Talk:Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire/GA3

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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 12:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

, I intend to review this article. As it is rather lengthy, I will divide this review up into a few stages. Firstly, I will ask preliminary questions and make straightforward edits to conform to the MOS; secondly, I will make a general review of the article, including a source spot-check; thirdly, if the article has passed the previous two stages, I will review the article in detail. Please let me know if this method is acceptable for you. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Whatever you want is acceptable to me. The article is lengthy. I am impressed there is anyone willing to review it at all! This is my third try at this, and while I think I have incorporated every criticism, comment and suggestion made by anyone and everyone, it's likely a new reviewer will have more, so I am just hoping you give me the chance to make what changes you see are needed. I am extremely careful about sources, and I can promise they are 99% correct, but I won't promise 100% because the total number of references is so high in this article; the chances of there being an error somewhere is probably good just based on the odds of human nature. If you find any problems, please give me the opportunity to correct whatever that problem might be. Please don't just quick fail it, even if you hate it. Give me a chance to work with you. That's my only ask. Give me a chance. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Acceptable. First administrative point: all sources not directly used for citations should be in the Further Reading section. I can do it, if you wish (this script is helpful).
 * Now, first question: why is this article called Historiography of Christianization of the Roman Empire, and not simply Christianization of the Roman Empire? For clarification, I do not mean that this article should be substantially changed to fit the latter title; I mean that the content of the article, as it currently stands, seems to match the latter title more than the former. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article was originally titled Christianization of the Roman Empire, and there has even been more than one request to return to that, but this article is not a simple history, and that is what got it quick-failed the first time I put it up for GA. It was quick failed because "it's all historiography", and it is, it really is. That was a just and true statement. Hence the title, which makes it clear (hopefully) what's here, which is a discussion of one theory after another - I think there are ten in the article? - and frankly, it's at least partly to save me another beatdown over article content. That editor really hated the discussion of historiography, and when I tried to explain that all scholarship in this particular field of study from Gibbon onward is historiography, he got angry and called it all garbage. I attempted to adjust by adding historiography to the section headings, but he said that was garbage as well. So I decided to change the title and description in hopes that would work. This article contains some history, but its primary focus is on all the changes in scholarship that have taken place in recent decades. I will do what you recommend, but you might want to get all the way through it before determining which title you think is best. Just a suggestion.
 * I don't think there are any sources in the bibliography section that are not cited in the text - though stuff has been moved in and out more than once. I will be interested in finding that out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I downloaded the script but now I can't find it and so don't know how to use it. I'm sorry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that I've already been formatting the references, I've gone ahead and started moving the unused ones to further reading, don't worry about that part Jen.  Aza24  (talk)   23:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh hi Aza, I didn't realise you were involved here. That is a fair point, Jenhawk, but I feel uneasy at the thought of this developing into a Crusades/Crusading movement dichotomy. Ah well, I suppose it can't be helped.
 * One further thing to think about: the notes. Even to me, a big fan of explanatory notes, 2500 words spread over 15 notes seems slightly excessive (note 6 almost seems like it could be an article in its own right!). I'm not making any specific requests as yet, but I would request you to consider where the boundary between the explanatory and digressionary lies, so to speak. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I know, you are absolutely right, there are many detailed notes, and that may very well be too many. My criteria was basically that, in an effort to keep the text itself as short as I could, I moved supporting explanatory detail - especially for what I thought would be controversial for many editors here - into notes. I will do what you suggest, but I'm afraid I may have no good idea where the line between explanation and digression lies. I will try to figure that out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I tried to trim notes (without just putting it all back in text). Tell me if you approve, and if not, what you would like instead.
 * Can you or Aza24 explain why my beautiful bibliography is now peppered with ? Is that the script? Do these need moving? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See below  Aza24  (talk)   05:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't Aza wonderful? It's his beautiful work in the bibliography. He's just wonderful. So how does this script work? I would like to know for future applications - if possible. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Right now Kalkandjieva, Krautheimer and Meeks are not directly sourced in the article so (because of the script you installed) they give that warning. I'd move them to further reading, unless you're planning on adding citations for them.  Aza24  (talk)   05:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will go check and see why they are there. If I removed their content and forgot to remove them, I will fix that. Thank you so much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I will do the rest tomorrow. It's 1:30 and I am having trouble focusing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you dear one! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I love this script! It makes it so easy to tell if, when I remove a sentence - or ten - if those were the only uses of a particular reference. I am amazed and impressed. So those are gone now, and the bibliography is beautiful again. Refs are ✅. Notes are ✅. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review table
Moving on, GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Perhaps one or two minor errors; we'll check later.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, ✅ layout ✅, words to watch, ✅ fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig shows a 50% similarity with this website, from which several experts are cited. Based on their use in the text, I deem this satisfactory.
 * AirshipJungleman29 Those are quotes, but for some reason that I can't explain Earwig flags them every time. I have thought of removing them entirely, they are just single sentences, but they are such pertinent summations of other material that would be longer, and they are by recognized highly respected scholars, so I left them. Thank you for recognizing that!Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Earwig don't know that quotes are quotes (or backwards copies), so it always needs a human interpreter, you can't follow it blindly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to have recognized all my other quotes but those! It just doesn't like them! I take it personally... Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Random source spot-check
In this section I will randomly spot-check a number of sources for accuracy to the text; this is to check the article against 2c) of the GA criteria. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) 5 should probably be 241-242
 * 2) ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) 80 should probably be 38-39
 * 4) I'm assuming you meant #81, Castelli which is page 38. #80 is a page 2 reference about Eusebius. This is ✅. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) 83 good
 * 6) 138 unsure why not simply 68-75, otherwise good
 * 7) I think this is #139? Cameron? The pages are listed separately because there's a break in the discussion. Is that okay?Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) 151 direct copying of article text should be paraphrased or expressed clearly as a quotation
 * 9) ✅Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) 209 good
 * 11) 235 fine
 * 12) 252 good
 * 13) 262 good
 * 14) 307 not sure about the page numbers due to different edition, but almost certainly correct
 * 15) It's on the archive, but this is 308 not 307. Numbers got one-off somewhere, I dk why. Page numbers are correct for that edition.Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 16) 334 good
 * 17) 414 good
 * 18) 415 should probably be 493-494
 * 19) I am identifying these by their page numbers, and 415 is pages 26-27, while 416 is page 493, so I have added 494 to that citation.  I hope that turns out to be correct! ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 20) 491 wrong page number, should be 125 or similar. 123 doesn't supply much relevant info
 * 21) ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 22) 525 good

