Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive4

Moved from FAC

I'd just like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of WP:CIVIL. These vitriolic, sarcastic comments from both sides are not helping anyone. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 23:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That comment seems to be specifically referring to me, which I very much resent. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, I am sure that you were not being sarcastic - I wonder if maybe because we can not really see the person speaking to us that sometimes our words come across in a way that is not intended. NancyHeise (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And neither was I being "vitriolic". If Benjamin has a general point to make then he should make it generally, not point it at me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Vitriolic was a poor word choice. What I meant was that your tone seemed demeaning and bitter. Maybe I read it wrong, but that's the sense I got from it. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 01:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you know that Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg are really good friends even though they disagree on almost every United States Supreme Court decision? They really love each other, it was on 60 Minutes a few weeks ago. Scalia noted that if you can't disagree with someone at work and still be a friend with them afterward, you need to go get a different day job. I thought they made a great example of the proper attitude of professional people. I hope that we all still had a good time working on this FAC and no one goes home upset or angry with anyone. That was not the point here. NancyHeise (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, read this comment, please: "It's a while since I left school, so my understanding of English grammar may possibly be out of date. Is it not the case that proper nouns are capitalised, whereas improper nouns are not? Does it not therefore seem consistent that "Marriage", when used as a proper noun referring to name of one of the sacraments, ought to be capitalised?" I recognize that I may have misunderstood the meaning of your words, but the tone of that comment just struck me as crossing the line of civility that is generally accepted. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 01:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On the article talk page there was a long discussion about capitalization, and those of us who finished school a while ago discovered that some of the capitalization rules we learned are now obsolete and some new capitalization rules are in effect. I took Malleus's comments to be referring to that discussion. Karanacs (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining Karanacs. It was certainly not my intention to be "demeaning and bitter", or to cross any line of civility, and for the life of me I can't see where Benjamin got that idea from. Ah well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now everything is starting to make sense. I had not realized that, and I thank you for the explanation. I was completely wrong since I immediately assumed you were being sarcastic by saying what you did, especially the first sentence or so about schooling. I apologize for all the confusion and hurt feelings my comments have caused. Perhaps, however, you could have made yourself clearer by simply saying "Shouldn't Marriage be capitalized since it's a proper noun in this context?" Just something to keep in mind next time to prevent any stupid teenagers from coming along and interpreting everything as sarcasm. Thanks for being really good about all of this, though, and again, I apologize. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 00:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal commentary removed

Thanks Tony, I understand that you arent known for voting to support FAC's [1] and have been reprimanded on your talk page for your poor manner of speaking to people.[2] I think that your comments would be more potent if you would consider an ancient Chinese saying "Politeness costs nothing and gains everything." Nevertheless, I value your editing comments because I respect your editing ability. I do not respect any of your other comments because they are very mean and disrespectful. Wikipedia is meant to be a community effort and all of us work together to bring our various special skills to a project. We are not helped by the sniffy attitude of those like you who reject our contributions in total after months of collaboration and consensus building.NancyHeise (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Sniffy"? That's a personal attack that I will consider taking to AN/I. TONY (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you could use a bit of humility in your commentary and refrain from insulting everyone who supported the page as you have done here [3]. NancyHeise (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Tony's approach normally follows the lines of "Oppose - needs a copy-edit", which qute frankly, doesn't help the nominator whatsoever. Reviewers should pinpoint to specific problems, helping them as much as possible. Tony's oppose fails to do that. D.M.N. (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Personalization of the issues on this FAC

Today, there is again commentary on the FAC that is personalized; please stay focused on the content and comment on the article, not the editors. Since the comments I awakened to are intertwined with commentary that is relevant to the FAC process and WIAFA, I can't remove them to the talk page; perhaps editors will be encouraged to strike personal commentary to stay focused on the purpose of WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Note on actionable opposes

I've noticed that several of the opposes now have comments after them that say "I don't consider this an actionable oppose". I'd like to point out that an actionable oppose is one that action could be taken on and that aligns to the FA Criteria. Disagreeing that action should be taken does not necessarily make the oppose not actionable. I'd encourage that those comments be removed. Karanacs (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC reviewer responsibilities

