or clarify the link given, please.

• Comment Concur that this reference is insufficient, no action yet taken --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Additionally, documents of other Churches, such as the Orthodox communion, may also refer to themselves as simply The Catholic Church, Therefore, it may be wise to use a more specific title for those in full communion with the Papacy.Ri Osraige (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You shouldn't call the Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church, because there are Eastern Rites in addition to the Roman Rite. All are in full communion with the papacy. Calling the Catholic Church the "Roman Catholic Church" is like calling Britain "England". Most people think of the Roman Catholic Church when they hear "Catholic Church", but there is an important distinction. So let's remove the "also known as the Roman Catholic Church" from the article. NathanK1 (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added "primarily in English-speaking countries," to "Roman Catholic Church," since it is unusual for native speakers of languages associated with rites other than the Latin one - as well as for speakers of other languages such as Italian, French, and Spanish - to include the qualifier "Roman" in everyday conversation, nor is it usual (although by no means unheard-of) for the Vatican to include the qualifier "Roman" in documents intended for a non-English-speaking Catholic audience. Ivain (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Ivain (talk)[reply]

13:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Later addition: another editor deleted my addition, without discussion, except noted that a source was needed. So I added a source which I hope will answer all questions.

• Another editor reverted, referring to my contribution to Wikipedia as "Revert vandalism." (Note I'll be giving someone on the Board a quick email.)Ivain (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a recurring theme throughout this article of section leads having and not having citations. Not sure how problematic that will be for this article reaching a GA status, but something to keep in mind.

• Comment For Feature Article status, consistency here would likely be important; for GA, I do not think it alone a bar, although minor work for consistency ought to continue. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a feedback loop in the development of the lead sections; new content might be added to the lead that was not in the main body, or visa versa. Content in one section might be moved to another. "Sync'ing" the lead references with body content is a challenge! --Zfish118 (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Add a citation for the first paragraph, in particular about Francis' election

• Done --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Period on the end of 'representatives'.

• Done --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Last citation of the first paragraph of the canon law subsection is a dead link.

• Comment/done Added note that a subscription is now required to access the article; added an additional citation to a free site. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Add citation 36 to the end of the second paragraph of the canon law subsection.

• Comment Links were updated since this was posted; uncertain which link you are referring to. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of the second paragraph, sorry for my lack of specificity. LeftAire (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A citation at the end of the first paragraph seems appropriate.

• Done (will address other points later) --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Use this link for the citation for the second paragraph rather than the one given. Western Church/Roman Catholicism. It should suffice for at least one of the sentences. Also, is it because of the continuity that (Roman) Catholicism claims with the Apostles of the New Testament the reason why that it considered itself to be the oldest and largest branch? Perhaps a more explicit link on the website can be found attesting to that statement. If not (or if a more suitable source cannot be found), rewrite/delete it.

• Done Added both essay to citation, removed vaguely stated "oldest and largest branch" --Zfish118 (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Citation for the last sentence of the last paragraph

Dioceses, parishes, and religious orders

• done --Zfish118 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Citations for the second (last sentence) and third paragraphs.

• done --Zfish118 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Could be a minor quibble, but for the second citation for the first sentence of the second paragraph, I had to read through quite a bit of material in order to find that link (Chapter II, Paragraph 14). Considering that other sources have the chapter (and paragraph if available) listed for the Catechism of the Catholic Church links and the like, it will better to make these type of citations more consistent in order to ease the ability to read and find the sources in the near future.

• Done Added paragraph to citation. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly a citation for the Luther removal of scripture of the Catholic Bible? May remove scratch mark later.

• The phrase 'one True Church' is a phrase that isn't used explicitly in the citation given, but is with another source used on this page: THE CATECHISM OF ST. PIUS X . The other two phrases in quotation marks (the universal sacrament of salvation for the human race" and the "true religion") cannot be confirmed from that citation as of now. I'll re-read it again to make sure, but please find better citations for those last two if possible.

• Comment though I do not favor that phrasing, there had been a citation that explicitly stated "One, true church"; I do not know why it was removed. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As for ex voto and baptism of blood, is the last section of paragraph 14 of the second chapter of Lumen Gentium supposed to have cover it? It seems more implied if anything...