Overall, then, the fifteen citations are all relevant to some degree; four have minor issues, and one has attribution issues. This is not enough to prevent me as marking 2c) as fulfilled. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Incidentally a couple of references (179 and 180) are now formatted incorrectly. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am relieved! I will fix these issues within 24 hours. Thank you so very very very much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I am guessing you mean 180 and 181. I see the problem. These are now Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to make these right. I am genuinely grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unsure why so many of the citation numbers were off by one—probably different versions being looked at. Anyway, good that you managed to find the right ones. Will move on shortly to the specific review. As this is GA, I'll review compliance with criteria 1 first, then 3b) and hopefully I'll be well-informed enough about the topic to make a good decision on 4).
 * I am very busy for the next week, but my time frees up significantly from next weekend onwards. If I haven't updated by the 17th/18th, feel free to ping me. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for telling me, it will help me be patient. I am so excited you are here reviewing this that, without this info, I would undoubtedly have been pinging and wringing my hands! I understand about RL and am happy to wait for your return. I do have other articles I am working on, so I will not be idle. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As a start, though, going over MOS:LEAD would be a good idea. Areas I have noted that would be of interest: MOS:FIRST (especially MOS:REDUNDANCY), MOS:INTRO/MOS:LEADREL, and maybe a consideration of MOS:LEADCITE. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I made it a point to reread these knowing as I do that the lead is always my weakest section. I have now redone it completely in an attempt to summarize better without redundancy. I hope it works better at both of those. Your input will, of course, be appreciated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead section
Back. Let's get this started,.


