Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it could be an FA. I am prepared to put in the work to achieve this, but any help would be most welcome :-) --
Marek.
69
talk
02:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
More later Johnbod ( talk) 22:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment I've done a run through and made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not it's a wiki. I spotted a certain amount of overlinking and linking to generic words and events rather than specific articles - see constantinople. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I don't really have time to do an in-depth peer reviews at the moment. I'm trying to keep too much of a backlog from developing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and there are a couple of days worth of listing I'm already behind. I do notice one issue at a glance: the article uses {{ cquote}}. This is not supported for the body of articles by the Manual of Style. It's too flashy. To quote from WP:MOSQUOTE:
Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{ cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes). Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged. Block quotations can be enclosed between a pair of
<blockquote>...</blockquote>
HTML tags; or use {{ quote}}.
The quotes shouldn't be formatted in italics, either, unless the originals were. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Italics. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
First, my apologies for what there is to follow. But I do not like this article. Not at all.
Good News: This article does get the basic facts about his birth date, papacy period, etc. right.
Bad News: The article seems mostly unaware of what the man did, and what his goals were. That shortcoming is epitomized by the lack of any serious content in the teachings section. That section is specially uninformed. Again, my apologies for using the term uninformed, but there is no other term that would apply here. There is a link to his "Social and political stances" but that is not really the center of his teachings which can only be traced through the encyclical and apostolic exhortations he issued. As a clue, consider the fact that the word "encyclical" only appears once in the article, referring to Humanae Vitae which he did not issue himself. The only apostolic letter mentioned seems to be Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which is more political than theological. Items such as Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia and Redemptoris Mater, etc. were key elements of his plan to "reposition the Catholic Church". That plan was in effect for over two decades and mostly succeeded. I could go on and on and on about what is missing... But I think it is clear that only a very small fraction of his teachings or goals or influences are mentioned anywhere. And sorry, I will not have time to work on that any time soon.
Image: The article does not mention his high level of popularity among masses around the world. He was far more popular than the previous popes, or the current pontif. In places such as Mexico he was deeply loved for declaring Juan Diego a saint. The same was true in the Philippines, etc.
Photographs: The selection of photographs is quite unusual and non-representative. For instance, there are 3 photographs in which our previous commander in chief appears. His attitude would have been better represented by this photograph. There are probably public domain versions of that, without the caption, if you want to find one and add it... would be fun to see the reactions.
Overall, a very long and almost unreadable article that gets the dates right, then gets lost in the political issues, relationship with the Eastern Orthodox, etc. and misses the key goal of his papacy which was to transform and reposition the Church. A goal that mostly succeeded. History2007 ( talk) 03:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I am half joking, but after thinking about it a little more, based on John's comment above (what will be his lasting significance really?), I think a move request may be in order. I would suggest a move to "Prime Minister John Paul II" instead of "Pope John Paul II", for this article is written about a politician, not a pope. The first focus of a pope is "his flock" not relations with Islam, Eastern Orthodox etc. Look at how much space is given to those, vs how much space is given to his relationship with his own crowd and their "spiritual direction". This article seems to view him as "Prime Minister John Paul II of the Republic of Earth".
And again, the selection of images reflects that mindset. A photo with ex-KGB Mr Putin, and as I said 3 photos of Einstein give the wrong impression. The icing on the cake was that the photo of his beatification featured Benedict! I touched up the two photos to show that he was beatified on the very feast for which he worked very hard for from 1965 to 1978. And John, one of his lasting impacts is that said feast/devotion (which was previously banned) now has over 100 million followers. That is called impact. To that end, I also added an image of how the Mexicans donated the keys for his statue. Those items focus on a "pope", not on a prime minister. But the article seems to be mostly unaware of the papal side of his life and just a restatement of news reports.
