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

Reviewer: Jenhawk777 ( talk · contribs) 09:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, I am excited to review this GA nomination.

Overall progress

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The good

•  Done The images selected are high quality, freely licensed and placed in relevant sections.
•  Done The prose style is well written as a whole, in a neutral and comprehensive manner. Most Christian denominations are covered and written in a balanced way.
•   Reliable sources are by and large used, however there is one failed verification (a nuanced one) and 4 citations missing tags, that definitely need to be addressed for this to pass.

• • This has all been checked and rechecked now. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 20:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The work in progress

• In 1 Samuel 2:12, the sons of Eli are called belial for not recognizing Yahweh and therefore violating sacrifice rituals should become In 1 Samuel 2:12, the sons of Eli are called belial for not recognizing Yahweh during the Slaughter offering, they were blasphemous in a priestly ceremony

• It took me a few seconds to figure what "around NUMBER" was referring to, I'd replace the term "around" birth/death years with {{ circa}} to make it clear it's about years and not some other unit.

• Shemyaza is unusual spelling should be Samyaza maybe? I cannot easily verify what the source says

• Awkward phrasing eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil from the forbidden tree, could be rephrased like eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge

• There was a typo of monasticsm, but not sure if it's supposed to be monasticism or monism

Looking forward to your feedback and as long as you're actively working on it, happy to wait a bit longer before deciding. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him •  talk) 23:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• • Hi, Shushugah I am Jenhawk777 and I specialize in articles on religion. I was looking at the "remove the backlog" at GA and saw your disclaimer on how much you are able to work on this article and I thought I would volunteer to help out. This is an incredible article - but long - so if you would like any assistance, just let me know. I am available right now. Happy new year! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 23:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply

    @ Jenhawk777 I'm a little confused which disclaim you're referring to. The disclaimer about limited time was from the person who nominated the article VenusFeuerFalle. Nonetheless, it's a very complex/technical article, so your feedback on this review and or the article itself is very much appreciated! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him •  talk) 23:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply

    • Ahh, I didn't read that signature carefully. I thought that was you. So you don't really need me at all, you're doing fine, but I am terrifically interested in this article, so I may do a few small edits here and there. In answer to your questions above, Shemyaza and Samyaza are both used, so either is correct, which should probably be added, and the correct spelling is monasticism. Monism is a type of philosophy. If I get in the way, just tell me to piss off, and I will, no offense taken. Happy editing! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 03:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I am sorry for the delay, was not online for 7 days (or even longer). I will look for all the issues from now on.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 15:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I now tried to edit some issues ("vague"-tags and "citation needed"-tags) and solved the problems listed above. Some did other users already (thank you very much), like "monasticism" or clarifying that the angel accopaning Azazel ccan be spelled both Samyaza or Shemyaza (I personally encountered Shemyaza more often, but, as stated above, both are valid). Regarding the section about Samuel, I am not entirely sure, but concluding from the GA review Box, I assume this section was suspected of original research, so I added a reference. Also changed "around" to "circa", using the proper template.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 19:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Pinging reviewer Shushugah to let him know that some issues have been addressed. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Second opinion

Hi VenusFeuerFalle I understand you have asked for a second opinion. I am Jenhawk777. I write exclusively on religion and philosophy as those are my undergrad degrees, and I have some grad school in philosophy in the field of ethics. A glance at this article tells me a lot of quality work has gone into this. It's both impressive and quite fascinating. I will do a section at a time, if that works for you. I'll focus primarily on prose but I will also check content and do the occasional reference check as I go through.

Lead

While the devil played for most scholars no significant role in the Modern Era, he became more important in contemporary Christianity again. Sentence structure is awkward. I'd put 'For most scholars' at the front, and the second half needs explaining.

