![]() | See of Sardis was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
December 26, 2006. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the
See of Sardis, an
episcopal see once held by
Melito, continued to be held by
titular archbishops for centuries after the
Ottoman Turks conquered
Sardis? |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Did the Byzantines reconquer the city from the Arabs, only to lose it again to the Seljuks? Delmlsfan 18:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The article gives the impression that the Catholic (Frankish) Church of Rome was somehow central to the history of the see of Sardis, and disregards the fact that it was always part of the chrurch of Constantinople. The part about the Arab capture is extremely misleading, as the incident in question was a raid, and the city was immediately recaptured by the Romans. Also, the exclusively catholic bibliography is a joke. Causantin 18:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 29, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
Here's a comment in Jan. 2010 comment from drop-in visitor: Caption for a painting of a man at right begins with the word 'Clement'. But the art (an El Greco) is actually of the apostle Paul. Presumably no painter chose to make a portrait of such a minor Clement. But in the absence of one, is it better to plug in El Greco's Paul, just for a dash of color? I think it looks out of place. And the 'Clement' caption doesn't fit the 'Paul' subject very well, except by making a stretch.
Also the caption doesn't footnote any evidence backing the claim that (a) the Clement of Philippians isn't the same Clement as the Roman pope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.183.128 ( talk) 23:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.
Based on the evaluation above, it is my opinion that this article does not merit GA promotion at this time. — jackturner3 19:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It is clear POV that the Angel of the Church in Revelation was its bishop. While some Christian denominations accept that, it has been the subject of long debate in divinity departments as to whether the Angel is a bishop, a collective or the supernatural guardian of the church. Yet here is it stated as fact that the angel is the bishop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.141.23 ( talk) 16:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on See of Sardis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | See of Sardis was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
December 26, 2006. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the
See of Sardis, an
episcopal see once held by
Melito, continued to be held by
titular archbishops for centuries after the
Ottoman Turks conquered
Sardis? |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Did the Byzantines reconquer the city from the Arabs, only to lose it again to the Seljuks? Delmlsfan 18:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The article gives the impression that the Catholic (Frankish) Church of Rome was somehow central to the history of the see of Sardis, and disregards the fact that it was always part of the chrurch of Constantinople. The part about the Arab capture is extremely misleading, as the incident in question was a raid, and the city was immediately recaptured by the Romans. Also, the exclusively catholic bibliography is a joke. Causantin 18:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 29, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
Here's a comment in Jan. 2010 comment from drop-in visitor: Caption for a painting of a man at right begins with the word 'Clement'. But the art (an El Greco) is actually of the apostle Paul. Presumably no painter chose to make a portrait of such a minor Clement. But in the absence of one, is it better to plug in El Greco's Paul, just for a dash of color? I think it looks out of place. And the 'Clement' caption doesn't fit the 'Paul' subject very well, except by making a stretch.
Also the caption doesn't footnote any evidence backing the claim that (a) the Clement of Philippians isn't the same Clement as the Roman pope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.183.128 ( talk) 23:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.
Based on the evaluation above, it is my opinion that this article does not merit GA promotion at this time. — jackturner3 19:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It is clear POV that the Angel of the Church in Revelation was its bishop. While some Christian denominations accept that, it has been the subject of long debate in divinity departments as to whether the Angel is a bishop, a collective or the supernatural guardian of the church. Yet here is it stated as fact that the angel is the bishop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.141.23 ( talk) 16:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on See of Sardis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)