• Done replace with citation to Catholic Encyclopedia (which I believe had formerly been there, but was inexplicably removed) --Zfish118 (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Mary and Devotions Nothing of note as of now. I was thinking about citations for the last section, though I wonder how necessary it really is.

First portion is done. I'll be back hopefully within the next 2 days or so with more information regarding the other sections. Please, feel free to contest and get advice from users/contributors, as I likely will do the same (my second GA review, and the first one of this significance). LeftAire (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will review your comments in the coming days. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Western Rites

• The link from the first citation does not provide any information what is presented; find a citation that matches the information given.

• done; revised section to match a published source. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please add a citation for the link about the Roman rites and the post-1969 Roman missal.

• Done, added two sources

• That information about the history of the revisions of the missal from some citations (in particular noting the changes of the missals from the different popes year by year, and the last sentence).
• I fixed a citation for the first sentence in the last paragraph, but a citation is needed for that last sentence.

• No citations for any of the information listed. Please find some for those paragraphs.

• Done Added two sources. Do not believe list needs a source (could be covered by OCE if needed)

Sacraments

• Although I can see the use of the citation from the Catholic Encylopedia, I'm not so keen about the CCC 1399 being used there. Could a better source be used?

• done^[1]

• 'Non-Catholics are ordinarily prohibitted from receiving the Eucharist as well' needs a citation; I may find a citation for this, but if you can before me, that's fine.

• done Added CoCC291, in addition to the existing source which elaborates.

• The ability of Eastern Catholic Churches to confirm infants citation doesn't seem to be affirmed from the link provided. (Was able to find an English source online 1990 CODE OF CANONS OF ORIENTAL CHURCHES to confirm it; my knowledge of Latin is very little)

• Comment Did you fix this one already? CCEO 695 seems spot on! --Zfish118 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoops...My mistake. LeftAire (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anointing of the Sick

• A citation for paragraph, please.

• Done --Zfish118 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please add a citation for the 'But after becoming a Roman Catholic priest, a man may not marry (see Clerical celibacy) unless he is formally laicised' sentence.
• The first citation of the second paragraph is a dead link.

• Done found live version

• The Only bishops and priests can administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, Reconciliation (Penance) and Anointing of the Sick sentence needs new citations, as the ones given are not sufficient.

• The citation for the first sentence only speaks of charity, and not much else. Please find a better citation.

• done, "Social gospel" is a mostly Protestant view, so I removed that. Added a source for the rest. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the 'For those who are unmarried, particularly those called to the single life or celibacy, self-mastery and discipline, with the support of friendship, are the means of finding peace' refer to all in general or just to homosexuals (as it appears to be in the citation given, and in the Homosexuality section below)? If so, please find a better citation given.

• comment, Removed this sentence. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The citations involving Pauline and Petrine privilege are repeated again. I do realize that the first instance of the citations used was used via footnote, but does it need to be repeated verbatim later?
• Perhaps provide some citations concerning the divorce law introductions for the countries listed and those w/out it.
• Remove the divorce law by country from the paragraph and perhaps add it to the Main Article section along with Annulment (Catholic Church

• Done (divorce law by country) --Zfish118 (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please either add the Catholic Church HIV/AIDS link either as part of the main article section under contraception like the suggestion for the previous section noted in this review or add it under the see also.

• Done --Zfish118 (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also add a citation for the second paragraph with sentence that includes: 'there is significant controversy within and outside the church regarding the use of condoms as a means of limiting new infections, as condom use ordinarily constitutes prohibited contraceptive use'.

• Done --Zfish118 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Citation for the last sentence.
• The first sentence about IVF has a citation that is a dead link. Please find another citation.

• Comment while "live" sources are ideal, a reliable source need not be available online. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm...That's fair. LeftAire (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Social Services

• I would think that the last two paragraphs need some citations. I realize that the information given consists of names of organizations, however I still under the impression that citations are necessary.

• I think that the first citation given (though a very intriguing read on a personal level, my favorite of the citations listed so far) could be interpreted as being focused solely on the United States. Another citation showing the nuns impact outside of the States to highlight their worldwide impact would help.