The lead should be a summary of the content of the article, and this one's a little thin, especially for such a long article with so much substantive content. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Satan in the Old Testament

• • And Hello VenusFeuerFalle I am glad to hear from you! If and when you have responded to any of my suggestions, I would appreciate it if you would mark them with the template  Done. It makes it easier for me to keep track. I note that you have posted reasons for not agreeing and that is certainly acceptable as well. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 00:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks! Yes, I will next time I am on this. I think I have time again on Sunday.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 03:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• accuser" or "adversary", which is used... This sentence is too long. Divide it. I suggest ending the first sentence after adversary and beginning the second sentence with "The term is used... That makes the third sentence begin with a repetition, so just change "The word" to It.
• When it is used without the definite article (simply satan), the word can refer to any accuser,[7] but when it is used with the definite article (Ha-Satan), it usually refers specifically to the heavenly accuser: "The Satan. Try: "When satan is used without a definite article, it refers to any accuser, but "the Satan" (Ha-Satan), with a definite article, usually refers to the heavenly accuser. (Pick usually or specifically, both aren't necessary.)  Done
• The word with the definite article... Just use the word: "Satan with the definite article ... Done
• "The Satan" appears 17 times but allusion to the idea of the devil is present in more than two books. Ezekiel 28:12-19 references a "fallen angel" as an example of what happens to those who think too highly of themselves; Isaiah 14:12-17, and more in Isaiah, Habakuk, and 1 Chronicles. I don't see this in the Lucifer section, so what do you think about adding a sentence here?

Not sure if I get what you mean. Ezekiel is under the "Identified with the Devil" header. I remember removing some references to Satan, like 1 Chronicles, because there haven't been much of secondary sources mentioning them. I thought they aren't noteworthy.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 23:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• • Okay then. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 00:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• The word without the definite article is .. Book of Numbers, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 Kings). The trouble here is that there are two other words also used for "devils" and demons – sâ'îr and shêd – in Zechariah, Isaiah, Job, Habakuk, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Psalms.

The sâ'îr and shêd are, however, conceptually different than "the Devil" or "Satan". They are more nature spirits or demons of the wilderness. One might identify them with "lesser devils", but are, as far as I am aware of, not an image of "The Devil". When talking about the "demonic" or demons in general, I would agree, but since this is pretty much about Satan&Devil, I don't think we need to consider the shedim and se'irim.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 23:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• • Indeed, they are devils, not the devil, but does this section not mention devils? Jenhawk777 ( talk) 00:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I see. As far as I understood, this is about satans translated as Sata, devil, accuser etc., not about any concept of devils or demons. I may check it up again, the upcomming days, if you wish.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 14:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• * Lots of little sections are distracting to the reader and often don't show up on a telephone at all, and since a lot of WP readers use their phones, that's problematic. You might want to consider removing the next three section headings entirely and folding their content into "Satan in the Old Testament". Done

Sad, I liked them. :-(-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 23:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• • I know, I always feel that way too. They organize everything so neatly! I would think they would make it easier to find what you are looking for, but my last GAR had me remove all of mine because he couldn't see them on his phone and 2 out of 5 people - according to him - use WP on their phones. If you want your article accessible to those people, make few sections under other sections. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with them and you may, of course, do as you please. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 00:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I think Wikipedia is better used on PC anyways. But yes, it should be readable for everyone.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 14:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

No problem. I waited for about 4 months I guess. And proofreading can take time. Maybe delay would even be partly my fault, since this will be a busy week to me. But I am sure, we make it.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 14:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Job's Adversary

• God asks one of them, Satan, where he has been, to which he replies that he has been roaming... "God asks Satan where he has been. Satan replies, roaming the earth." Keep it simple when you can.  Done
• Satan replies by urging God to let him torture Job, promising that Job will abandon his faith at the first tribulation Not exactly. Satan replies by pointing out how God has blessed Job – “Does Job fear God for nothing?" – take that away and he will curse you.  Done

Not sure what exactly is objectable. I rewrote the sentence, hope this is better now.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 23:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

What is objectionable is that this paraphrase urging God to let him torture Job is technically inaccurate. Satan never asks to torture Job. He asks to test his faith, to prove that Job is only a "fair-weather-friend". God consents to temporarily removing his blessing and protection, and the implication is that God has faith in Job. Interesting huh? Torture is never mentioned. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes, you are right. Satan might be mean, but he isn't that sadistic in Job. I rewrote the sentence, because on a second thought, it didn't appealed to me anymore too.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 14:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• God consents; Satan destroys Job's servants and flocks, yet Job refuses to condemn God.[12] Add in that all his sons and daughters were also killed, and then Job's health, but that the story says he got back double what he had lost in the end.  Done
• I don't know if you might want to add this or not, but Job is considered to be the oldest book in the Bible and has evidence of non-Jewish origins.  Done