I am sorry Marek, but I do not see how a band-aid or two could fix this article. The heart of it is based on a perception as a political figure - hence the move request suggestion. As I read the article I do not see an awareness of his role as a "spiritual leader", but I see a collage of newspaper clippings which mostly cover prime ministers and other dignitaries in three piece suits. He was not wearing a suit and a tie, in case that was not noticed. History2007 ( talk) 15:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Marek, I think you've done a commendable job of tackling a huge, meaty article with all kinds of competing agendas and turning it into something coherent and readable. I have just a few minor questions/suggestions:
I also have to say that I strongly disagree with the above critique of the article's nature and scope. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of Catholicism, so I wouldn't expect to find detailed exploration of his teachings and other doctrinal nuance here – though I would expect good references to set me off in that direction of research if I so desired, of course :) Wikipedia is also meant to serve a global audience of readers, and I think the most cosmopolitan interpretation of the life of John Paul II is the one found here: a man who was at the forefront of many important political events, who put himself in the global spotlight by both his faith and his actions, and whose legacy far exceeds ecclesiastical bounds.
Anyway, thanks for all your hard work, Marek, and good luck with the rest of the peer review process! Accedie talk to me 05:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I got completely distracted reading list of popes...I'll come up with something soon. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm only going to comment on the references for now, because I think that's the most immediate issue. From a cursory look through the references, I found over thirty "sources" that I wouldn't let anywhere near an article I was planning to take to FAC.
Add to that the article cites a great many sources that were written by the subject himself or by the Vatican, that many more references are lacking basic bibliographic information, and that others still are not of the quality I would expect for what's cited to them. This article has got a long way to go before it's even worth putting significant effort into the body. Sorry.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts?
09:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
"Baziak died in June 1962 and on 16 July he was selected..." - presumably this means that Wojtyła was selected. The two sources given at the end of this sentence do not seem to mention it. -- John of Reading ( talk) 15:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
"Today, for the first time in history, a Bishop of Rome sets foot on English soil" - this paragraph looks out of place. -- John of Reading ( talk) 15:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
<blockquote>...</blockquote>
format. Maybe it should be within quotation marks? The section previously looked
like this, before the recent changes of style. --
Marek.
69
talk
15:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it could be an FA. I am prepared to put in the work to achieve this, but any help would be most welcome :-) --
Marek.
69
talk
02:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
More later Johnbod ( talk) 22:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment I've done a run through and made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not it's a wiki. I spotted a certain amount of overlinking and linking to generic words and events rather than specific articles - see constantinople. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I don't really have time to do an in-depth peer reviews at the moment. I'm trying to keep too much of a backlog from developing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and there are a couple of days worth of listing I'm already behind. I do notice one issue at a glance: the article uses {{ cquote}}. This is not supported for the body of articles by the Manual of Style. It's too flashy. To quote from WP:MOSQUOTE:
Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{ cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes). Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged. Block quotations can be enclosed between a pair of
<blockquote>...</blockquote>
HTML tags; or use {{ quote}}.
The quotes shouldn't be formatted in italics, either, unless the originals were. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Italics. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
First, my apologies for what there is to follow. But I do not like this article. Not at all.
Good News: This article does get the basic facts about his birth date, papacy period, etc. right.
Bad News: The article seems mostly unaware of what the man did, and what his goals were. That shortcoming is epitomized by the lack of any serious content in the teachings section. That section is specially uninformed. Again, my apologies for using the term uninformed, but there is no other term that would apply here. There is a link to his "Social and political stances" but that is not really the center of his teachings which can only be traced through the encyclical and apostolic exhortations he issued. As a clue, consider the fact that the word "encyclical" only appears once in the article, referring to Humanae Vitae which he did not issue himself. The only apostolic letter mentioned seems to be Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which is more political than theological. Items such as Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia and Redemptoris Mater, etc. were key elements of his plan to "reposition the Catholic Church". That plan was in effect for over two decades and mostly succeeded. I could go on and on and on about what is missing... But I think it is clear that only a very small fraction of his teachings or goals or influences are mentioned anywhere. And sorry, I will not have time to work on that any time soon.
