Wikipedia:Peer review/Roman Catholic Church/archive3

Roman Catholic Church

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the editors of this page intend to submit the article to WP:FAC. The page was improved since the last FAC by adding a closing section and demographics section as requested by some commentators in the last FAC. The history section has been trimmed and a main history article was created (History of the Roman Catholic Church). The Beliefs, Prayer Practices and worship, and Church organization sections were not a problem in the last FAC but the history section was criticized for lack of scholarly works and for using sources that were offering history from a Catholic point of view. The history section uses the most cited scholarly works: Bokenkotter, Duffy, LeGoff, McManners, Gonzolez, Haigh, Koschorke, and others. Please see Google Scholar to see how often these works are cited. Because WP:NPOV requires us to give all points of view of history, we included two books from notable professors of history: Edward Norman and John Vidmar. Vidmar's book has footnotes and bibliography and Norman's has bibliography and is published by a University press (as recommended by WP:Reliable source examples). The citations to these sources are small in number and are usually a double to another citation from one of the other more scholarly works. We included them in sensitive areas of RCC history to allow reader to see that scholars from all points of view agree on the sentences cited and we provided quotes from the various sources so reader could see this. Please review the article and provide a list of any comments you would like for us to consider. Thanks for coming to see and review the article! NancyHeise ^talk 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments Some random points - I should add more:

• I think some mention should be made in the lead of the unified hierarchy of the Church, which is a prime feature distinguishing it from other large churches. This could also be brought out more in the Church organization section.

I spent an hour looking for a reference to put your thoughts into words - I was not successful but will keep looking. NancyHeise ^talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's hope someone can turn up something. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the language is rather complicated & confusing: "The sacred scriptures consist of the 73 books of the Catholic Bible. These are made up of those contained in the Greek version of the Old Testament—known as the Septuagint[43]—and the 27 New Testament writings found in the Codex Vaticanus and listed in Athanasius' Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter." - this, if kept as it is, should be balanced with a clarification that the great majority of this is as used by all Christian churches.

I made adjustments to this section per your comment here, please see again. NancyHeise ^talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

DONE Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• God the Father, original sin and Baptism section - are Adam & Eve & the 7 Deadly Sins Catholic doctrine as such? The Vatican catechism is clearly taking a distancing line from the former. The latter should be qualified by a "traditional" or something - I don't believe they have ever had a very official status. This bit seems too detailed to me.

I made adjustments to this section per your comment here, please see again. NancyHeise ^talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Jesus section has no link to "atonement" - odd given the level of detail it goes into.

linked. NancyHeise ^talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Better; maybe: "it rejects as unscientific, efforts to use the theory to deny add:OVERALL supernatural divine design." if the ref supports that. Is "unscientific" the best word here? Outside the scope of scienbce is more the position, no? Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I used your wording instead of unscientific because it is in agreement with the authors meaning. I thought unscientific meant the same thing but "outside the scope of science" is more clear. Please see again. NancyHeise ^talk 21:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

DONE Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Although married men may become deacons, only celibate men are ordained as priests in the Latin Rite" - some mention of the millenium or so for which this was not the case would be appropriate - a "now" would be a start.

Added content and ref. NancyHeise ^talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

DONE - nicely! Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Eucharist section - a clearer short explanation of what a mass is is needed I think - how long it typically takes, Sunday obligation etc, priests say every day etc.

Trimmed, also please see the paragraph just above the Eucharist section. Do you think I need to expand it? NancyHeise ^talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

DONE Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• "homosexual men who are sexually active, or those who have deeply rooted homosexual tendencies cannot be ordained" - well that's the theory certainly - some modification would be better.

What do you have in mind here, the page just states the facts at present. I think in the past, especially in the United States, homosexual men were welcomed into the priesthood, something the Vatican nixed after the recent scandals.NancyHeise ^talk 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think most of the time (until the 60s) it was more "Don't ask, don't tell. I suppose now they do ask, but whether they always get told one may wonder. But without refs nothing can be added, clearly. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod, these are all excellent points that will make the article better. I was even considering some of these issues myself but have been a bit sidetracked getting ready for Hurricane Ike! The Adam and Eve thing is Catholic doctrine but what I was considering is clarifying that this teaching is congruent with recent scientific discoveries and that Catholic doctrine accepts and incorporates the most widely held scientific views, which is in contrast to Christian denominations who take strictly the literal view of the Bible creation story. I just need to get a good reference that explains this otherwise it would be considered original research - working on. I agree with all of your points and will be incorporating them with refs as I get some more time. Thanks for these seriously good comments! :) NancyHeise ^talk 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Some more points:

• The clergy statistics are very interesting, but:a) adding the term & link nun might be useful, and b) do the maths work for "religious sisters (nuns) who comprise over two thirds of all Church personnel"? - (in 000s) 769 nuns, 194 male religious, 405 "secular" priests gives 56% female, which falls to just 50% when all the other groups are added in. NB also, further on "In 2008, the Vatican affirmed that the scandal was an "exceptionally serious" problem, but estimated that it was "probably caused by 'no more than 1 per cent'" of the over 400,000 Catholic priests worldwide." - well over 400k if the religious are added in, on these stats.

Fixed - two separate sentences had priest figures, one included religious brothers and religious priests, the other included religious priests and diocesan priests. I broke these numbers out so they don't overlap.NancyHeise ^talk 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but "nearly 2/3" still doesn't seem precise - 769/1373, or 1264 without seminarians, still doesn't get over 61% according to the back of my envelope? Just use a %? Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod, the reference actually says that religious sisters make up nearly 2/3 of all church personnel. I think the term church personnel might include lay employees also? The reference is not clear on that issue. I am just going to delete the statement since I can't get a more clear definition. Oh and I also just linked religious sisters in the Religious Orders section of the page which happens to be just above this section. Please see my changes and let me know what you think. NancyHeise ^talk 01:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's always dangerous mixing statistics from two sources. But "religious sisters make up the majority" seems clear, and is interesting. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Some parts of Europe and the Americas have experienced a priest shortage in recent..." - "shortage of priests" better, and a mention of the very high average age of priests in the West & the looming problem ahead would be useful.

OK - added new wording and content to reflect this concern. I did not put in anything about looming problems ahead because the ref used is the best ref I could find and the interviewees declined to forcast the future or call it a crisis. I think it would be perceived as unencyclopedic and possibly POV to introduce speculation about any future problems. If I had a ref that I could put with speculation it might work but it will be a lightning rod of contention that I would rather not include anyway. What do you think? NancyHeise ^talk 02:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! DONE Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've copy-edited the bits on the arts somewhat, & will add a ref or two.
• "As the Visigoths and Lombards moved from Arianism toward Catholicism,[225] missionaries such as Augustine of Canterbury, Saint Boniface, Willibrord and Ansgar took Catholic Christianity to the Germanic, Irish and Slavic peoples of northern Europe. Later missions reached the Vikings and other Scandinavians.[229]" - rather confused: Boniface & Willibrord were "Germanic" Anglo-Saxons, who were missionaries to the Continent. At this period no one took "Catholic Christianity" to the Irish, who Patrick & others had converted to Celtic Christianity, which had only loose links with Rome before the Synod of Whitby. These links, and the Hiberno-Scottish mission, should be worked in.

