Talk:Early centers of Christianity/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "Christianity throughout the second and third centuries have generally been less studied..." Looks to me like the subject is singular, is it not? AD and CE are used mixed throughout the article.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * While there are plenty of books written about the topic, the three I have and use most--Ferguson's Backgrounds, Gonzalez, and Pelikan--aren't referenced.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * "Fourth and fifth century Christianity experienced imperial pressure and developed strong episcopal and unifying structure" I thought the cutoff was 325 CE, so why do we care about the 5th century? Also, I don't see a balanced discussion of Christian "heresies" in the period commensurate with the discussions of relationship with Judaism.  Overall, there are so many other articles referenced, I have a hard time seeing clearly where this article should end and other articles should begin.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * "Jewish Christians" does a good job of representing one view, but there are certainly others. c.f Rodney Stark's assertions that Jewish conversion to Christianity continued throughout this period. Gonzalez' The Story of Christianity omits mention of any Pauline/Jewish Christian split, as do Ferguson and Pelikan.  Suffice it to say I think that should be represented as one theory, rather than an undisputed fact
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * You can fix the prose and standardize the dates, but I just do not see adding more material, delineating the boundaries of this article compared to others, and balancing out competing theories of certain aspects happening in one week. Please feel free to reapply for GA when these are addressed, and I'll be happy to help you with them, but this article is not ready for GA now or within the next week. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * You can fix the prose and standardize the dates, but I just do not see adding more material, delineating the boundaries of this article compared to others, and balancing out competing theories of certain aspects happening in one week. Please feel free to reapply for GA when these are addressed, and I'll be happy to help you with them, but this article is not ready for GA now or within the next week. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)