My computer is absolutely refusing to save the FAC page for now (probably because of length) so this has to go here. In response to the comment If an objector refuses to take up the offers to participate in the FAC process, the validity of such an objection will come into question, I'd like to offer another reminder on the responsibilities of a reviewer. Reviewers are not expected to provide a 100% comprehensive list of every issue in the article, nor is it their responsibility to provide solutions to the issues they see. An actionable oppose should contain enough information for someone to go find and fix the issues. Tuf-Kat has identified an issue (too much jargon) and provided an example. While you are under no obligation to include his proposed changes, he's likewise under no obligation to offer more suggestions. This is why many times FAC reviewers suggest that a previously uninvolved person be brought in to copyedit; often someone unfamiliar with the text will see issues with the prose that the regular contributors inadvertantly miss. The FAC reviewer shouldn't (and doesn't) have to be that person. Karanacs (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The process is supposed to be a constructive one, with people working toward improving an article. it is not meant for "drive by" objectors, who make some vague, allegations, say the article is not fixable, and move on without engaging. Or people who suggest some unnamed "other editor" should appear. If we look at most of the articles at FAC, we see constructive engagement. With lists of specific actionable objections, which are then struck out and capped. making wild generalized allegations, no matter how stridently written, is not part of the proper process. This is the 4th FAC process the article has been through, and most of the objections tend to be people who make vague allegations of POV without specifying or proving their point, or else similarly vague allegations about the quality of the writing. If objectors cannot specify a precise problem or refuse to engage in discussion, or when their original objections are answered, say "They were just examples. I'm not telling you any more. It's unfixable" then these cannot, imo be actionable objections. Some people will never be satisfied with an article unless it expresses their particular point of view exactly. Unless they can prove that the missing nuance or point of view is a correct or valid one, through producing adequate scholarly evidence, they should not be allowed a veto on articles reaching FA. Otherwise anyone could stop any article on a controversial topic reaching FA status simply by vague and tactical POV and style objections which they refuse to consider satisfied. Xandar (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, just to say that not only have I given specific suggestions, I also hit the books and di the research to improve part of the article itself. You may recall that that hardly went down well. This went way beyond what is usually expected of a reviewer. But you can hardly accuse me of being unconstructive or unspecific! I do, however, think that similar revision is needed throughout much of the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC is not supposed to be a drawn-out peer review. It is supposed to be a place for the community to, relatively quickly, identify whether there are problems with the article, and if some are seen, the nominator is expected to find a way to identify them. I know this article has been through peer reviews that haven't gotten much feedback. If this nomination fails, I think it is time to search out editors who have a lot of experience editing high-quality theology or history articles and personally ask them to participate in another peer review. Karanacs (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I do, reluctantly, have to agree with Karanacs, as I just said on the main page. Rightly or wrongly this is a controversial article that I think would now be better worked on out of the FA spotlight. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Recommend nomination be dropped

Four days after the nomination was restarted, we're over 200k on this nomination, which is frankly ridiculous. Given the enormous depth of NPOV problems, WP:RS issues, copy-editing problems, and even concerns that the content is not sufficiently broad, I cannot see how they can be feasibly addressed in the scope of this nomination. It probably would be more prudent (and save the collective sanity of the reviewers and nominaters) to drop the nomination and invite all those with remaining issues to bring them up at Talk:Roman Catholic Church in nice headed sections in which you can discuss endlessly without Sandy having to constantly worry about this nomination (and whose sanity we want to preserve the most :p) and have no deadline. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Further rejoinder: No, Nancy, my most recent post wasn't an actionable oppose: the first part was about my actionable oppose above; the second part was about your breaching of the requirement laid out in the instructions, viz.: "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism". TONY (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we need to amend the requirements to include "FAC reviewers are expected to offer constructive criticism positively and with appropriate civility required by WP:Civil that respects the comments of other FAC reviewers as well" NancyHeise (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The opposite equally applies. Those who are working on the article need to treat reviewers' opinions in a civil fashion. Now, stop this irrelevant discussion and concentrate on improving the article, which frankly has far too many problems than can be solved in the scope of this nomination. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to Tony's reminder that you have just repeated. I was not being irrelevent but posting a bit of truthful good humor that does not appear to have been taken that way. Regarding your comment about improving the article. Would you please elaborate for us what needs improvement? Xandar and I have spent many hours making changes to the text (see article edit history) to respond to reviewers comments. For comments that we are not able to address, we have posted our valid reasons why. As of this writing, all comments on this page have been addressed. NancyHeise (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This FAC page has already become too long for the fourth time; please take personal issues to the talk page so that this page can stay focused on resolving the actionable opposes per WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary

Since the page is again over 200KB and hard to sort through, summarizing unstruck opposes:

