Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 01:43, 19 March 2009 [1].

The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology

edit
Nominator(s): NancyHeise talk

I am nominating this for featured article because...I have worked on this for several months, it received a thorough peer review from a very senior FAC veteran editor as well as reviews from other admins and wikipedia editors whose comments were put forth on the talk page instead of the peer review page. I think it is in the best form possible reflecting consensus of experienced editors and their collaborative efforts. I hope you think so too! NancyHeise talk 16:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I spent a long time with this article during its peer review and in subsequent talk-page discussions (is the "very senior, veteran editor" me? I'm just a kid!). I raised lots of issues during the review, all of which were properly considered and, in all significant cases, acted upon. I looked at the article not from the perspective of what I believe, or on whether the bible is true, or similar issues; in accordance with the title, the article is required to present how the Roman Catholic Church interprets the commandments, and I believe it does this, in an informed but non-partisan way. I personally found some of this information disturbing, even distressing, but that isn't the point. I think this is an important article, and I hope to see it listed among Wikipedia's best work. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (based on this version reviewed), and suggest withdrawal and a complete peer review and copyedit to thoroughly prepare for FAC; the extensive amount of typographical, punctuation and MoS errors suggest the article has not yet been thoroughly copyedited and prepared for FAC. While the large number of these errors is to be expected for nominators new to FAC, it is surprising to find so many errors, particularly from a repeat nominator, and indicates that the nomination may be premature (FAC instructions state that nominators should "ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria"-- the issues in this article have come up on other FACs by the same nominator, so the nominator should know these standards and other editors should not have to correct these errors). There is missing punctuation at the end of sentences throughout the article-- so much of it that detailing examples should not be necessary-- in addition to faulty use of WP:ITALICS, sentence fragments, inconsistent spacing on bullet points, incorrect ref punctuation per WP:FN, faulty logical punctuation per WP:PUNC, incorrect ellipses spacing per WP:MOS#Ellipses, and WP:DASH errors throughout. There is also inconsistency in the use of "the" per WP:MSH. The article title uses "The" for the Ten Commandments, the individual commandments don't use "The", and yet we find a strange use of "The" in front of a few section headings only. Corrections to tone are needed throughout: see Wikipedia:MOS#Grammar. While these types of errors are not normally enough to sink a FAC, there are enough of these kinds of errors throughout the article to raise doubt about this article's preparedness for FAC. There are so many of these errors that I don't even consider it necessary to list examples; anyone can see them, and they indicate the need for a thorough and independent copyedit. There are also WP:LAYOUT issues (See also to be worked into the text or already in the text, and it's not See Also, it's See also). Also, please review WP:CREDENTIAL regarding the use of academic titles.

Now, on to much more serious matters: I spotted at least one serious attribution problem, indicating that the text should be thoroughly reviewed for similar.

  • Jesus taught that "anyone who divorces his or her spouse and marries another commits adultery"[65] and that divorce was an accommodation that had slipped into the Jewish law.[66]

Source 65 is Schreck and source 66 is Kreeft, yet the text attributes the statement to Jesus Christ (surely the editors of this article understand that not all Christian faiths hold this belief, and that the catechism is only one interpretation of Jesus's words). The text should be thoroughly vetted to make sure statements are attributed correctly: a given church's or theology's interpretation of what Jesus said is one issue (and certainly not all agree), and there will be those who may argue that we can't be certain the scriptures are Jesus's words anyway.

There are also many instances in the text that appear to be someone's interpretation of the catechism rather than the actual catechism; I'm unclear on attribution on those statements.

This sentence is indecipherable:

  • 3)Civil divorce is not recognized as valid, is not considered a moral offense and is accepted by the Church if it is deemed to be the only way of ensuring legal rights, care of children, or protection of inheritance.[66]

In terms of comprehensiveness, I have a question:

  • However, lying under oath ... are considered sins of blasphemy.[23]

Some Christian faiths are very clear that continuing to participate in communion while harboring sin is a cause for damnation. Where does the catechism stand on Catholics who confess and receive communion each week, while repeating the same sins during the week? Is that part of the catechism and should it be addressed here?

There are also uncited conclusions which appear as OR, sample:

  • Church teaching on the tenth commandment is directed toward this same attitude toward worldly goods.

Please do not break up my Oppose with responses; per WP:FAC instructions, responses should be added below my sig. However, I do not think it should be FAC reviewers' responsibility to point out the significant copyedit needs to basics like punctuation throughout this article.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tech. Review
  • Dabs need to be fixed (found with the links checker tool)
  • External links are up to speed (found with the links checker tool)
  • Ref formatting is not up to speed (found with the WP:REFTOOLS script)
  • Kreeft, p. 209
  • Schreck, p. 305
  • Kreeft, p. 219
  • {{cite web | last =Paragraph number 2258-2330 | title =Catechism of the Catholic Church | publisher = Libreria Editrice Vaticana| year = 1994| url = http://www.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm| dateformat=dmy |accessdate=27 December 2008}}
  • Kreeft, p. 247-248
  • Schreck, p. 315
  • Kreeft, p. 252
  • The following ref names are used to name more than 1 ref, when they should only name 1 ref
  • Kreeft201
  • Schreck310
  • Kreeft247--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks to you both for pointing these important issues out to me. Unfortuneatly these were not as obvious to me as they are to you, I apologize for not being a better FAC writer than I am. I have some specific responses to the above comments below:
  • Jesus' statement about divorce comes straight from the Gospel that is being quoted by Schreck and Kreeft in each of their books. I will add a ref to the Gospel and begin the sentence According to the Gospel of" if that will help.
  • Also the Catechism does not discuss Catholics who confess and go to communion and then commit the same sins. There is a list of minimum requirements for Catholics to go to Mass and confession addressed but there is not a maximum, that is up to the individual. I did not find any of this discussed in the scholarly sources under the Ten Commandments section of the Catechism so I did not include anything on this article.
  • After soliciting suggestions for the article while it was still on my usersubpage, I placed it at "The Ten Commandments..." as the title instead of just "Ten Commandments in RCC theology" because Ten Commandments can mean more than "The Ten Commandments" ie: Ten Commandments of good behaviour, Ten commandments of business marketing, Ten commandments in parish management. The term Ten commandments is used in so many other venues besides the one specific to the article that I felt it necessary to distinguish the subject matter with "The" which is and allowable exception per the guidelines.
  • Regarding this statement: "There are also many instances in the text that appear to be someone's interpretation of the catechism rather than the actual catechism; I'm unclear on attribution on those statements." Just before nomination I answered a reviewers question on the discussion page to eliminate those references to the Catechism. I will now re add them per your comment here. Please understand that it is sometimes difficult for article creators to make two different reviewers happy at the same time! :) Also, Sandy, the sources referencing each sentence or section are to Nihil obstat Imprimatur sources that have officially been declared by the Church to be free of doctrinal error. I have not done anything with these sources except present them onto the page. Kreeft's book is on Googlebooks and anyone can look up my citations to him as well as to the Catechism. I did not know that I had to do more than reference these sentences to the source. I am not sure how to address your statement other than to provide the references that are already there. Thank you again for your comments which will certainly be taken to heart and used to improve the page. I would like to withdraw this nomination until I have addressed your issues above. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 00:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Ten_Commandments_in_Roman_Catholic_theology/archive1&oldid=1138473578"