• done added additional source.^[2]

Part two is finished *Sigh of Relief*.(Yay, I get to tackle the History section next!) Hopefully I'll have something up in the following days for the History section. Ask for more questions if you run into anything, I'll try to assist you wherever I can. Mind if I ask you if there are any other significant contributors to the article that can assist you? LeftAire (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There have been several authors recently involved. The GA drive mostly finished around new years, so I image most moved on to other projects and would need to trickle back in. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, the things that need to be fixed are relatively minor in contrast to the other two. I'll give a review below within the hour after re-reading again. LeftAire (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the history section, I have had very little to do with developing this section. My understanding, however, is that it has been pretty stable for several years now after being carefully trimmed to nearly its current length. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back! Okay, here's all that needs to be done.

• Remove one of the two mentions of the East-West Schism in the Middle-Ages. Preferably, I'd remove it from the first section, and write something akin to the following: 'the tensions between Rome and Constantinople increased over the following centuries, highlighting with the Photian schism in the 8th century'. Considering the information the Reformation gets, I think it would be important to at least mention the most significant quarrel between eastern and western Christendom prior to 1054. I'll add that one myself.

• Comment It appears you have completed this! --Zfish118 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please add a citation/citations in the second, third and last paragraphs of the Medieval/Renaissance periods.
• I wondered if the Counter-Reformation needs more attention, but it kind of covers it with the Early Modern Period with the mention of the Jesuits among others (I thought that folks like Teresa of Avila should get attention, but Augustine didn't, so...Never mind it) The separation of the Reformation and the Early Modern Period sort of threw me off, since the former exists within the latter.

• Noted The history section is the most dizzying for me as well. I am uncertain how to best present it. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A citation for the last paragraph of the Early Modern Period, though that section certainly doesn't count as "Early Modern". I suggest to change the subtitle to Early Modern and Modern Periods, too.

• Comment Based on the minor confusion you cited, I moved "Age of discovery" above the "Reformation"; slightly less jumping around the timeline now!--Zfish118 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Add the link to Catholic Church and Contraception as a see also portion under the Second Vatican Council.

• Thank you! --Zfish118 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• John Paul II probably needs a title change, too. Maybe Notable 20th Century figures.

• Comment In lieu of renaming, I moved the content about Mother Teresa and the other winner to "Social Services" (where Mother Teresa was already mentioned) --Zfish118 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Citation for the first paragraph of the twenty-first century subsection.

• 'Done --Zfish118 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm going to give the article another re-read. There are still a few other places where citations are needed, and after I go through and add said citations for those that I can find, you'll see some paragraphs that have the 'citation needed' link, hopefully within a few hours. Hope this process hasn't been too lengthy, but this article is a big one. I'll try to find citations for those that need it for the History section, but don't wait up, since you may beat me to it. LeftAire (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! You have been exceptionally prompt, given the huge size and scope of this article (I did not expect anyone to get to it for several months actually). I've been working on and off on this article for a while now, and have never seen it better. Having fresh eyes look at all the citations really helps! --Zfish118 (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zfish118 No problem! I am going to place a hold on the article within a few hours, but once I do the period given to fix issues with the article would be seven days. I need to check if anyone has responded to my question about citation usage for this article (I may have to officially request a second opinion), and there are still some unaddressed issues (among those citations). Would you be able to fix those issues within a week? This article doesn't have many other issues...LeftAire (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I have addressed the majority of you concerns, including the remaining "citation needed" tags. I also added references for the services/aid organizations, just in case :p --Zfish118 (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I look forward to the remainder of your assessment! --Zfish118 (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is almost ready for a pass. Just one more issue. The link from the citation given for this portion in the Nature of the Church -"the universal sacrament of salvation for the human race" and the "true religion"- doesn't provide the quotes given from the link given. Perhaps use the Lumen Gentium link to provide different citation of what the Catholic Church considers itself to be, or find a citation that actually states those two sources (reliable ones, of course). LeftAire (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed it! "Universal..." was originally a quote from the Catechism, but the Catechism cited two sources, and the wrong original source document was cited in the article; I put in the correct original source. "True religion" was not in either source, and I removed it as redundant. --Zfish118 (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right, then! It appears that everything has been handled, as I have taken care of the last bit of necessary citations. Congrats, this article has passed! Nice to see an article of this significance be recognized as one of the better articles. I don't know if you're pushing the article for a FA status, but I suggest a peer review beforehand if you decide to do so. LeftAire (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]