This is a really interesting info, but I think it might be out of place. It could be helpful if proper context is provided, like "Satan is arguably from non-Jewish origin", but this would probably more important for the Satan or Devil (main)-article.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 23:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Okay. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

VenusFeuerFalle As of today, it's still there: Satan requests God to test him and to let him torture Job, so Job would abandon his faith. Do you have a reference that says 'torture'? Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I am sorry, I missed that point. I think it was rather a summary about how Satan tests Job. But yes, according to Kelly, Satan aks God to test Job, so it is not Satan causing misery, Satan "influences" God to cause disaster. Haven't noticed that. Thanks!-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 12:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

David and Satan

• This is an awfully long sentence: Since the satan is sent by the will of God, his function resembles less the devilish enemy of God, and even if it is accepted that this satan refers to a supernatural agent, it is not necessarily implied this is the Satan. I would divide it.  Done

• • Some parts of the Bible, which do not originally refer to an evil spirit or Satan, have been retrospectively interpreted as references to the devil.[22] We'll discuss this one when I come back. :-) Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• • • I wondered if it might be pertinent to add a short explanation along with that lone sentence. Perhaps a reference to the fullest biblical explanation of Satan not appearing until the final book of the New Testament, the book of Revelation – whose provenance is disputed - especially since you refer to it in the next section. This is a possible reference: ^[1]

References

Jenhawk777 ( talk) 08:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)  Done reply

I don't think it is necessary, since it becomes clear when reading through the sections. But I added this nontheless, making this exposition of Satan as the devil not earlier than the Book of Revelation explicit.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 15:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Lucifer

• for example Hieronymus, in his Vulgate — this will be confusing for the average reader. If you want to give his name in the original languages, begin with the common name first: "Jerome, or Saint Jerome, (Latin: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus; Greek: Εὐσέβιος Σωφρόνιος Ἱερώνυμος)"...  Done
• only the mystified end of a Babylonian king. did you mean mysterious? or maybe mystifying? Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Done reply
  • However, the role of Belial is in opposition to that of Satan: while Belial, representing chaos and death, stands outside of God's cosmos, Satan roams the earth, fighting for the maintenance of the divine order and punishing precisely everything Belial stands for. You'll have to offer some real defense for this one. My Deutsch isn't good enough to decipher the full meaning of the text in the book you reference, but in any case, this claim is seemingly contradicted by your other source. Kelly's Satan: A Biography on page 41 in the footnote about Watson, and on pages 19, 36, 44, 50-51. There's also this One of the most salient figures to emerge from the Qumran scrolls is the archdemon Belial, leader of the forces of darkness. from Dimant, Devorah. "Between Qumran Sectarian and Non-Sectarian Texts: The Case of Belial and Mastema." The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture. Brill, 2011. 235-256. And this one Tucker, Paavo. "Reconsidering Bελιάρ: 2 Corinthians 6: 15 in Its Anti-imperial Jewish Apocalyptic Context." Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters 4.2 (2014): 169-185. which says Belial, who epitomizes power hostile to God. I'm thinking Theobald may not be the best source. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I wonna have a look at this on another day. I think I need more time to recheck the sources here.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 16:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Jenhawk777: I don't see a contradiction between the sources. Maybe you could help and pointing it out directly? Maybe I expressed myself badly in the article, but Theobald seems to be in accordance with most statements. The claims usually made are: 1) In the Old Testament, Satan is not the enemy of God, but merely an angels with some sinister tasks. 2) Belial is some sort of personified evil, pretty much a devil, until the times of the New Testament (in Qumram a spirit, in the Old Testament merely an abstraction). I think this is that Theobold states too. I wonna give a short translation here: "Satan and Belial, both old-testamental roots of early-jewish/proto-christian concept of the devil, are diametrically opposed entities. The old-testamental Satan is on side with God and fights for keeping up God's laws and order. He roams he earth to punish human's offenses against God's law and even distrusts humans, when he doesn't find any flaws in them. Belial on the other hand, starts as a force of Death and Chaos, and statnds outside of God's order. The term [Belial] is used in the Old Testament as an abstraction and stands for everything what is against God and humans living together. One could say, it is this belialic behavior, Satan is looking to accuse before God." (page 34) Tell me if this helps. I think this is an important point and I would like to keep it within the article.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 22:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply

VenusFeuerFalle Thanx for the ping! I've been hoping to hear from you. This is an excellent paragraph, but what's in the article is not this clear. Perhaps the summary is too brief. If you want to keep this, I would like to see you add this whole paragraph, with the quote. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Okay, I wonna extent this.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 13:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

If I didn't comment on something, that means I thought it was good. :-) I'll be back tomorrow. With a little diligence we should be able to finish this in a week easy peasy. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Intertestimental texts

• ... Satan and his angels are clearly in the service of God, akin to Satan in the Book of Job. Satan and his lesser satans act as God's executioners: In the first place, this is uncited, and in the second place, it is decidedly confused. The only source I can find that in any way comes even a little bit close is ^[1] and Pagels explains it quite differently than you have here.

• Try this: "Hebrew writers of the sixth century BC used the imagery of a satan to characterize fellow Israelites as dangerous adversaries they struggled against. Elaine H. Pagels writes that the story of Balaam in the book of Numbers refers to an angel who says to Balaam, "I came here to oppose you because your way is evil in my eyes." This satan, (without the definite article), is a being that is not necessarily evil. This is a messenger, one of God's obedient servants, an adversary sent for the purpose of blocking human activity that is contrary to God's will. In this example a satan is similar to the angel of death." (pages 39-41, 42)

This is not The Satan with a definite article as you have it here. This is a satan meaning only an adversary. This applies to your discussion of When it is used without the definite article (simply satan), the word can refer to any accuser and is part of the history of the development of the concept, but it isn't about intertestimental texts, it's about the early Hebrew. If you want to keep this, it should be moved up to Satan in the OT.

• angels of punishment are depicted in Enoch as acting to carry out punishments only after death and sentence in the heavenly court has been determined. ^[2]

• That's all I can do tonight.

References

Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

This is a quote from the source I was refering to: "These offenders were punished with imprisonment. Azazel, the leader and chief offender, received especially severe punishment. But the children of the fallen angels and the human mothers are giants and their disembodied spirits are the demons that work under Satan for the moral ruin of man and they are permitted to work till the Judgment without hindrance. But in the Similitudes, Secs. 37-70, the author has a more comprehensive world-view; he traces evil farther back, responsibility lies at the door of the Satans (40:7). The guilt of the watchers was not due to simple lust, it was yielding to the Satans (54:6). That is to say, in this section of Enoch the origin of sin is traced back to the Satans. Other angels and men were misled by them, yet a Persian dualism does not seem implied, for the Satans are subject to the Lord of spirits. The Satans still appear in heaven, as in the Book of Job, though they do not always seem welcome (40:7). The functions of the Satans and the fallen angels are sometimes confused, as in 69:4 f. Their office is threefold: (i) They tempt to evil, through lustful suggestion, evil counsel, teaching men war and its weapons. (2) They accuse the fallen (40:7); Faunel, an angel of the presence, acts as a check on the Satans in this sinister work. (3) They, as angels of punishment, punished the condemned. For their purpose they used scourges and chains of iron and bronze and other "instruments of Satan"." ("The Doctrine of Satan: II. Satan in Extra-Biblical Apocalyptical Literature") This is also the source I used after the colons. I thought it is enough, when the colons are introduced to explain the aforementioned statement. Should I add the source before the colons?-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 16:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC) reply

VenusFeuerFalle It's been so long, I am no longer clear on what this is about. Can you remind me? Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

as far as I remember, you mentioned a lack of source. Maybe I put it on the wrong place. I think I corrected that. But just in case, I quoted the part supporting my claim in the article.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 13:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

New Testament

I made a few small grammar corrections, otherwise this section is good.

Christian teachings

I corrected some grammar and content on the problem of evil.