Image: The article does not mention his high level of popularity among masses around the world. He was far more popular than the previous popes, or the current pontif. In places such as Mexico he was deeply loved for declaring Juan Diego a saint. The same was true in the Philippines, etc.
Photographs: The selection of photographs is quite unusual and non-representative. For instance, there are 3 photographs in which our previous commander in chief appears. His attitude would have been better represented by this photograph. There are probably public domain versions of that, without the caption, if you want to find one and add it... would be fun to see the reactions.
Overall, a very long and almost unreadable article that gets the dates right, then gets lost in the political issues, relationship with the Eastern Orthodox, etc. and misses the key goal of his papacy which was to transform and reposition the Church. A goal that mostly succeeded. History2007 ( talk) 03:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I am half joking, but after thinking about it a little more, based on John's comment above (what will be his lasting significance really?), I think a move request may be in order. I would suggest a move to "Prime Minister John Paul II" instead of "Pope John Paul II", for this article is written about a politician, not a pope. The first focus of a pope is "his flock" not relations with Islam, Eastern Orthodox etc. Look at how much space is given to those, vs how much space is given to his relationship with his own crowd and their "spiritual direction". This article seems to view him as "Prime Minister John Paul II of the Republic of Earth".
And again, the selection of images reflects that mindset. A photo with ex-KGB Mr Putin, and as I said 3 photos of Einstein give the wrong impression. The icing on the cake was that the photo of his beatification featured Benedict! I touched up the two photos to show that he was beatified on the very feast for which he worked very hard for from 1965 to 1978. And John, one of his lasting impacts is that said feast/devotion (which was previously banned) now has over 100 million followers. That is called impact. To that end, I also added an image of how the Mexicans donated the keys for his statue. Those items focus on a "pope", not on a prime minister. But the article seems to be mostly unaware of the papal side of his life and just a restatement of news reports.
I am sorry Marek, but I do not see how a band-aid or two could fix this article. The heart of it is based on a perception as a political figure - hence the move request suggestion. As I read the article I do not see an awareness of his role as a "spiritual leader", but I see a collage of newspaper clippings which mostly cover prime ministers and other dignitaries in three piece suits. He was not wearing a suit and a tie, in case that was not noticed. History2007 ( talk) 15:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Marek, I think you've done a commendable job of tackling a huge, meaty article with all kinds of competing agendas and turning it into something coherent and readable. I have just a few minor questions/suggestions:
I also have to say that I strongly disagree with the above critique of the article's nature and scope. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of Catholicism, so I wouldn't expect to find detailed exploration of his teachings and other doctrinal nuance here – though I would expect good references to set me off in that direction of research if I so desired, of course :) Wikipedia is also meant to serve a global audience of readers, and I think the most cosmopolitan interpretation of the life of John Paul II is the one found here: a man who was at the forefront of many important political events, who put himself in the global spotlight by both his faith and his actions, and whose legacy far exceeds ecclesiastical bounds.
Anyway, thanks for all your hard work, Marek, and good luck with the rest of the peer review process! Accedie talk to me 05:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I got completely distracted reading list of popes...I'll come up with something soon. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm only going to comment on the references for now, because I think that's the most immediate issue. From a cursory look through the references, I found over thirty "sources" that I wouldn't let anywhere near an article I was planning to take to FAC.
Add to that the article cites a great many sources that were written by the subject himself or by the Vatican, that many more references are lacking basic bibliographic information, and that others still are not of the quality I would expect for what's cited to them. This article has got a long way to go before it's even worth putting significant effort into the body. Sorry.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts?
09:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
"Baziak died in June 1962 and on 16 July he was selected..." - presumably this means that Wojtyła was selected. The two sources given at the end of this sentence do not seem to mention it. -- John of Reading ( talk) 15:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
"Today, for the first time in history, a Bishop of Rome sets foot on English soil" - this paragraph looks out of place. -- John of Reading ( talk) 15:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
<blockquote>...</blockquote>
format. Maybe it should be within quotation marks? The section previously looked
like this, before the recent changes of style. --
Marek.
69
talk
15:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)