I note Xandar's comments below; I will suggest a wording later. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Spanish Inquisition - mention it was controlled by the Spanish Crown, not Rome?

Done. and Trimmed this section too. NancyHeise ^talk 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Better. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• "A growing sense of church-state conflicts marked the 14th century" - needs back-dating, & link to the Investiture controversy, & perhaps Guelphs and Ghibellines.

I will try to come up with a rewording. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• BEFORE:"A growing sense of church-state conflicts marked the 14th century. Clement V in 1309 became the first of seven popes to reside under French influence in the fortified city of Avignon.[279]"
• AFTER:a)"Driven by political instability in Rome, in 1309 Clement V became the first of seven popes to reside under French influence in the fortified city of Avignon.[279]

I have inserted your wording on this one. NancyHeise ^talk 03:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

b)"Despite the huge prestiege and influence of the church, the High Middle Ages were marked by tension between the church and secular rulers, above all the Holy Roman Emperors. The Investiture Controversy of the 11th century was the first of a series of fierce disputes, which led to the excommunication of no fewer than five Holy Roman Emperors in the period, as well as kings of France, England, Portugal and other realms. Locally important families divided themselves into supposedly pro-Papal and pro-Imperial factions of Guelphs and Ghibellines in Italy and elsewhere.

-Add as ?2nd para of the section? Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought your suggestion here was too detailed so I inserted a different sentence with link to investiture controversy with a reference to the university history textbook by Noble called "Western Civilization, The Continuing Experiment". I searched Duffy and Bokenkotter but the investiture controversy was not even mentioned in their indexes. Noble's book is just as good if not considered a better source and it had a small section on the issue. I think that a sentence with wikilink is enough coverage of this issue. Are you OK with my insertion? NancyHeise ^talk 03:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well grudgingly. You can be sure Bokenkotter in particular covers the Investiture Controversy & its ramifications in enormous detail, but presumably not using that term. Duffy must have a good section too - try Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor in their indexes. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I want you to be very happy with the article, not grudging acceptance so I have added content and Bokenkotter ref as well. NancyHeise ^talk 03:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

DONE Thanks! That's very good now. I know people don't get as excited by these things as by the Spanish Inquisition etc, but I think we need to cover the objectively big things briefly. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• "In the late 15th and early 16th centuries, European explorers and missionaries spread Catholicism to the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania." Add "Beginning" at the start - relatively little spread actually in the period mentioned.

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

DONE Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thirty Years War - far from just a religious war, as shown by the leading power on the "Protestant" side being France under Cardinal Richelieu! Those statistics are endlessly disputed & too detailed for here - maybe put in a note.

I think the wikilink is sufficient, I eliminated most of the elaboration on this war. NancyHeise ^talk 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

DONE Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The pope is an international leader who regularly receives heads of state from around the world, and who holds a seat at the United Nations.[391]" Strictly, that is Vatican City.

Changed. NancyHeise ^talk 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

DONE Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent comments - I know how to fix the priest numbers in demographics, there is a double counting there. I will address all these comments hopefully by tomorrow. Thanks Johnbod! NancyHeise ^talk 19:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with some of the comments regarding the early missions in Europe. Boniface and Willibrord were working under papal authority and direction. Patrick and others indeed took Catholic Christianity to ireland. It later evolved into so-called "Celtic Christianity", and the differences, even later, were minor (dating of easter, clerical tonsure, etc). Xandar 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure a wording can be agreed; I'll try to suggest one later. There were Christians in the British Isles before the known missionaries arrived, & the known information is so scanty about the early period that when it "evolved" is just a matter of supposition. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have answered all the comments except this one. I intend to do some more research on this and put up a few sentences that will hopefully make both Xandar and Johnbod OK with the content. I am not sure we need so much detail on this section because it is not really a controversial area but I want to include the links suggested by Johnbod above. Give me a couple more days to get to this one. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 01:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

How about (+ links, refs):

• BEFORE:From 590 Pope Gregory the Great dramatically reformed church practice and administration, launching renewed missionary efforts.[234] As the Visigoths and Lombards moved from Arianism toward Catholicism,[231] missionaries such as Augustine of Canterbury, Saint Boniface, Willibrord and Ansgar took Catholic Christianity to the Germanic, Irish and Slavic peoples of northern Europe. Later missions reached the Vikings and other Scandinavians.[235]

• AFTER:From 590 Pope Gregory the Great dramatically reformed church practice and administration, launching renewed missionary efforts.[234] These were matched by the Hiberno-Scottish missions of the Celtic Christianity of the British Isles, which had become effectively cut off from Rome by the barbarian invasions. Missionaries from both Italy, such as Augustine of Canterbury, and from the north, such as Saint Boniface, Willibrord and Ansgar took Christianity to the Franks and other Germanic peoples. Later missions reached the Slavs, Vikings and other Scandinavians.[235] In the same period the Visigoths and Lombards moved from Arianism toward Catholicism,[231] and in Britain the full reunion of the Celtic churches with Rome was effectively marked by the Synod of Whitby in 664.

How about that? Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I really think that is too detailed for the main RCC article but is OK for the History of the Roman Catholic Church article which is listed as a see also in RCC's history section. Are you sure we need more detail here? I think that since it is not really a contentious point that we can have just a summarizing general overview like we have without all this detail. Can we leave this level of detail to the History of RCC article and keep RCC more on a summary level? Are you OK with that? NancyHeise ^talk 03:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What detail? This is all the coverage we have on 200 years of the church's history! The last 500 years are covered at a far more detailed level, & I think some balance needs to be kept. Plus it is of particular English-speaking interest, and only adds 2 lines. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

DONE - I think the Coptic bit could be in a note, but am happy to see what others have to say. Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: the word Viking. I think the word should not appear in the article, unless used specifically to refer to the period of time referred to as "The Viking Age" (or to refer to raids on Catholic churches and properties). The people were Nordic, Norse, Norsemen. A strange phrase (whether taken directly from a source or not) is "the Vikings and other Scandinavians"; those who 'went in Viking' were seamen and raiders while "other Scandinavians" stayed home and farmed. "Scandinavia" is probably too geographically restrictive for your purposes. The can of worms can easily be avoided by using the three N words mentioned. --Hordaland (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this insightful observation. I am looking into this right away!NancyHeise ^talk 16:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, Johnbod and Hordaland, I have addressed both your issues regarding the spread of Christianity to Northern Europe. I used Johnbod's words tweaked a tiny bit to comply with the references I used (McManners and Vidmar). I want to note that McManners uses the term "Vikings" so I think it is more correct to use that term and Vidmar was the only ref to speak to the scholarly disagreement on the origins of the Irish missions (Hiberno-Scottish mission) and Celtic Christianity and Synod of Whitby. None of my other scholary sources discussed any of these links that Johnbod wanted to see and I want to point this out because I think the Vidmar book is really an important scholarly source that fills in gaps left by other scholarly sources. Vidmar is key to producing an FA quality article here. NancyHeise ^talk 17:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

All my comments are fully addressed now - thanks for your thoughtful responses. I think the article is in good shape for FAC now. Many problems people had last time have been dealt witrh, though others were pulling in contradictory directions, so we can clearly never satisfy everyone. Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Kensplanet

• Some points which may be raised in the FAC.
• Jesus is overlinked. The same wikilink appears in the 2nd (Jesus Christ) and 3rd para.