1. Jbmurray (talk · contribs) prose, sourcing, neutrality, accuracy, comprehensiveness
2. Awadewit (talk · contribs) comprehensive, sourcing, neutrality
3. Karanacs (talk · contribs) neutrality, comprehensive
4. Tony1 (talk · contribs) prose
5. Relata refero (talk · contribs) neutrality, sourcing, comprehensiveness, accuracy
6. RelHistBuff (talk · contribs) sourcing, neutrality
7. Durova (talk · contribs) neutrality, structure, comprehensive
8. TUF-KAT (talk · contribs) prose, neutrality
9. Mike Searson (talk · contribs) prose, comprehensive, sourcing, neutrality
10. Dweller (talk · contribs) balance, prose, size, MoS (73KB readable prose)
11. Carlaude (talk · contribs) POV
12. Tempshill (talk · contribs) neutrality

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Prose, flow and organization also raised and one supporter recommends withdrawal (Ling.Nut and Malleus), and 1e briefly an issue when one editor tried to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus did not withdraw support of the article - please see his reasons explained to me for making such a statement here under the subsection "help!" [4]. NancyHeise (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is significant reviewer neglect to come back and see the changes that we have made to address their comments. If we were to conceed to every wish of these reviewers there would be grave factual errors in certain places. Extensive rewording was performed to eliminate POV sounding words. Sourcing issues are invalid and suggestions we were given by reviewers would cause the article to violate FAC criteria and WP:NPOV. The 16 support votes on the page are mainly to top Wikipedia editors with both experience and knowledge of history and the topic of RCC. One is an editor to a journal with an educational email address. There is also one who is an ex-seminarian with a theology degree and intimate knowledge of RCC history and theology. The others I do not know anything about. If one were to compare this article to the EB summary provided on the project page, you can see that the history summary matches all the main events discussed in our version. We have omitted no notable historical events. Thank you. NancyHeise (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of the issues listed above where they have been properly particularized have been extensively addressed. Where claims on prose or NPOV are not backed up by specific identification on points in question - especially on this 4th FAC this year - they are quite frankly unadressable, and incapable of resolution (and sometimes, I fear, intended to be so.) It is far to easy for anyone to throw in a vague "Neutrality" or "poor prose" claim. One of those listed above, relata refero, has not bothered to play any part in this process since the last FAC. Others like Durova have had their opinions extensively addressed, and been challenged to produce scholarly evidence in support of their opinions on subject matter. They have failed to do so, and evidence has been produced to back up the contentious points in the article.

If certain reviewers have not engaged fully with the process, and failed to either strike, particularize or back up their objections, failure to engage further in the process should be seen as making such objections non-actionable. There is no constructive purpose in reviewers making broad, sweeping claims, failing to back them up or discuss them, and then saying they "don't have time" or "can't be bothered" to respond further. An article on a complex and controversial subject like this is going to attract a large number of contrary opinions. If for example, someone demands that Pope Bob XXV be given a paragraph about his property holdings in Moldavia and cannot objectively justify why that needs to be included, he can simply keep his objection unstricken. Or if someone insists that the Church did X, but can produce no major factual sources, once again, he just withdraws from the process, leaving his objection standing. In those circumstances, that cannot remain a valid objection. Basically, there are always going to be some persistent objectors and people who have a beef with an article on this sort of topic. Nominators and editors have been willing to engage for as long as it takes with individual objectors to reach agreed forms of wording and to insert relevant facts and episodes, according to due weight. I really think that persistent objectors need to be reminded to itemize their particular, specific remaining objections to either poorly-written sentences, or specific factual inaccuracies and POV claims. If they do not do so and fully engage in the process, such objections should not be considered valid. Not being rigorous with such objections risks giving unreasonable people a veto over any article that comes forward. Xandar (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I am exhausted by all of this. We have what amounts to amateur-experts in numerous fields citing sources and pointing out neutrality problems throughout the article. Jbmurray (an actual expert) has pointed to problems with the article's coverage of Latin America. I pointed to problems with the eighteenth-century section. RelHistBuff pointed to problems with the Reformation section. Durova pointed to problems with the section she was familiar with. The severe resistance to these carefully outlined problems is astounding. At this point, I have to agree with the editors who have suggested that the article be withdrawn. I would also suggest that some other editors be brought in who have not participated in any of these debates - fresh blood if you will - who are at least amateur-experts in these fields to revise the article. I believe that article's main editors, while working hard, have hit a bit of a wall at this point are just beginning to resist because they are tired. Awadewit (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) I generally agree with Awadewit's summary, but think it's worth saying that Nancy, in particular, has recently been working much more productively with other editors and reviewers. This may be too little, too late, but praise where it's due. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have expanded upon my objection, listing a couple of problems with prose in the lead, if that helps at all. I too, like Awadewit, recommend a withdrawal - so what if it's been here 4 times? If it's not ready, it's not ready. Simple as that, really. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Awadewit. I have seen little change in tone and there is no feeling of collaboration, just resistance. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved

• Nominator, please note:

1. Trawling for "votes" on talk pages defeats the purpose of this rigorous process;
2. With respect to that user, s/he has a limited command of English and it appears to be unrealistic to ask for a serious review and declaration from her/him;
3. Please desist from referring to this process as one of votes; rather, it is a consensus-based approach, in which just one unresolved and significant oppose might lead to archiving.
4. Please do not post personal attacks in response to this message, either here or on my talk page. TONY (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Response to Tony:

Earlier in this restarted FAC, after Lingnut asked this question here [5] (see the actual conversation above on this same page), Karanacs responded by making this statment here [6]. As nominator, I then pasted a generic message on the talk pages of all those who had voted in the previous nom and who had not already come to the page to vote in this nom. As you can see from RelHistBuf's comment here [7] I did not just post the message on the pages of previous supporters but of previous opposers as well (RelHistBuf had previously opposed). You have accused me of "Trawling for votes" which is a personal attack on me especially when you can now see that I was doing what Karanacs suggested I do. FAC is supposed to determine consensus - we are supposed to vote to help the FAC director determine that consensus, I encourage all who support to place a support vote on the page and any opposes (with stated reasons per FAC criteria) to do the same so this can be determined. I am upset with Tony's persistent attacks on the previous supporters of the page, whom he does not know. Stating that the supporter you pointed out above does not have perfect command of English does not mean that the person fails to posess other critical skills like knowledge of content. An FA does not become an FA because it is beautifully written, it has to be factually accurate as well. Your blanket dismissal of all support votes in your initial oppose is evidence that you do not understand this fact. Please be respectful of other FA reviewers whose skills you are not in a position to judge. NancyHeise (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time that you have made unfounded personal attacks and allegations on this page, Tony. And further breaches of the WP policy Assume Good Faith. I do not know what the problem is that you have with the nominators, editors and reviewers of this article. But I think you really need to apologise. Xandar (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note to say that I will not be intimidated by the further threats and abuse by your cabal on my talk page. You're not going to cow opposition that way. TONY (talk)

Nancy, please just ignore Tony. Tony, please just ignore Nancy. Nothing can be gained from the argument between ye, its just too entrenched and personal now to be resolved. Move on, peace, Ceoil (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Get Tony1 section

Put it all here. Get it out of your systems. TONY (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Section for people whose browsers can't handle forms containing 300+ kilobytes

• Comment This article is huge, and as my interest in religion is minimal, I'm not inclined to read it. But I did flit here and there in it. My impression is that at least in part it's unclear and verbose. Take for example the section titled "Ordained members and Holy Orders", and within that the bit about women. We read that "Because the Twelve Apostles chosen by Jesus were all male, only men may be ordained in the Catholic Church." If that's what they say that's what they say. Should the reader expect to learn why the sharing of attribute X (masculinity) by the first 12 should decree that all later people should share attribute X? (And if it should, then why not attribute Y [such as speaking Aramaic or whatever it was]?) It goes on to say that The Church teaches that women have different yet equally important roles in Church ministry. OK. But it then quotes Ben 16, John Paul 2 and Paul 6 all seemingly making the same point about a separate and "complimentary" [sic] role. Though I'm not entirely sure of this, as they say it rather obscurely. Take Paul 6 for example; he talks about the "witness" of apostles and women, and although my E-E dictionary glosses the (not-person) noun "witness" as "testimony", I don't know what "testimony" would mean in this context. At the end of all of this, I have the general impression that women are thought to have had a special role a couple of millennia ago, but I've only the vaguest idea of what it was then and no idea whatever of what it might be now; and indeed I'm utterly unable to think of how any woman has as important a role in church ministry as, say, a (male) cardinal. Is there no theologian or spokesman who can put these ideas across more lucidly than these popes? -- Hoary (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This FAC

