Talk:Christianity/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jenhawk777 (talk · contribs) 04:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I really want to review this article, but my time is going to be very limited over the next two weeks, as I am wrapped up in projects in RL. This would mean very spotty attendance on my part for that period of time. If the nominator is okay with that, I will begin, but if they want someone else, I perfectly understand. I will wait to hear their will from them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No that's fine, I'm in no rush. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay then FishandChipper let's begin. When I ask you to make a change, if you disagree, that's fine, but please explain why with source support. If you make the change, please write ✅ under it so I can see that and check it in the text.


 * I normally keep the lead till last, but this one caught my eye right away - mostly for good reasons - so I am beginning this one there.

Lead
In your second sentence you mention the number of countries where Christianity is a majority but not where they are a minority. If you reference one, reference the other is my opinion. Otherwise it creates a false impression.

Divide that second sentence into two sentences. And here's a critical question: Is the belief that Jesus is the son of God universal throughout Christianity? This sentence implies that all Christians believe this. I don't know that's true, and worst, I can't demonstrate it with a decent source. Your source has no page number, no preview available, no search available, and even if it did, the kind of broad survey it is probably doesn't contain that kind of information.

Is it possible to consider one's self a Christian without that belief? I think perhaps some - such as Christian scientists - would say yes. So, on your behalf, I went source hunting. First I went to PEW looking for a summary of Christian belief with numbers: nada. After an hour of searching, I found one source that is low-quality, (but at least is from a university) that states 5 major Christian beliefs. One is the uniqueness of Jesus without requiring belief that he be the son of God, but there are no percentages on how many Christians believe this with it. So I'm thinking there is no source to support claiming what Christians believe.

This may be the best that can be done: [Meyer, John C. Christian beliefs and teachings. University Press of America, 1997.] Check out page 5, page 18 and page 31. This book states the major teachings of Christianity without making any claims about Christians. There fore, you can resource and restate that sentence to read "Traditional (or orthodox) Christian theology states that... blah blah blah". That's supportable at any rate.

This sentence: is filled with jargon that must be defined within the sentence. Remember we write for sophomores and other non-specialists.

add a reference to the Jewish diaspora communities. it was periodic and sporadic

I know creeds are discussed in detail later, but give one reference here anyway: "The creeds of various Christian denominations, such as the Apostle's creed, generally..."

You have a tendancy to write long, compound run-on sentences - like I do. This is a sentence fragment that should be a sentence by itself. Please make it so.

This has been disproven by contemporary scholarship. There are multiple good sources showing the Edict was addressed to the people of the city of Constantinople, and not the entire empire, to Christians and not Jews or pagans, and to Arians about opposing Arianism, establishing unity in Christianity, and suppressing heresy. It did not declare Christianity to be the official religion of the empire, and gave no advantage to Christians over other faiths.

This statistic is only for the US. This has Europe's stats.

So that's it for me tonight. I will be back as soon as I am able. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * 1st paragraph. ✅
 * 2nd, 3rd and 4th. I think the reason you can't find a good source is that by definition a Chrisitan is someone who believes that statement is true. If a "Christian" doesn't belive that then they aren't a Christian. It would be like finding a good source for the statement "All wood comes from trees", as the very nature of wood is that it is from a tree. It's something that goes without saying. I read what your source had to say and honestly I think it's just simpler to say "All Christians...." instead of "99.99999999999% of Christians..." (obviously an exaggeration but you get my point).
 * 5th. ✅ but might be a bit clunky
 * 6th. What do you mean about the Jewish diaspora communities? ✅ I removed the word significant.
 * 7th. ✅ also added extra info on gospel's etymology.
 * This is all I can do for now but I'll get to the rest of it later today. Sorry if I get a bit slow, it's essay season so a lot of my time will be spent there rather than here. Hopefully you agree with my changes, I can't wait to continue working with you. :) FishandChipper 🐟🍟 07:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, by adding "all" that sentence is now worse. There is no source because scholars don't generally make claims about "all Christians" believing any one thing. Tell that to the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christian Scientists and the Mormons. The sentence may be simpler, but it is both OR and incorrect as it sits. Remove the sentence entirely or change it, but if left, that source must be switched out for one with a page number and the statement modified to reflect what the source actually says. But honestly, since doctrine is discussed in the very next paragraph, why not just delete that sentence? (31% of the world's population would be an interesting replacement.)
 * If you remove it, add this to the end of the second paragraph: "About 1% of the Christian population belong to traditions that do not support traditional theology, yet view themselves as Christian, including Christian Scientists, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. " (I hope this is in the body of the text, otherwise we will be having the same problem again.)
 * PEW has 232 countries which is more than most totals. Give those numbers or don't, but be consistent and do the same for both claims. "Its adherents, known as Christians, are estimated to make up a majority of the population in 157 countries and territories, and are a minority in the remaining 75 countries. Most of the Christian-majority countries are small with fewer total numbers of Christians than the minority Christian population in other larger countries. "
 * Page numbers!!! There must be page numbers, or I cannot verify sources and this GAN will fail.
 * Jewish diaspora: page 18 of
 * The fourth paragraph claim about Christianity becoming the state church in 380 remains unchanged. It is without a source, and that must be corrected. That should be removed or replaced with the newer view. (The only sources that say that now are old or assume the old view in a discussion of some other topic.) See: ; pages 109; 214-220; ; I can't pick which pages as this whole article is applicable: . If you don't like these, there are many more. Remove or replace with new view, sourced with page numbers.
 * The claim about 70% in the last paragraph is also unchanged.
 * Please do not place the done template on requests for changes that have not actually been made. Change or explain - with sources - with page numbers - but do not decide to blow me off and then say done. This article will fail without a demonstrably greater concern for both accuracy and citation. In fact, if I continue to find these problems - and this kind of response - I will quickfail this GAN. That is not what I want. I want this to succeed. I am even willing to help with the work - as I have demonstrated. It is an important article. But you must cooperate with meeting the WP GAN requirements if you want this to succeed. Make the change I request - or explain why not with sources and page numbers and not personal opinion - or fail. Your choice. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I have now failed this article due to the lack of verifiability, the presence of OR, and the lack of cooperation in fixing these problems. I didn't even make it further than the lead, but the problems there gave me the sense that there would be more of the same in the rest of the text. There seems to be a lack of understanding about what constitutes OR, and what a good citation actually is, but the lack of response assured me it would be a waste of my time to try and help someone who didn't want to be helped.

I request any future reviewer to please ensure that these problems are fixed if it ever gets renominated. I will b e watching this page hereafter. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)