GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Pgallert ( talk · contribs) 07:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
After reading through this article I feel there are some general concerns which I will throw in right away. I have a long list of specific concerns that I will add below during the course of the week.
I foresee that a thorough review is going to take me several days (I cannot devote all day to WP). I hope that you will stay on board for longer than the usual 7 days.
A quote from User:Ian.thomson on Talk:God probably best summarises this concern:
[...] Of the 13 sections of the article, 6 discuss non-Jewish Christian ideas (7 if you want to count Islamic views of Islamic understanding of Christian ideas). In contrast, Islamic ideas appear in 6 sections, Jewish ideas in 7 sections, and Hindu ideas in 5 sections, and disbelief is discussed in 4 sections. Considering 53% of the world's population belong to Abrahamic religions, it's not really all that undue [...]
I agree that this is not undue, but it is likewise not broad. Within all general topics under discussion, there should be respective representation of the main religions. Which religions to cover, and which to only link somewhere under see-also, should probably be determined by consensus. It would then still be appropriate to include particular views of minor religions in sections that specifically concern their difference, but a situation that one section covers Christianity and Islam, while another only mentions Hinduism and Shikism is not good.
The article further lacks a History section. There are plenty of sources.
The structure seems to be not entirely thought through, preventing a smooth flow of prose and confusing the reader. For instance:
Suggestion: It seems that the infobox {{God}} is properly structured. Would it therefore make sense to have a general structure according to the Attributes (omnipotence, existence,...), and within those sections coverage of particular religions? (Not the other way round, that's what religion should cover)
I am aware that this is essentially requesting a complete rewrite but I am willing to accompany the process as reviewer.
I am aware that reference requirements for GA are now less strict than even for DYK. Still, I see entire paragraphs without references, and the pattern of which propositions carry a reference, and which ones don't, is unclear to me. Per good article criteria every assertion that is "likely to be challenged" must be referenced. It is hard for me to see which ones that would be, but the current pattern makes no sense. I'll give an example for clarity:
Many medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God.
This has been referenced although it is quite common knowledge and unlikely to be challenged.
However, if by its essential nature, free will is not predetermined, then the effect of its will can never be perfectly predicted by anyone, regardless of intelligence and knowledge.
This has not been referenced but would certainly be challenged by Islam.
This is a very difficult topic; I have a concern also in this section: Which sources have been picked to create the article seems to be, for lack of a better expression, somewhat haphazard. There are frequent text patterns such as Some theologians, such as the scientist and theologian A.E. McGrath, argue, or Stephen Jay Gould proposed an approach and Another view, advanced by Richard Dawkins, is that---How have these representatives been elected? Are they the leading theologians of their time, are their views representative?
This concludes my initial assessment. I put the GAN on hold to see whether any improvement is going to take place, currently it looks a bit like a fly-by nomination. If you have any questions please contact me here or on my talk page. Cheers, Pgallert ( talk) 21:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, it has been nine days now without anyone improving the article in any substantial way. I fail this nomination for lack of broadness and inconsistency. -- Pgallert ( talk) 06:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Pgallert ( talk · contribs) 07:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
After reading through this article I feel there are some general concerns which I will throw in right away. I have a long list of specific concerns that I will add below during the course of the week.
I foresee that a thorough review is going to take me several days (I cannot devote all day to WP). I hope that you will stay on board for longer than the usual 7 days.
A quote from User:Ian.thomson on Talk:God probably best summarises this concern:
[...] Of the 13 sections of the article, 6 discuss non-Jewish Christian ideas (7 if you want to count Islamic views of Islamic understanding of Christian ideas). In contrast, Islamic ideas appear in 6 sections, Jewish ideas in 7 sections, and Hindu ideas in 5 sections, and disbelief is discussed in 4 sections. Considering 53% of the world's population belong to Abrahamic religions, it's not really all that undue [...]
I agree that this is not undue, but it is likewise not broad. Within all general topics under discussion, there should be respective representation of the main religions. Which religions to cover, and which to only link somewhere under see-also, should probably be determined by consensus. It would then still be appropriate to include particular views of minor religions in sections that specifically concern their difference, but a situation that one section covers Christianity and Islam, while another only mentions Hinduism and Shikism is not good.
The article further lacks a History section. There are plenty of sources.
The structure seems to be not entirely thought through, preventing a smooth flow of prose and confusing the reader. For instance:
Suggestion: It seems that the infobox {{God}} is properly structured. Would it therefore make sense to have a general structure according to the Attributes (omnipotence, existence,...), and within those sections coverage of particular religions? (Not the other way round, that's what religion should cover)
I am aware that this is essentially requesting a complete rewrite but I am willing to accompany the process as reviewer.
I am aware that reference requirements for GA are now less strict than even for DYK. Still, I see entire paragraphs without references, and the pattern of which propositions carry a reference, and which ones don't, is unclear to me. Per good article criteria every assertion that is "likely to be challenged" must be referenced. It is hard for me to see which ones that would be, but the current pattern makes no sense. I'll give an example for clarity:
Many medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God.
This has been referenced although it is quite common knowledge and unlikely to be challenged.
However, if by its essential nature, free will is not predetermined, then the effect of its will can never be perfectly predicted by anyone, regardless of intelligence and knowledge.
This has not been referenced but would certainly be challenged by Islam.
This is a very difficult topic; I have a concern also in this section: Which sources have been picked to create the article seems to be, for lack of a better expression, somewhat haphazard. There are frequent text patterns such as Some theologians, such as the scientist and theologian A.E. McGrath, argue, or Stephen Jay Gould proposed an approach and Another view, advanced by Richard Dawkins, is that---How have these representatives been elected? Are they the leading theologians of their time, are their views representative?
This concludes my initial assessment. I put the GAN on hold to see whether any improvement is going to take place, currently it looks a bit like a fly-by nomination. If you have any questions please contact me here or on my talk page. Cheers, Pgallert ( talk) 21:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, it has been nine days now without anyone improving the article in any substantial way. I fail this nomination for lack of broadness and inconsistency. -- Pgallert ( talk) 06:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)