Both Nancy and Xandar have done excellent work on this article, but they are both very clearly resistant to FAC reviewers who oppose (no matter what the objection is based on). Indeed, I am simply trying to help here (the prose needs improvement), but it seems Nancy has no intention of consulting the help of an external editor to improve the prose with a full copyedit. Why did I get involved in this FAC? I'm not sure really, because it's sure been a waste of time, for me at least. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to be so strident, WM. Some of your prose ideas were acceded to, others we don't like as we think they would make the aricle style worse. (See the main page for details.) Not all suggestions from every editor can be acceded to, otherwise the article would quickly become a mess and a POV jungle. Where we have not accepted your suggestions, we have explained why they fail to make the article better. If you are feeling frustrated after a few Kb of prose, imagine how the editors often feel, after going through 4 FACs with this article and making at least 4,000 edits over the past six months! Xandar (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact you've had to make so many edits over that time shows that you're taking the wrong approach. The purpose of FAC is not to improve an article, but to come to a consensus on whether or not it should be FA. Improvements come naturally through the process if the article is not ready. In this case, you'd be much better withdrawing and working on the article with a few select editors, gradually bringing it to near-perfection — a couple of peer reviews, with comments from at least 10-20 editors (easily found on Wikipedia) would also help before bringing it to FAC again. If you carry on with your current procedure, this might end up having another four FAC nominations! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is though, that we have already tried the approach above in response to previous suggestions that that was all that was needed. The article was withdrawm for a couple of months, worked on, revised, new sources used, copyedited, put before the Guild of Copyeditors, and went to Peer Review. It was stabilised and then came to FAC, and there was basically no change to the response. I fear we could go round and round that cycle endlessly. FAC is really intended for specific, addressable opposes. This is the right approach because otherwise you can get bogged down in vague subjective opposes that can never be addressed or satisfied - especially with a controversial article. I imagine that we could cut and paste the entire text of the respective Britannica or World Book articles to FAC and they would probably receive the same number of objections on POV and style. In fact it might be more, since the Inquisitions and abuse scandal have less coverage in those treatments. (In the Uk someone did this about a year ago, sending the work of great writers to modern publishers under a pseudonym. All of them rejected the books, stating the were not good enough!) So, while fac should be rigorous, the objections too have to be considered with the same rigour so that there is a genuinely objective outcome, and some articles aren't held to an impossible standard. Xandar (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, the last peer review only had comments from 1 editor. You ideally need 10-20 for such a controversial topic, which isn't hard to do as the Peer review volunteers list is quite long. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 11:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see both points here. On one hand, Nancy and Xandar have habitually considered opposition/comments "addressed" by either fixing the examples or providing a rebuttal, which dismisses more general concerns the commenter might have had. A lot of reviewers have been frustrated by this approach that, as Wackymacs pointed out, essentially forces the reviewers to work on the article rather than simply commenting on it. On the other hand, as Xandar points out, this thing has gone around the track so many times that no one even knows if they're commenting on the text "as nominated" or a revision that was requested by a different reviewer. I think it could go on indefinitely. I finally supported the article because I became convinced that it is the best it ever will be. If we continue to put it through the ringer, we could just as easily degrade it as improve it. --Laser brain (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I think this article is the best it is ever likely to be no matter how many new reviewers/copyeditors come along, and deserves to rank among wikipedia's best articles. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with nominators rebutting comments; thats their right as primairy writers. I sympathise with the "around the track so many times" notion Xandar and Laser brain mention, but it is in part beacuse the counter arguments are being denied weight. There are chasms between the the two side at this stage; but as jbmurray said earlier I think this is easing. This really has to be one of the toughest FACs in the history of FACs; in its rigor, polarisation, lenght and scope, and in terms of the demands it making on both nominators and reviewers, both of whom, as Laser brain points out, are working through multiple layers of revisions and comments. Phew, is all I can say. Oh and Wackymacs, would you mind retitling this section - its a bit unhelpful -though you have been constructive and helpful generally through this. Thanks! Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just also - after God knows how many kbs of FAC review, I don't think PR is really needed ;) Ceoil (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I just don't want to see this at FAC a 5th time and have the same stuff happening all over again, because, currently, it seems that all this will happen again at this rate. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In my opinion, this article could be much better and accepting it as it is now will show to the world that Wikipedia produces inferior articles. I believe Awadewit is right. Other editors/writers should work on the article (as this is a Wiki, this is only natural). The ones working on it now, having gone through several FACs, are protective of their current work and deal only with easy minor issues and unfortunately cannot discern the important problems in the article even if the arguments are made calmly. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comments would be far more credible if ungrammatical, illiterate rubbish like Crackdown, spawning with major errors, didn't fly through FAC. Fortunately for that article, the POV warriors were all far more determined to "get" RCC. Xandar (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Allowing RCC to run for almost six weeks and to over 700KB may have drained reviewers and prevented them from allocating time to closer scrutiny of other FACs. The restart seemed reasonable at the time, but in hindsight it may have been better to archive the FAC earlier so that work could happen via peer review or the article talk page. Hopefully the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 can be used to effect a thorough peer review (perhaps after first allowing everyone time to get a breather).

Xandar, one thing that I know is true is that continuing to personalize the discussion will not help future FACs, and I do wish that would stop, including the (often inaccurate) categorization of editors. Saying that "POV warriors were determined to 'get' RCC" is a bad faith assumption that isn't likely to advance the tone that needs to be set when the article comes back to FAC; if that shift in tone and approach doesn't happen, future FACs might get bogged down in same. Raul and I need to be able to read a FAC and determine if actionable opposes have been resolved; editors working together, rather than as adversaries, will help advance that goal. Just on effort alone, this article should be able to become featured; collaborative rather than adversarial editing may help get it there next time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) I've responded very similarly here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Size

Dweller asked me for help in calculating prose size.[8] Wiki currently has 6623 FAs; six of those are longer than 70KB readable prose size. The average size of an FA is 25KB readable prose. Readable prose size, per Dr pda's script

• Roman Catholic Church 74 kB (12077 words), 30 refs in the lead
• Islam 41 kB (6705 words), 10 refs in the lead

• Muslim history

• Buddhism 54 kB (8664 words), 3 refs in the lead (NOT featured)

• History of Buddhism (Featured, at FAR)

• Christianity 42 kB (6541 words), 17 refs in the lead (NOT featured)

• History of Christianity

Five longest FAs,[9]

• Ketuanan Melayu 86 kB (13808 words), no refs in lead
• The Cantos 76 kB (13185 words), unreviewed
• Campaign history of the Roman military 75 kB (12923 words), 8 refs in the lead
• Bob Dylan 78 kB (13150 words), 12 refs in the lead
• Byzantine Empire 72 kB (11842 words), 3 refs in the lead

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The way forward

Sandy asked me to look at this nom - apparently it had grown so large that it was interfering with her ability to load the FAC page. I've decided to fail this nom. First, I'd like to say I think the article is very good. It's long and somewhat over-referenced (although I don't consider over-referencing to be a major problem), but I think that's to be expected with an article of this visibility/notabaility/inherent controversiality. What I'd like to see from all the remaining objectors is a list of specific problems with the article in its current form.

I'd like the nominators to take some time and address the remaining issues prior to renominating this. I do want to see this featured, but it's not there yet. Raul654 (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm increasingly torn over this article. I do not think it's at FA standard. On the other hand, I do think in some ways it's close, and I really do want to congratulate NancyHeise for her efforts on the article and at FAC. As I have said a number of times now, I think the article has both minor problems and major problems. The minor problems, mostly of prose and POV detail, are relatively easy to fix, and had the FAC been less combative probably could have been fixed. (If they had been, I would have switched to support, and passed over the broader issues.) Indeed, increasingly many of these issues were improved: though in some cases I'd say there were also steps backward, in the end I think the article emerged better and stronger from the FAC than it had been hitherto. The major problems concern structure and dependence on certain problematic sources. I hope that while the article is out of the spotlight of FAC a group of editors might be able to work productively to give the article a thorough overhaul. In other circumstances, I would be delighted to help out with this, but within a week or so I'm going to have to go on an extended wikibreak as I'll be travelling for some time. But finally, let me echo Raul654's words: I think it would be great if this article were featured; it would be a significant asset for the encyclopedia, as well as just reward for all NancyHeise's hard work. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We really do need a comprehensive list of specific objections from remaining objectors. Xandar (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It is easy to complain about specifics of this article - I have some minor ones of my own, see below - but let us look what has been accomplished: An institution with a 2000 year history, 1.2 billion members, many of them very with different views and cultures, which has its own complicated set of beliefs, dogmas and peculiarities, and, which is unpopular and controversial in some quarters, has been descibed and summarized witin the narrow confines of a Wikipedia article. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a major achievement. Congratulations. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)