Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of encyclicals of Pope John XXIII
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [1].
The List of encyclicals of Pope John Paul II is already featured, so I had a go at bringing this to the same standard (hopefully!). The introduction is much expanded providing some background to each encyclical. Overall, I believe, it meets the criteria. Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The introduction says two of his encyclicals are "classic". What in the world does that mean? These aren't records we are talking about :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- exhibiting timeless quality! But I agree it doesn't sound very encyclopaedic and have reworded the sentence. Suicidalhamster (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have? I don't see any difference or changes for today... wierd! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was almost 100% sure I pressed save, oh well, the change is definitely there now! Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have? I don't see any difference or changes for today... wierd! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- exhibiting timeless quality! But I agree it doesn't sound very encyclopaedic and have reworded the sentence. Suicidalhamster (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — I went through and copyedited the prose. Some areas were in past tense, while others were in present—I changed everything to past tense, where appropriate. There were also a few comma problems, but nothing major. Overall, this is a well-written, well-cited, clear, and concise list of a very notable subject. Good work to all involved, and I look forward to seeing it become featured! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the copy edit and the kind words. Suicidalhamster (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC) I actually changed the bit about the encyclical measuring 25,000 words as that seemed an odd idea/use of the word. Hope you don't mind. Suicidalhamster (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support There are several quibbles, though.
The numbers in the table should be centered.- Done
The "Time" references should have retrieval dates in case the site goes down and people use the wayback machine.- Done
I wish the "jstor" reference got substituted, but if it stays, it should have a note saying "subscription required" because I can't access it.
--Crzycheetah 04:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the "jstor" reference, it is relevant to the bit about applying natural law to the international community. I would like to keep it as I have not found this analysis anywhere else. I understand the problem of accessibility and so have quoted the sentence of the paper in full in the references. This obviously makes it easier to check what the reference said but does make the ref list a bit more bulky. Hope this helps. Suicidalhamster (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.