Removed. NancyHeise ^talk 05:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday ->>>>>> Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter Sunday.....(comma before and). I think this needs to be done throughout the article although I'm not sure. If we put this up in main the comma automatically appears for 3+ terms.
  Main articles: Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter Sunday

see WP:COMMA, evidently we are allowed to use either form with exceptions. I went through the article during the last FAC eliminating the serial comma based on another editor's preference. The usage is consistent within the article and we don't really need to change it as per WP:MOS. NancyHeise ^talk 05:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. Already had mentioned I was not sure. Kensplanet (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Are you sure words like saint (Devotional life, prayer, Mary and the saints) and seminary (Ordained members and Holy Orders) need to be wikilinked. Those are too. common to be linked.

Yes, because we have to consider that people of other faiths may be visiting the page and may not know these words that we might consider common. NancyHeise ^talk 05:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat ok for seminary. But all religions have their saints. Anyway, not a major problem. Kensplanet (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the late 15th and early 16th centuries, European explorers and missionaries spread Catholicism to the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania. Pope Alexander VI, had awarded colonial rights over most of the newly discovered lands to Spain and Portugal.
  • Except Pope Alexander VI, all the other terms are very common and well known and shouldn't be wikilinked.

I agree, I went through and eliminated a huge number of wikilinks per your comments here. Please see the page again and let me know if you still think it is overwikilinked. NancyHeise ^talk 05:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• So, I think there's overlinking, but can be easily fixed.
  Kensplanet (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent observations Kensplanet - I agree with these and will make corrections to the article tomorrow. Thanks for taking the time to come and give it a once over here for us. NancyHeise ^talk 19:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

All Kensplanet comments addressed. Thanks Kens! NancyHeise ^talk 01:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I may have found an error in this following sentence: As the representative of Vatican City, he also holds a seat at, and occasionally addresses, the United Nations. I think it's the Holy See, not Vatican City, which holds permanent observer status at the U.N. Majoreditor (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed this to Holy See per your comment here. Thanks for coming to the page to help out here. NancyHeise ^talk 01:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I will attempt to review the article tonight or tomorrow afternoon. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Dweller comments

• Comment WP:SIZE. It's enormous. My computer almost slowed to a standstill trying to open this behemoth. Is it even bigger than it was at the time of the last FAC? --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I checked. At last FAC I mentioned it was 74K readable prose, which was too long. It's now >100K readable prose. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Minor comment - Lead mentions CC being founded by Jesus twice. Issue of earliest origins now very nicely dealt with and is NPOV. Well done; I'm sure that was a wrangle and a half. --Dweller (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Minor comment - No reference for comments in Nicene creed about Jesus being the messiah. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dweller, thanks for coming back and taking a look, I appreciate your time and attention. I have posted a note on Raul's talk page regarding size as the vast majority of editors to the page do not have a problem with that issue. I wondered if he would allow the page to be longer since WP:article size allows for some articles, depending on the subject matter, to be longer and editors agree that this subject warrants a larger article to meet the FA criteria of "comprehensive". The page size is "Prose size (text only): 77 kB (12486 words) 'readable prose size'", not what you cite above. This calculation omits pictures and references and is the calculation used by the FA director and his assistants to determine the actual article size. I will address your other comments later today. Thanks again. NancyHeise ^talk 12:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bah - I always have trouble with the dang tool. I read this as saying readable prose was 109K. What am I doing wrong? (I'm also preparing an oversized article for FAC, so am very keen to learn!) --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, on my computer screen, to the left of the article under "toolbox" there is a page size link that makes all readable prose on the page yellow when clicked and gives a variety of info including readable prose. I am not sure if everyone has this ability or not. If your computer screen does not have this, I suggest contacting User:Ling.Nut to ask for assistance installing this helpful tool. Good luck! NancyHeise ^talk 16:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

After some major trimming with the help of several other editors, the page size has shrunk to 69kb readable prose and just over 1100 words. NancyHeise ^talk 04:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

1100 words? A typo surely. Johnbod (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, typo, it is 69Kb (11229 words) readable prose NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs comments

comments by karanacs

I do think that this article is continuing to improve, but there is still work to do. I do not have the time to provide a thorough review at the moment. I have not looked at sourcing or at most of the history section. I skimmed the rest of the article and have provided examples of issues that I saw.

• The image of St. Louis University is out of place (as is its caption - many readers will likely have never heard of Sacajawea). I recommend using an image of one of the European cathedrals, and mention which style of architecture it represents.

I eliminated this picture. NancyHeise ^talk 00:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• In an article this massive, every effort should be made to focus on the core content and make the article as tight as possible. For the most part, every section of this article should represent a summary of another article (even if those other articles are not complete yet). I still see a lot of detail that is probably unnecessary for this article (but would be completely appropriate in the main article for the section in which it is located or a more specific article on the concept being discussed). Here are examples of issues I have seen with this

I have just finished the trim that incorporates Ottava Rima, Ealdgyth, Karanacs, and talk page comments and the page is now 69Kb (11229 words) readable prose. I think that is enough - that was a huge trim and the article is very tight now. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • "The Nicene Creed is recited at all Catholic Sunday Masses, " - at this point, the Mass has not been introduced. Also, it is really important to mention this detail in the broad overview? Should be in an article on the Nicene Creed and the article on the Mass.

I eliminated that part of the sentence. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • The church councils are mentioned in beliefs...do we need to again mention them in the history section?

I took a look at that and determined that it was necessary because the sections are discussing two different things regarding those councils. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't believe that the Nicene Creed needs to be quoted throughout this article - that is in the article on the Nicene Creed, and should likely be included in the Theology article, but this is a summary.

Ottava's rewrite eliminated these quotes so please see again. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I think there is too much information about the liturgical year in this article. The explanation likely belongs in a different article that is linked from here, but I don't think that this information is that useful to someone wanting a broad overview of what the RCC is.

I moved the entire paragraph to the liturgical year wikipedia page and left one sentence linking RCC to the liturgical rites page (see last sentence under the Rites section).NancyHeise ^talk 17:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I think this article goes into too much detail on why celibacy is required.

This information was included at the request of Johnbod - on this peer review page - see above. I think it is a very good piece of info but because of your comment here, I moved it out of the main body and into the Notes section trying to make both of you happy. Please understand it is a balancing act here. NancyHeise ^talk 17:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• • There are multiple sentences that are something like this "The conferences consult Vatican documents such as Pastores Dabo Vobis, Novo Millennio Ineunte, Optatam Totius and others to create these programs" -- "<topic> such as X, Y, and Z exist". This list of terms does nothing to help the reader understand what they actually are. If the terms are important, they should be explained in the article; if not, they should be left out of this article and appear in the more detailed main article. Some of these lists might be better suited as footnotes (separate from your citations). (see <ref group=Note> and {{reflist|group=Note}}

Yes I agree here, I moved this information into the Notes section as you suggest here instead of eliminating it because it is an important piece of information, not easily found and something I think makes this Wikipedia page uniquely useful. NancyHeise ^talk 17:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• The history section is still much too detailed.

I have trimmed some sections with others to follow. Ealdgyth has proposed several rewordings and trims and I agree with all of them and have done several so far already trimmed 2KB off readable prose. NancyHeise ^talk 00:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• • The Catholicism today section is primarily about the papacy or Benedict. This level of detail does not belong here.

I disagree with you on this, I think it is entirely relevant and gives reader a good overview of the church today. Neither Ottava nor Ealdgyth suggested a rewrite and Johnbod agreed with me that this section is OK, he said maybe a small trim which it received. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would switch the Final judgment and Nature of the Church sections - the Final judgement section explains concepts that are mentioned in Nature of the Church, and it would make more sense to have the explanation first.

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 00:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• The prose needs a bit of work.

After inserting Ottava's and Ealdgyth's rewrites, I think that has been resolved, please see again. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • There is a lot of passive voice.
  • A lot of the paragraphs don't flow well. They seem more like lists of ideas, where each idea is explained and then we move onto the next idea. There is little to tie them together.
  • There are sometimes issues with sentence construction. For example " These are called lay ecclesial ministers, a broad category which may include pastoral life coordinators, pastoral assistants, youth ministers and campus ministers" - the name lay ecclesial ministers doesn't = category and "these (non-ordained catholics) doesn't = category either. Example 2: "Challenges faced include oppression by communist countries like North Korea where it is forbidden, " - what is "it"? oppression is the most likely candidate in this structure...
  • There are comma issues. Here's one example, but I've seen similar issues throughout the article: "It is the largest Christian church encompassing over half of all Christians, one sixth of the world's population and is the largest organized body of any world religion" should be "It is the largest Christian church–encompassing over half of all Christians ,represents one-sixth of the world's population, and is the largest organized body of any world religion."

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Watch for sentences that could be unclear: "Some parts of Europe and the Americas have experienced a rising average age and a shortage of priests in recent years " - does this mean that the age of the priests has risen or the age of the parishioners, or, as it could be literally read, the age of parts of Europe and the Americas"

Reworded. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Watch for word choices - "The Latin American Church" - does that mean the Catholic Church in Latin America or is there specifically a "Latin American Church"? People unfamiliar with the RCC may be confused.

Reworded. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • There are sentence fragments. Example: "Its patronage of artists, its consistent opposition to Byzantine iconoclasm and the creation of the Romanesque, Gothic and Renaissance styles of art and architecture being particularly important contributions"

Reworded. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The numbers on institutions and religious people are an excellent addition. I think they might be better suited to a table, though.

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• This sentence doesn't make sense to me: "Africa has three Catholic primary and secondary schools for every one parish reflecting the greater need for basic education there" - is that more or less than on other continents? How does the number of Catholic schools allow anyone to make a judgement call on basic education need? This needs some work.

I reworded that sentence. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• There are still issues with POV in the article. These are examples:
  • "This savior is believed to be Jesus" - the sentence makes it sound like everyone believes that.

These sections were reworded by Ottava Rima and Ealdgyth, I think all pov is gone now. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • "a high rate of AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa where the Church participates in efforts to help patients and reduce the spread of disease" - I would attribute this; I've seen articles chiding the church for contributing to the spread of AIDS with the staunch no-condoms rules.

I eliminated the second part of the sentence because we already have a discussion about the Aids/condoms criticism in the history section under Second Vatican Council. I initially moved it out of there and into the Demographics section but it did not make sense because contraception is introduced in history section not Demogrphics so I reverted myself and just eliminated the contentious piece of sentence in Demogrph. NancyHeise ^talk 14:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• MOS issues
  • Take a good look at all the image captions. Full sentences need a period at the end. Some captions do not use proper grammar.

OK, I went through them, I think I made the correct changes - please let me know if I missed any. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Page ranges in the footnotes should not be in italics

I could not find this one. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Page ranges need to follow proper numbering; For example 31-33 is not correct; 31–3 is. (and there is an ndash, not a dash)

done. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth comments

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Lead -

• Last sentence of the first paragraph, I'm confused by the sentence. Are you saying that the Jesuits have a lay wing? The sentence is confusingly worded, perhaps try "An ordained ministry and the laity together comprise the community, and members of either group may be members of organized religious communities,..."

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 03:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Next paragraph, suggest rewording last sentence to make it clearer that the Catholic Relief Services, etc. are organizations under the Church's umbrella. Perhaps try "and shelters, as well as organizations such as Catholic Relief Services (rest of list) that help the poor..."

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 03:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Footnote 9 - if I'm reading this correctly, the work being quoted is in German? And it's a "collected works"? If it's like what the Wikipedia page says it is, you need to cite the specific article IN the source, and give a title of the volume it is contained in. You'd use the {{cite encyclopedia}} template for that. Also need to say what language the reference is in, if it's not in English.

Done, it is linked to the actual page now, yes it is in English and Reader can view the page for themselves since this one has an url. NancyHeise ^talk 03:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Note on {{cite encyclopedia}}, yep, you've got it mixed up. The fields work like this: author is the author, authorlink is only used if the author has a wiki article, encyclopedia is the name of the book that the article appears in (so Geography of Religion), title is the title of the article ("Christianity"), volume is only used if there are more than one volume to the encyclopedia (in the case of Geography of Religion there are not, so you leave it off), publisher works like usual, and most of the rest of the fields you should be able to figure out. Just remember that encyclopedia is any collected type work where many authors contribute individual articles and you'll be able to figure it out. The encyclopedia is ALWAYS the title of the collected work, the volume is only used if there is more than one volume in the work. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I think I have these in proper form now. Will work on the McManners refs tomorrow. NancyHeise ^talk 04:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Footnote 10, the two sentences quoted in the footnote have approximately 11 sentences between them. The whole paragraph bounded by those statements quoted is not quite a resounding endorsement of the "many historians", which is what I'm assuming you're trying to use the source for, as Norman source is from a Church standpoint. I'd be more comfortable with this statement if another historian was cited to back up Wilkin (who is the author of the section you are quoting, by the way. It should ALSO use the {{cite encyclopedia}} template and cite the author as Wilkin, who wrote the section on Christianity in the book.

OK, I have inserted the encyclopedia template. Let's discuss something here - Wilkin's quote states "Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome." Wilkins makes this statment in a book that is edited by two other historians and is the collaborative work of several historians overseen by an advisory board of even more historians in "One of the world's largest nonprofit scientific and educational organizations." I think that use of the words "many historians" is required to make the text factual - Wilken is referring to centuries of historians, not just present day historians. Edward Norman is speaking as a historian, he is not a Catholic priest, he is an ex-Anglican who happens to be an expert in religious history at Cambridge. The other source, by J Duncan M Derrett in the Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt encyclopedia - another source edited by two other historians states "Others, this writer included, take Jesus as the inspiring force of the church." Ealdgyth, do you not agree that this requires the page to mention this important fact - "The Church and many historians believe it to be the continuation, through apostolic succession, of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter"? NancyHeise ^talk 03:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wilkin, though, from the context, seems to be implying ancient historians. It's hard to be clear, because this is not really a scholarly work with footnotes saying where he got HIS information from, but the sentences before the quote ar referring to stuff in the 4th century, ("By the fourth century the term rerred to the bishop of Rome.") and so the "Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized..." implies that the historians were of the time shortly after the position was institutionalized. Like I said, if this was an academic work, it'd be easier to know exactly what he's saying, because there would be source footnotes, etc. I'm not disagreeing that many historians believe this, I just think your sourcing on it is weak. It can pass, but it could very well turn around and bite you when the article is on the main page, people are very very very prone to pick things apart. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Same thing for the McManners work in 12 and 13, if it's a collection of chapters/essays written by different people, use the {{cite encyclopedia}} template and source the bits to Chadwick, not give the author as McManners, who is merely the editor of the work. Also, neither of these footnotes say anything about doctrine per se, or directly back up "The Church has defined its doctrines through various ecumenical councils, following the example set by the first Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem." The footnotes do back up the bit about the Jerusalem Council, and that in the third century synods became common, but it doesn't expand from that throughout Catholic History, which is what the statement in the article claims.

I changed all the McManners cites to the cite encyclopedia template and changed everything accordingly. I also eliminated the McManners cites to the sentence you mention in the lead and replaced those refs with Alan Schreck's The Essential Catholic Catechism which discusses that issue on page 152. There was no need to change the wording in the lead. NancyHeise ^talk 06:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Might want to point out that most Christian denominations also share belief in the Nicene Creed. Perhaps "Catholic faith is summarized in the Nicene Creed, shared with many other Christians, and is detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." just to cover all the bases.

Done but I think the sentence sounds strange. I can't think of a better reword though. NancyHeise ^talk 06:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would be a LOT happier with another source to back up the "largest and oldest institution." statement. That's a pretty contentious piece of information, as I'm pretty sure that the Japanese monarchy, at least, claims a longer existence. (Whether that claim is valid is another problem all together.) I wouldn't oppose at FAC over this, but I'm trying to help you out, because someone is SURE to contest this statement, and the more sources you have for it the better off you'll be when RCC hits the main page.

OK, added another source. NancyHeise ^talk 03:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Origin and Mission -

• Minor quibble, last sentence of the first paragraph, it's awkward. Maybe "According to Catholic belief, this promised church was brought fully into the world when the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles in the event known as Pentecost." This keeps the subject close to the verb, making things a bit easier to understand. If you want to preserve the bit that other Christians believe this also, you could tack on a phrase " ...Pentecost to all Christians."

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 03:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• The second paragraph is a bit ... disorganized. I think it'd be clearer if the second sentence started "These scholars..." which would clearly connect the second sentence to the first, rather than how it reads now, where it sounds like some OTHER scholars cite the letter, when I believe you mean that the ones in the first sentence are citing the letter as background. You probably want another cite for the last sentence, to make it truly "others".

I have added the names of the actual scholars who say these things, Henry Chadwick in the first instance and Eamon Duffy in the second. I am not sure who else agrees with Eamon Duffy and I think it is nice to be able to click on their names and see who they are. Are you OK with this adjustment? NancyHeise ^talk 04:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs -

• Don't need to wikilink Nicene Creed and the Catechism, they are linked in the lead not six paragraphs above this. Same for Holy Spirit, which is linked in the preceding section. Christian is also wikilinked, and is wikilinked in the lead.

done. NancyHeise ^talk 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure you need the bit on the Five Solas, it is a level of detail not really needed in the article (A good thing to cut!)

done. NancyHeise ^talk 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Teaching authority -

• I'd reword the first sentence to leave out the direct quotations (which would be better placed in the more detailed Roman Catholic theology article. Something like "Based on promises made by Jesus and recorded in the Bible, the Church believes it is continually guided by the Holy Spirit and so protected from falling into doctrinal error."

I inserted Ottava Rima's verson for this whole section. NancyHeise ^talk 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Cutting a bit more verbiage, I suggest rewording the sentence starting "Sacred scripture..." to "Scripture refers to the Catholic Bible, which is the Old Testament, based on the Greek version known as the Septuagint, and the New Testament, made up of the 27 works found in the Codex Vatincanus and listed in Athanasius' Thiry-Ninth Festal Letter." Move the "These scriptures are essentially the same for most ..." sentence to a footnote, as it's an aside.

Ottava Rima's version did not cut the "these scriptures are essentially the same..." and I agree that it should remain. NancyHeise ^talk 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

God the Father -

• the sentence starting "God has also created... " is awkward. Perhaps reword to "Catholic theology holds that God created spiritual beings called angels, who exist to "worship and serve God."

I inserted Ottava's rewrite in this section. NancyHeise ^talk 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Next sentences, also awkward, perhaps "However, some angels rebelled against God and were expelled from his presence and became demons. The leader of the rebellion is given the names of Lucifer, Satan, or the devil, among other names."

This was changed with Ottava's rewrite and my additional trim and reword. NancyHeise ^talk 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sentence starting "While Catholic doctrine accepts the possibility..." is very awkward. Perhaps "While Catholic doctrine accepts the possibility that the Theory of Evolution is compatable with Catholic beliefs on the Creation, it rejects efforts to use Evolutionary theory to deny a supernatural origin for Creation."

See paragraph again, it was changed with the rewrite. NancyHeise ^talk 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesus -

• The quote from the Nicene Creed "... the only begotten son of God...one in ..." is not explained and probably redundant. It isn't well linked to the explanation that comes later and could profitably be cut to save some verbiage.

I insertec Ottava Rima's rewrite - quote gone. NancyHeise ^talk 02:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Holy Spirit -

• First paragraph, the second quotation isn't explained, if it's not going to be explicated, it's just extra verbiage and can be cut to save some wordage. It doesn't tie into the sentence before it well.

See page again. I think you will like the rewrite. NancyHeise ^talk 02:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nature of the Church -

• Second sentence of the first paragraph, this quotation doesn't seem to tie into any explication of doctrine or anything, and should probably be cut.

Ottava Rima rewrite was inserted here. NancyHeise ^talk 02:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Eucharist section -

• You could probably cut a bit out of the middle two paragraphs, especially some of the details that should be in the Eucharist article. Perhaps "The most common celebration of the Eucharist, the Latin rite or ordinary form, is separated into two parts, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.[109] and generally last from a half hour for a daily Mass to just over an hour for a Sunday Mass. The celebration of the Eucharist in the Eastern Catholic Churches is termed Divine Liturgy. Variations exist in this liturgy between the different Eastern Churches that reflect different cultural traditions. Another alternate or extraordinary form of Mass, called the Tridentine Mass, is celebrated primarily in Latin. Standardized at the Council of Trent in the 16th century, this form was superseded by the ordinary as the primary form of the mass after the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, but is still allowed to be used as an alternate form." This maintains the necessary information for the overview article, and sets the details to the proper article, the one on the Eucharist.

Please see the paragraph again, I incorporated Ottava's rewrite and moved some info to Notes section. NancyHeise ^talk 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Church organization -

• First paragraph, "The cardinals, who also serve..." is awkward at the end. Perhaps reword to "The cardinals, who also serve as papal advisors, may select any male member of the Church as pope, but if the candidate is not already a bishop, they must become one before taking office as pope."

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 03:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Second paragraph, first sentence, I think you left out a "Church" between "...Latin and 22 Eastern..." making it "Worldwide, the Catholic Church comprises a Western, or Latin, Church, and 22 Eastern..."

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 03:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Same paragraph, second section, awkward, perhaps "The Church is divided into jurisdictional areas known as dioceses, or sees. Dioceses are known as eparchies in the Eastern Churches. In 2007, there were 2782 sees in the Catholic Church, both Eastern and Western. Each one is headed by a bishop, patriarch or eparch, who is appointed by the pope."

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 03:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The next bit is really tacked on to this paragraph, and might better be its own paragraph.

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 03:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ordained members -

• First paragraph, second sentence, consider combining with the third sentence, perhaps "All of the bishops, along with the pope, cardinals, patriarchs, primates, archbishops and metropolitans, comprise the College of Bishops and are considered the successors of the apostles."

OK, done. NancyHeise ^talk 00:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Clerical celibacy, if you're going to go into this level of detail about WHEN it was made part of canon law (I suggest it should be left to a sub-article, honestly), you need to note that although outlawed in 1074, it never really went away until long after that, with the Council of Trent, or later. I would cut this back some, perhaps "Thus, from the Church's beginnings, clerical celibacy was "held in high esteem" (which needs a citation, by the way) and is considered a kind of spiritual marriage with Christ. Clerical celibacy was advocated from the early Fifth Century, and made mandatory in canon law in 1074." which perserves the importance, but keeps the wordage down.

I moved this into Notes because it is information that Johnbod specifically asked to include per his peer review comments on this same page. I think it is important information we need to keep but I moved it into notes as a compromise. NancyHeise ^talk 00:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I got lost in the first sentence of the next paragraph.... "All programs for the formation of men to the Catholic priesthood are governed by Canon Law." First, is it Canon Law or canon law (how it is capitalized in the preceding paragraph). Secondly, I *think* you are referring to ordination? Perhaps "All programs that aim to prepare men for the priesthood are governed by canon law, and are usually designed by national bishops' conferences, which makes them vary from country to country." I'd cut the "The conferences consult..." paragraph as unneeded detail.

Reworded and trimmed this section significantly. NancyHeise ^talk 00:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Lay members -

• Title needs reworking... the comma between the two is awkward. Perhaps just "Lay members"?

I disagree, it reads Lay members, Marriage and is in a consistent structure as the other headings like the one just above it which lists Ordained members, Holy Orders - we are trying to make it easy for Reader to find a specific sacrament so we included the sacrament in the heading. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Religious orders -

• I believe you want this to be a separate section, not one under Lay members, so it should be ===Religious orders===

No, that would be factually incorrect because technically, religious orders members are considered part of the laity unless they are ordained priests. NancyHeise ^talk 00:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Membership -

• Last sentence of the first paragraph, "In all rites, after going through formation..." Formation? Do you mean instruction?

Reworded. NancyHeise ^talk 00:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Catholic institutions -

• Second paragraph, the second sentence. The second part is very oddly tacked onto the first, consider breaking it out into its own sentence.

I took into account your and Karanacs comments and reworded, please see again. NancyHeise ^talk 00:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, if you give a church membership figure in the first senetence, you then say in the third that "Although the number of practicing Catholics worldwide is not reliably known, membership is growing..." these two statements would seem to contradict each other.

Per talk page discussion on this comment, I reworded, please see new sentence. NancyHeise ^talk 00:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Cultural influence -

• The second sentence, the way it is worded makes it sound like a dependent clause of the first sentence. Perhaps replace "being" with "were".
• Saying that the artists were "sponsored" by the Church makes it seem like the Church organization itself sponsored the artists, when in reality they were supported by individual churchmen. Yes, it's a small thing, but still an important distinction.

Johnbod responded to this comment on the talk page supporting use of the present wording because it is factually correct, the Church did sponsor them. NancyHeise ^talk 00:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why is it important that the caption on the St. Louis University picture mention Sacajawea's son?

eliminated. NancyHeise ^talk 00:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Empire -

• Suggest cutting "From the year 100 onward..." as it's a level of detail not needed.

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 03:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Suggest rewording "By 380, Christianity was the official religion of the Empire." to something a bit closer to the actual source, which says "In 380 Emperor Theodosius declared Christianity the empire's sole religion." The question of when Christianity became the "official" religion is one very much subject to debate, as the pagan sacrifices in Rome were not declared illegal until 397 or so. Some historians hold that when Constatine held the Council of Nicea, that Christianity became "official" or that it was after the death of Julian the Apostate. Recommend just sticking to what the source says and elaborating in the History article.

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 03:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Early Middle Ages -

• Just a note that Augustine of Canterbury did NOT misionize to the Franks, he did the Anglo-Saxons. By the time of all your listed missionaries, the Franks were already Christian. Suggest "...took Christianity to the Anglo-Saxons and other Germanic peoples." which is supported by the source given. (Trust me on Augustine, I'm the one that took him to FA status)

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 02:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Agree that "Vikings and other Scandinavians" is awkward. Suggest just ".. reached the Slavs and Scandinavians."

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 02:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Suggest cutting down the second paragraph. Perhaps "In the early 700s, iconoclasts, supported by the Eastern Emperors, and iconodules, supported by the Western Church, fought over the use of images in religious worship. This dispute was only resolved 787 when the Second Council of Nicaea ruled in favor of icons. This was just one of many disputes between the Eastern and Western Churches, which were growing apart during this time. Charlemagne, who had been crowned in 800 by the pop,e attempted to unify Western Europe through the common bond of Christianity, creating an improved system of education and establishing unified laws. However imperial interest created a problem for the church as succeeding emperors sought to impose increasingly tight control over the popes." Leave the heavy details in the History article.