Origen

creatures first, then the no comma  Done to this view, which was borrowed no comma  Done and the existence of the material world is a result remove "the existence of"  Done destruction and suffering, too. no comma, no too  Done grasp and the add a comma after grasp'  Done followed by those who adhere to his will. is a sentence fragment, it needs fixing his will whose? God's or the devils? clarify  Done restored, after no comma  Done

• I am having eye surgery early in the morning and may not get back here tomorrow at all, but I promise I will be back within a day or so. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Uh, hope your surgery is fine. Don't push yourself too much. I see someone made a few citation requests. Most of them are claims followed the source mentioned a sentence previously. However, this will take some time, and this is a really busy week. But I have this in mind.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 10:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

VenusFeuerFalle My eye hurts tonight so I am not doing much, but I will say that if you are sure those sentences are covered by an existing citation, yet it doesn't seem clear to the other editor, just copy them and add them at the end of the questioned sentence. They'll be happy, and it won't be much extra work for you. If you are too busy, would you like me to hold off on adding anything more here for a bit? I can go as fast or as slowly as you like. Just let me know. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply

VenusFeuerFalle I am stopping for now as I see that most of these changes have not been made. You are overwhelmed with too much to do, I understand. Let me know when, and if, you would like me to come back to it. I cannot support this article for GA as it stands, but I do believe it can get there. There is nothing that says every article must go GA, however, so if you've changed your mind, that is perfectly ok too. Ping me if and when you want me back. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC) reply

{od}} VenusFeuerFalle I think we have resolved all issues so far and are both caught up to the same place now, (Augustine) so if you are interested in having me finish this, I will. I will tell you that in RL right now, I am under some stress. My mother is in the hospital and not doing well. I should be able to work on this once a day or so - it will provide a good distraction - but it is also possible I may miss a day or two. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Don't push yourself too much. We are both busy and might miss some days. I would be happy if you finish this. But I am completly fine if you miss out some days. I cannot promise I keep up everyday either. I try, but sometimes it doesn't work. Hope your mother will recover.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 12:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Then I will do my very best for you with the understanding that it may be hit or miss for awhile. Thank you for the good wishes. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I have no trouble with it if it takes a little longer. I waited several months until it got reviewed, so I have no trouble if it takes a little bit longer. I cannot check everyday either, now.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 01:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Augustine

I ended up rewording some of the theology myself, w/citation. Augustine can be difficult. I hope that's okay. If you don't like it, feel free to rephrase yourself. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Anselm of Canterbury

This is good; I added a 'that' and a comma, that's all. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

History

Early Christianity

at some point, freely chosen evil add 'had' after the comma I moved names in one sentence. This section is good. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)  Done reply

Byzantium

No comments at all on this section except that it's very well done. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks! VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 01:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Early Middle Ages

This section is also excellent. All I did was correct one typo. Well done. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I am flying out tomorrow to the hospital and don't know if I will be back tomorrow or not, but at this rate, I will be done soon. I really do like your article! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks, hope many people will enjoy and benefit from it. I also like the way it turns out. And since it is such a central topic on religio, I would like to have it GA so much. Hope all the best for your mother!-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 01:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Minor citation issues

Hi all, just two minor citation issues, the refs for Holden (176) and Campo (6) to not correspond to any items in the bibliography—I'm assuming the full citations are missing. Bravo on the article thus far! Best –  Aza24 ( talk) 20:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for both your kind words as well as pointing out the missing books!-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 01:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Cathars and Bogomiles

I made some very minor changes, and there is one citation issue here as well. I know that what you have written is correct, but it does need a citation anyway, especially since it is in wiki-voice. This section is also excellent. The changes I made were very minor, and since I know you are busy in real life, I didn't even think them worth mentioning and just did them. If that's not okay, again, there will be no problems if you go back and do something else. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 19:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Your minor edits are welcome and I really appreciate them. It is much easier to edit minor mistakes or improvements straight forward. I think I put the source in the end of the paragraph, but since they are split this doesn't ofc. I added the requested citation. -- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 02:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Charismatic movements

VenusFeuerFalle

Well good then, because I have done some up through Charismatic movements. These sections have all been well done and this is going very quickly now. I am going to run the copyright check when I am finished. I may have found a site that has copied from you, but we can deal with that. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 13:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I thought I had run across some while checking sources. Go here [ [1]] It says there are violations, and that's a must-fail. If they are yours, those must be fixed before any GA can be approved. You can quote, though large blocks are discouraged, or cite the web and paraphrase, but you cannot quote w/o citing. If these are not yours, we will need to post a reverse-violation tag on this article. I can go no further until these are fixed. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 21:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The webpage with 79% similarity seems to be copied from Wikipedia to explain their profile (the devil in that case). This happens often. Instead of writing an introduction on their own, they simply copy Wikipedia. The differences seem to be, before the article was changed during its reviews. So yeh, they copied the Wikipedia article. I don't understand how exaclty we have to procced from now on. Before we finish, I remeber there are some request tags in the article, and I would like to rewrite the lead section. it is a little bit short.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 20:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Put a backwards copy violation tag near the top of the Talk page. Fill it out with the relevant data as much as you can. I'll be back as soon as I am able. My mother died and we have to close up her house and it's all been very difficult. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 16:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I am sorry to read that. Take all the time you need, and thank for your ongoing support despite the circumstances. VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 23:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply

VenusFeuerFalle I'm so sorry about this delay, and if you want to see if you can get someone else to finish, I understand, but I am hoping you won't give up on me. I think it will be one more week, maybe even a little less. I am emotionally and physically exhausted and looking forward to being home soon - and finishing this review. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for checking in. Take all the time you need. Death of a beloved one is something what gets people down. This is just natural. We don't even get paid for Wikipedia (or do you? if yes tell me), so it is voluntary work. You explained the situation, you need time to recover from your lose, I will wait. Don't push yourself too much. VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 19:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm back!

I am finally home after over a month of clearing out my mother's house. It's been sad and exhausting and I am glad to be home and back at work on WP. It is late, so I will begin tomorrow. Thank you for being so understanding. Hopefully this will finish up quickly. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Welcome back! Glad to read you managed all that stuff. VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 14:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC) reply

thank you! I have checked to be sure that I have the power to pass this when we are done and have been told I can. I have read through the remainder of the article and have almost no comments, but one of those comments is a request for an addition: you have a section on evangelical Protestant views but no other, and I think that you need a fuller spectrum of what the various Protestant views are. They vary quite a bit. I hope you can see fit to add that in. I can help if you like. Let me know. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

VenusFeuerFalle I have spent all my time online the last few days looking up sources to get rid of those dang citation needed tags. I hate those things. They are gone now. I hope to find no more! I will get back to the remainder of the review Sunday night. Easter weekend is busy. Hope you have a good weekend! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Remainder of article

I have gone through it all at least once, some of it twice, and will go through the rest a second time, but I am not finding much to trouble with. I have made a few minor changes to grammar, but otherwise, there is nothing much left. I'll take another day or two to finish up and will then give the okay. It is good, and I have enjoyed working with you. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm done! It's done!! I have notified Shushugah since they never changed it to me and are still listed as the reviewer. If we don'r hear back from them within a day, I will go through getting the article declared as abandoned and me as the reviewer and I will pass it. One way or the other, you should have your GA status before the end of the week. Congratulations! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 20:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Nice! Thanks for finishing the review! VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 21:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Would you mind to review the hooks for DYN nominations by the way? I think this goes fast, and is always a good way to celebrate a successful GA Nominee. VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 22:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

VenusFeuerFalle, Jenhawk777, GA reviewers are specifically prohibited from reviewing a subsequent DYK for the same article, see WP:DYKSG#H2 for further information. Jenhawk777, no need to consult Shushugah at this point; they abandoned the review, and you took over. The decision to pass or fail or request further changes is entirely up to you. Thanks for taking this one on! BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

DYK will get along just fine without me. And you are most welcome. You must have despaired at times, but you hung in there. I appreciate that. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

BlueMoonset I tried three different ways to indicate on the GA1 review page, at the GA listing site, and on the article talk page, that I was doing the review, and couldn't. The bot kept erasing everything I did. Since no tag for requesting a second opinion was ever posted, I could not post that I had responded to what wasn't there. As far as I can tell, there is no protocol for abandoned reviews that have been picked up by a different reviewer. I asked Shushugah to remove their name as reviewer, since they had passed the baton to me, but they never did. You and I know it was abandoned, but as far as the bot was concerned, they remained the listed reviewer. Anything I did would have been erased by the almighty bot - again. Shushugah responded promptly when notified the review was done, and I appreciated that. The article passed, and deservedly so. I did the work. VenusFeuerFalle did the work. The article gets the glory. That's what matters after all. We contributed to raising the quality of the encyclopedia. It's all good. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Oh sorry, didn't know that they aren't allowed to. THought it kind of goes hand in hand. Haven't read the condictions much yesterday, and didn't remembered the rule. VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 13:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply