Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because over the last month or so I've been working on organizing and better presenting the existing content on this page. In the past, I've worked on several other Catholic related articles.
In the Catholic Church article, I particularly focused on the "Doctrine" section, which seemed more of a long list of ideas, rather than narrative. I've also worked on the "Worship", and "Organisation" sections, but basically did not touch the "History" section, as it seemed fairly mature. Mostly I focused on existing content within these sections, but did work to fill in a few holes, and helped integrate some new content. I also changed the arrangement of these sections to better present the material.
One of big reasons I'd like to open this up for peer review is article stability. I've briefly skimmed the editing history for this article, and it seems every few years, the page is built up, and then torn down again. It seems like a lot of effort is expended, and results are short lived. The content I found on the page when I started working on it seemed to have been fairly stable for the past year. Hopefully this content was consensus driven, so that this article, now organized a little more effectively, can be polished, rather than demolished!
Some content I've noticed to be particularly volatile are sections dealing with the Eastern Catholic Churches. Several different section equivalent to the "Communion of Churches" section can be found throughout the page history, many with nearly identical phrasing. I think such a section really is important, of course with due diligence to the relative size of these churches, and should remain.
I've also noted that social teachings tend to be added and removed, as well as some of the historical and contemporary controversies. I'm not sure how to incorporate these, especially, as the page's size is getting fairly large. Ideas?
Anyways, these are some of my thoughts. Any help this article would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks, Zfish118 ( talk) 21:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: I am not sure why the article has been sent for peer review at this point in time, since there are several indications that the article is still under development. For example:-
As well as these major points, there are specific issues of detail, clarity, grammar etc which I have picked up from my reading of the earlier sections. I would rather continue this check when the development of the article, in its present incarnation, is complete.
I'll pause at this point for some reaction/feedback. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
PS: Check the tool, top right of this page, for disambiguation links. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Seeing this at Peer Review, I glanced at the article and see that it is has deteriorated significantly in Karnacs' absence. Other than the absence of experienced editors like Karanac, I wonder what happened. There are numerous MOS errors in addition to the issues raised by Brianboulton, and I wonder if a revert to an earlier version might not be a better use of time (I saw a February version edited by Truthkeeper88 that had fewer MOS and other errors). The article size is in decent shape now, but the History section is still much too long and that should be better summarized, using
summary style.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
14:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because over the last month or so I've been working on organizing and better presenting the existing content on this page. In the past, I've worked on several other Catholic related articles.
In the Catholic Church article, I particularly focused on the "Doctrine" section, which seemed more of a long list of ideas, rather than narrative. I've also worked on the "Worship", and "Organisation" sections, but basically did not touch the "History" section, as it seemed fairly mature. Mostly I focused on existing content within these sections, but did work to fill in a few holes, and helped integrate some new content. I also changed the arrangement of these sections to better present the material.
One of big reasons I'd like to open this up for peer review is article stability. I've briefly skimmed the editing history for this article, and it seems every few years, the page is built up, and then torn down again. It seems like a lot of effort is expended, and results are short lived. The content I found on the page when I started working on it seemed to have been fairly stable for the past year. Hopefully this content was consensus driven, so that this article, now organized a little more effectively, can be polished, rather than demolished!
Some content I've noticed to be particularly volatile are sections dealing with the Eastern Catholic Churches. Several different section equivalent to the "Communion of Churches" section can be found throughout the page history, many with nearly identical phrasing. I think such a section really is important, of course with due diligence to the relative size of these churches, and should remain.
I've also noted that social teachings tend to be added and removed, as well as some of the historical and contemporary controversies. I'm not sure how to incorporate these, especially, as the page's size is getting fairly large. Ideas?
Anyways, these are some of my thoughts. Any help this article would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks, Zfish118 ( talk) 21:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: I am not sure why the article has been sent for peer review at this point in time, since there are several indications that the article is still under development. For example:-
As well as these major points, there are specific issues of detail, clarity, grammar etc which I have picked up from my reading of the earlier sections. I would rather continue this check when the development of the article, in its present incarnation, is complete.
I'll pause at this point for some reaction/feedback. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
PS: Check the tool, top right of this page, for disambiguation links. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Seeing this at Peer Review, I glanced at the article and see that it is has deteriorated significantly in Karnacs' absence. Other than the absence of experienced editors like Karanac, I wonder what happened. There are numerous MOS errors in addition to the issues raised by Brianboulton, and I wonder if a revert to an earlier version might not be a better use of time (I saw a February version edited by Truthkeeper88 that had fewer MOS and other errors). The article size is in decent shape now, but the History section is still much too long and that should be better summarized, using
summary style.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
14:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)