Better - but as before this version forgets the 2nd outbreak of Byzantine Iconoiclasm 814-842. Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 02:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

High Middle Ages -

• Suggest cutting down on the verbiage in the first paragraph. Perhaps "Monasteries introduced new technologies and crops, fostered the creation and preservation of literature, and promoted economic growth." and "After 1100, some cathedral schools split into grammar schools and higher schools for advanced learning. Some of these higher schools developed into universities, the direct ancestors of the modern Western institutions. Notable theologians such as Thomas Aquinas worked at these universities, and his Summa Theologica was a key intellectual achievement in its synthesis of Aristotelian thought and Christianity."

done. NancyHeise ^talk 02:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• More pruning "In 1095, Byzantine emperor Alexius I appealed to Pope Urban II for help against Muslim invasions, which caused Urban to launch the First Crusade, hoping to bring about reconciliation with Eastern Christianity. The series of military campaigns, or Crusades, that followed were intended to return the Holy Land to Christian control. The goal was not permanently realized, and episodes of brutality committed by the armies of both sides left a legacy of mutual distrust between Muslims and Western and Eastern Christians. The sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade left Eastern Christians embittered, despite the fact that Pope Innocent III had expressly forbidden any such attack." Move the apology to a footnote, it fits very oddly in here.

done. NancyHeise ^talk 02:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• You really need a "The" in front of Cistercian monk in the third paragraph.

done. NancyHeise ^talk 02:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Suggest reordering the third paragraph some, because as you've got it, you're off chronologically. Bernard of Clairvaux is AFTER the Investiture Controversy. Also, the Investiture Controversy was not a century and a half long, the whole conflict between the papacy and the emperors was built off many things, so that needs to be clarified a bit. Perhaps "Reform efforts sparked by Cluny intensified internal Church efforts to eliminate the practice of lay investiture, or the practice of laymen selecting bishops. Considered by reformers to be a source of church corruption, lay investiture was a powerful source of dominance over the Church by secular rulers. Pope Gregory VII issued a decree against the practice in 1075 which contributed to a century and a half long struggle between popes and secular rulers. Later, the Cistercian monk Bernard of Clairvaux's influence led to the founding of eight new monastic orders founded in the 12th century, including the Military Knights of the Crusades. In the following century, new mendicant orders were founded by Francis of Assisi and Dominic de Guzmán which brought consecrated religious life into urban settings."

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Suggest some cutting in the fourth paragraph, perhaps "Twelfth-century France witnessed the emergence of Catharism, a dualist belief that challenged Church authority. After a papal legate was murdered by the Cathars in 1208, Pope Innocent III declared the Albigensian Crusade. Abuses committed during the crusade caused Innocent III to informally institute the first papal inquisition to prevent future abuses and to root out the remaining Cathars. Formalized under Gregory IX, this Medieval inquisition executed an average of three people per year for heresy at its height. Over time, other inquisitions were launched by the Church or secular rulers to prosecute heretics, to respond to the threat of Muslim invasion or for political purposes. In the 14th century, King Philip IV of France created an inquisition for his suppression of the Knights Templar. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella formed an inquisition in 1480, originally to deal with distrusted ex-Jewish and ex-Muslim converts. Over a 350-year period, the Spanish Inquisition executed between 3,000 and 4,000 people, representing around two percent of those accused. In 1482 Pope Sixtus IV condemned the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, but Ferdinand ignored his protests. Historians note that for centuries Protestant propaganda and popular literature exaggerated the horrors of the inquisitions in an effort to associate the entire Catholic Church with crimes most often committed by secular rulers. Over all, one percent of those tried by the inquisitions received death penalties, leading many scholars to consider them rather lenient when compared to the secular courts of the period."

Done

• Suggest some cutting of the last paragraph, perhaps "Driven by political instability in Rome, in 1309 Clement V became the first of seven popes to reside under French influence in the city of Avignon. What became known as the Avignon Papacy ended in 1378 when, at the urging of Catherine of Siena and others, the papacy finally returned to Rome. With the death of Pope Gregory XI later that year, the papal election was disputed. Supporters of Italian and French-backed candidates were unable to come to agreement, resulting in the 38-year-long Great Schism with separate claimants to the papacy in Rome and Avignon. Efforts at resolution were further complicated when a third, compromise, pope was elected in 1409. The matter was finally resolved in 1417 at the Council of Constance where the cardinals called upon all three claimants to the papal throne to resign, and held a new election naming Martin V pope."

Done.NancyHeise ^talk 20:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Late Medieval -

• Still WAY too much detail on the English Reformation compared to the Continental reformers. Recommend heavy pruning of the paragraph. Perhaps "The English Reformation under Henry VIII began more as a political than theological dispute. When the annulment of his marriage was denied by the pope, Henry had Parliament pass the Acts of Supremacy which made him, and not the pope, head of a new Church of England. Although he strove to maintain the substance of traditional Catholicism, Henry initiated and supported the confiscation and dissolution of monasteries, friaries, convents and shrines throughout England, Wales and Ireland. Under Henry's daughter, Mary I, England was reunited with Rome, but the following monarch, Elizabeth I, restarted a separate church which prevented Catholics from taking part in most aspects of political life until the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 began the process of eliminating many of the anti-Catholic." Even this is probably a bit too much, it could probably be cut more.

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 20:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Need a citation for the last sentence of the last paragraph "To popularize..."

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 03:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Englightenment -

• Suggest some trimming of the discussion of the French Revolution. Perhaps "Toward the latter part of the 17th century, Pope Innocent XI reformed abuses by the Church, including simony, nepotism and lavish papal expenditures that caused a large papal debt. He promoted missionary activity around the world, tried to unite Europe against the Turkish invasions, and condemned religious persecution of all kinds. In 1685 King Louis XIV of France revoked the Edict of Nantes, ending a century–long experiment in religious toleration. This and other religious conflicts of the Reformation era provoked a backlash against Christianity, which helped spawn the violent anti-clericalism of the French Revolution. Direct attacks on the wealth of the Church and associated grievances led to the wholesale nationalisation of church property in France. Large numbers of French priests refused to take an oath of compliance to the National Assembly, leading to the Church being outlawed and replaced by a new religion of the worship of "Reason". Napoleon later re–established the Catholic Church in France through the Concordat of 1801. The end of the Napoleonic wars brought Catholic revival, renewed enthusiasm, and new respect for the papacy."

Done - and used the ref notes for a small part of the eliminated content. NancyHeise ^talk 19:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Suggest integrating the papal bull's name like so: "Pope Gregory XVI, challenging Spanish and Portuguese sovereignty, appointed his own candidates as bishops in the colonies, condemned slavery and the slave trade in the 1839 papal bull In Supremo Apostolatus, and approved the ordination of native clergy in spite of government racism."

Done. NancyHeise ^talk 19:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

General notes -

• You do a LOT of piping of links to articles that don't necessarily directly equate to the words or phrase being wikilinked in the article. Examples include "God promised to send his people a savior" in Jesus, sin, and Penanace, which links to Claimed Messianic prophecies of Jesus. Another is the "licitly" link in the same section, second paragraph. Licitly is linked to a section of Sacraments.

A lot of this went with the rewrite and trim, we kept "licitly" because that is a specificly defined Roman Catholic term that is more concise than using a longer explanation. I don't know how to eliminate that word without harming the value of the article. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Make use of the new "ref group" feature to put some of the detail in the article into footnotes that are separate from the reference notes.

What is this new "ref group" feature? I have not heard of it before. NancyHeise ^talk 04:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at Stigand again, and see how there is a "Notes" section and a "Footnotes" section? You do that by using {{#tag:ref|(information)<ref>(source)</ref>|group=notes}} which sets aside a set of numbered explanatory footnotes complete with their own sourcing footnote. Very useful for parenthetical information that would help the readers understanding without bogging down the article with long explanations. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

By Gosh! I think you have just given us the way out of all our page size problems with this million dollar piece of advice. **HUG** NancyHeise ^talk 19:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't just shift everything to the footnotes, you'll still have the problems with bogging down loading and everything else. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course! But it allows me some ability to compromise between editors who want more and those who want less info - something I did not have the ability to do before - a source of unwanted stress at that. NancyHeise ^talk 20:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if we need to elimnate some of the pictures if that will help unbog the down loading. What do you suggest on that issue? I just added a couple of pictures the other day that could easily be cut. NancyHeise ^talk 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I find a few pictures, well chosen, help much more than a LOT of pictures. You want your pictures to have force and if there are too many, they don't convey anything, they get lost in the crowd. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Overall, the article is very heavy on unneeded facts in the History section and very flabby about passive voice. Could do with some more pruning over and above what I've suggested above. It's 77KB of readable prose, which is a LOT. It chugs on my computer which is on high speed and designed to edit photographs, I can only imagine what it would be like on a dialup connection or older computer. I will oppose at FAC on prose size unless this is brought under control. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, after all trimming and rewrites it is now 69Kb (11237 words) readable prose size. That incorporates everyone's trim including Ottava Rima and what I took out above and beyond everyone's suggestions. I think that is enough. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ealdgyth and Karanacs, I very much appreciate your time and attention to this important page. Many of your comments are excellent and I will be addressing them over time as there is no rush here on peer review. I hope you will understand that some of your comments may need to be discussed on the talk page to find agreement with other editors and I will post that agreement on this peer review under your comment where posted. I especially appreciate Eldgyth's suggested trims since we have had some trouble getting editors who want a smaller article to specifically point out what they think needs trimming. I appreciate her efforts to help us in that area very very much. NancyHeise ^talk 00:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

After the latest round

Much better load time without as many pics and you've managed to cut about 2000 words, it's down to 11,255 or so. Now I suggest finding someone (perhaps Malleus?) who is uninvolved with the article to go through and copyedit for conciseness. I'm sure the article still is flabby in spots with excess verbiage. Don't look at me to do it, *I* just add words to my articles! I'd really like to see this below 10,000 words. And I forgot to mention how much the article HAS improved, it's a lot more NPOV and well structured now. Definitely getting closer to being able to support at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're happier, I am pleased with the article too. To be honest, I am not too excited about seeing it go below 10,000 words but will wait to see what Malleus can do. Did you see the table I made on the talk page comparing this article to other FA's? It puts the article size into perspective I think. I don't think that forcing a size will help if we end up cutting things that are interesting. NancyHeise ^talk 14:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. The article is already summarised by a whole order more than any other FA I can think of (or rather any other FA I think deserves the star). Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A good copyedit to cut down on flab is probably a good idea (I know *I* tend to leave in lots of "that" and "so" and all that sort of filler that really isn't needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Picture suggestions.

• I'd knock out the Sermon on the Mount pic.
• Replace the "Modern" baptism picture, as the clothing in it is clearly outdated.
• Knock out the dove stained glass picture.
• Knock out the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin picture.
• Lose the Teresa of Avila picture
• Replace the Aztec shot with something very artistic. Perhaps Bernini's altar from St. Peters?
• Drop the Melk Abbey pic
• Find a better shot of the Argentian church, or a similar church. You want excellent shots here, not snapshots. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't fight to keep any of those, except maybe the Bernini "dove"/Holy Spirit, but the article was already somewhat low on pics, and some should be added to replace these - I realize that impacts on loading too. "Perhaps Bernini's altar from St. Peters" - that's the "dove" then? Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope

is one of the parts...

is a decent image. This

wouldn't be bad either. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Top one is too low-res & confusing. I'm not grabbed by no 2 & the Michelangelo is rather obvious. Frankly I think we have enough pics of Rome. There are some very good shots in [1] - not everyone's taste perhaps - for the devotions section. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I am open to new pictures but I don't like either of your suggestions. I want to keep:

• Aztec shot conveys a message that is incapable of conveying with words alone and captures readers attention - it makes the page more interesting.
• stained glass dove

NancyHeise ^talk 00:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The new Baptism is better, but [2] more lively i think, plus helps diversity. With a Spanish name let's hope they're Catholic! Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

These definitely are, but the pic is less good [3]. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont like the second one, I inserted the first one and Im fine with it if everyone else is too. I changed some of the other pics, feel free to revert or change them again, these are just my suggestions for replacements. I am done with the pics, I have to get back to the rest of the peer review comments and I have some more trim in store. NancyHeise ^talk 01:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I made changes to our assortment of pictures to meet Ealdgyths preferences except for the two that I did not want to eliminate. Please take a look and let me know what you think of the new arrangements, there are less pictures, spacing has increased and I think the quality and relevance benefit the article. NancyHeise ^talk 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

None of those were anything but suggestions, Nancy, sorry if you felt you had to do something. I'm very much in the "less pictures make the pictures there have impact" school. The baptism one though was very outdated in fashions, and looked out of place. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes but I thought it looked nice because the people were smiling and you could see all their faces, I didn't think about the clothes. Not a big deal, I think the page looks better with the picture changes. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 14:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Page size compared to other FA's

I made this table to see how RCC compares with other FA's per Dr. Pda's list just to put things into perspective on this issue. NancyHeise ^talk 14:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, you can save space on this lengthy peer review by deleting the table and just linking instead to User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics. At 11,000 words, RCC is in a very good range now (I've mentioned many times that the number of images will slow down load time). An important note about these new FA numbers (generated by Dr pda a few days ago): none of the three Dynasty articles at the top of the list passed FAC at that size. They are all three by the same author, and they have all three grown by a third since they passed FAC. That means a third of their text has not been vetted and reviewed at FAC or FAR, and they all need to come to WP:FAR. For articles to grow by a third after passing FAC may indicate either that they weren't comprehensive to begin with or they aren't using summary style effectively now, and POV or prose problems could have crept in. I didn't want this new list to leave the impression that those articles passed FAC at that size: they didn't (you can click in their articlehistories on the version that passed and run Dr pda's script there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Sandy's comment here, I have deleted the table. The RCC article is 68kB and 11,105 words readable prose size, a reasonable length per Sandy's comment and User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics. NancyHeise ^talk 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note, Nancy, that although I said the length is in a good range now, it's the reviewers' opinions that matter, not mine. I am only the judge of consensus; if reviewers develop a different consensus, my statement does not overrule reviewer consensus. I'm just the bean counter here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 22:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Close Peer Review

I think we need to close this peer review. It has been open for over a month, I contacted over 54 people to come offer comments and we have received an extensive list from some very experienced and respected Wikipedia editors. All comments have been addressed. NancyHeise ^talk 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)