Talk:Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation/GA1

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

Reviewer: Spudlace (talk · contribs) 19:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 11, 2022, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Fail. Paragraphs are disjointed even in the lede. Repetitive language "After innovators have introduced the innovation", "Paul, the converted Jew, was one of the innovators who introduced the new religious innovation"
 * 2. Verifiable?: Fail. The article is thoroughly cited but there are problems with the use of sources. Sources that use the Bible as a primary source for population data would not be accepted. "According to Acts 1:15, Luke 10:1-24, and 1 Cor. 15:6, it is possible Christianity began with as many as 700 Jewish innovators".
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass. It is very thorough.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Fail. It is written in the style of a thesis or essay and not like a Wikipedia article. And, some might consider describing Christianity as an "innovation" five times in the lede not a neutral tone.
 * 5. Stable?: Pass. No recent edit warring.
 * 6. Images?: Symbol support vote.svg Pass

It's a definite fail for me. The article should be rewritten with more attention given to the style and tone for Wikipedia articles.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Spudlace (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

(copied from reviewer's talk page) Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation
I am of course disappointed, but I am endeavoring to take all that you said as a good faith effort to help improve this article, and I am attempting to address your observations with actual substantive changes. I have redone the lead, but honestly, I cannot tell if it's an improvement. This has been a very difficult article in that it really covers two big subjects, in parallel, and because it is a sub-page that attempts to explain one particular point of view. What I found on WP's rules indicated to me that it's okay in such a circumstance to have a pov, but it's always possible I could have misunderstood. If that is wrong, I am just totally screwed. Please help if you can! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It was suggested in the peer review that this article should stop with Constantine. What do you think? Almost all the sociological articles do so. They are primarily interested in growth before the fourth century. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You can ask at WP:NPOV/N. My answer would be that the article should have one subject. In this case the Christianization of the Roman Empire article would have a section for diffusion of innovation arguments or theories. The diffusion of innovation article could have a section for Christianization of the Roman Empire. This article was written in the style of an essay and not a Wikipedia article. It needs to be significantly rewritten. Examples:
 * "For the Roman Empire, early Christianity was not only a new religion, it was a new kind of religion." Italics are not used this way in Wikipedia articles.
 * It's poorly organized. There is content about ancient Roman paganism and religions in different sections of the article without being clearly related to the subject of diffusion. This topic is already part of the article Christianization of the Roman Empire.
 * The article title could be "Spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire" as the sub-page to "Spread of Christianity". - If you look at other Wikipedia articles to see if they have this style of title.
 * "There is evidence based on eclipses that points to Friday 3 April AD 33 as the date when Jesus most likely died." - Nothing at all to do with the article subject.
 * These are only a few examples. You have the option to resubmit the article for review by another reviewer if you feel that my failing the article was done in error or the issues have been addressed in subsequent changes. For content discussions prefer the talk page of the article. Copied this over. Spudlace (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)