 * I am unsure why a single sentence is in need of 13 citations, and why the next is in need of four. The information is very well sourced in the rest of the article and is not disputed, so per MOS:LEADCITE,
 * AirshipJungleman29 YAY! Trust me, this is extremely disputed often with with extreme rancor. It needs every citation, and I have no doubt they will all be checked. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. Aside from anything else, if you do provide 13 citations in a sentence, I would expect all aspects of the sentence to be fully covered, and each citation directly relevant and used of correctly. This is not the case. Taking an example the last four citations of the sentence—Humfress 2013, Salzman 1993, Digeser 2000, and Thompson 2005—2005 seems to have no relevance at all; your use of Humfress verges on synthesis (applying conclusions on general imperial legislation to the very specific use implied in the article), and I can find no real mention of the reign of Justinian in the other two, albeit I am missing one page of Salzman. I haven't looked at the other citations, but overciting comes with a lot of problems. If you are certain that all of the citations need to be included, I would suggest bundling them together, but in that case, I will check them all individually.
 * Okay, I will go through them and find the best source for each today.Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I went through and checked each reference and picked the one I deemed best represents what is now being said. Humfress mainly speaks of the sixth century, but she also specifically mentions Justinian on other pages, so I added some page numbers, but she is the one I ended up using for this sentence in the lead. Page 3 is the editor's summary of what she says, so I added it so I could use his summary of her as well. I think these are all ✅ now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Why is the hatnote necessary, or, indeed, at all useful?
 * Well, since I changed the title, I guess it isn't. Removing... ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:REDUNDANCY advises that the article title not be repeated verbatim in the first sentence should the article title be descriptive.
 * Okay. I have attempted to change it. It seems awkward without the title, but you tell me what you think. Is this ✅? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reduced it further. Let me know what you think.
 * I think it's fine. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Slightly off-topic, but shouldn't the article title be 'Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire?
 * Yes, imo, but I was corrected on that by another editor, and they changed it. Can we change it back? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "was finally eliminated by Constantine, the first Christian emperor, and his successors, imposing Christianity in place of paganism in the fourth century AD" is too verbose.
 * Well, it's a multi-aspect claim, and each one needs mentioning accordingly, since it is these very views that get altered, so let's see, how about if I divide it into two sentences? See if you like that okay. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not quite. I think my version is better—revert if you wish.
 * Sure. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "defeating it only after emperors became Christian and were willing to use their power to require it" require what?
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "The legislative model is based on the Theodosian Code and its many laws supporting Christianity and prohibiting all forms of sacrifice, magic that used sacrifice, and closing any locations where these continued." should be simplified for a general audience
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure that the conflict/legislative models have relative levels of importance in the lead and body; additionall unsure if they are described the same way.
 * They are at 3.1 and 3.4. I can retitle the sections if you want. They are the significant models, along with Gibbon, that provided the hegemony for this field for most of the time since Gibbon started it in the eighteenth century. Decades of work was written in support of these views. They were all there was for a long time.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that could be explained better in the body, but this is a GA review, so I'll let it go.
 * I will be happy to do whatever you think needs doing. But if you are okay, then this can also be ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "multiple new discoveries, along with new methods of research and new schools of thought, have undermined much of this traditional view. According to new data" lot of newness here
 * Indeed. I had listed them originally - sociology and its newer forms, modern anthropology, and a few more actual fields of scholarship that didn't exist at the time of Gibbon, (or were just getting started and were not yet developed). I thought specifics mattered, but I was over-ridden by another reviewer once again. I can go back and find the specifics if you like. It will make it more verbose of course. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's quite what I meant. The entirety of the first sentence above could be combined into around four words. I have done some slight simplification for the necessary GA concision.
 * I don't think anyone has ever accused me of being concise, so thank you. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * " transmit certain ideas; the" we sure that a semicolon is preferred over a colon?
 * It's a list, and that is just the first item in the list. The second item is not an explanation of the first. It isn't even connected. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose.


 * "The effects of this religious change are both debated and mixed."
 * Is there a better way to summarize the effects section? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well what does it mean? Aside from anything else, do you mean that the effects were mixed and they are debated today?
 * Yes, that's what it means. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me know if you think anything was missed or if you have any questions. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have decreased the size of the lead image as it was too visually dominating; have also given the lead a copyedit to eliminate minor mistakes.
 * Okay. But the image is hard to see now. I get complaints about that from other editors. I tell them to click on the zoom. Perhaps they will. I have no questions at this point other than are the changes okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I take back my comment on the image. I think it's fine. I tend to make maps too big I think due to previous griping. But you're right, it was too in your face big! It's better now and still readable - and zoomable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See my comments above. I will move on when the above is resolved. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * AirshipJungleman29 I believe these are all ✅. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think you will want me to remove all multiple citations throughout the article? I don't want to create ongoing issues over this, I just need to know so I can get moving on that, since there are several. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not multiple citations, but sentences with four or more citations should be looked at closely to make sure all of them are necessary. If there is for example a list of four aspects and each citation summarizes one of them, I am more than happy to accept it; if however all four citations summarize all four aspects then that is unnecessary. I hope you understand the position. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do. It is not at all unreasonable, and is actually what I expect. My problem is that this content has, in places, gone through several renditions - without me removing citations accordingly. That is an error on my part. I think I assumed too many references was not the problem that inadequate referencing was and didn't worry about it. I will begin fixing that now, but perhaps we can move on to the rest of the article, and I will work on this as we go. It will take awhile, but hopefully it will not take longer than the review. I will keep you abreast of my progress. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Too many references are most certainly not the problem that too little referencing is, but for a GA they are still a problem. Thank you for your understanding. I will move on to the other criteria tomorrow, as I will need a while to go through WP:WTW fully. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I have a commitment to neutrality here on WP. I even wrote a little essay on my user page. I hope that straightforward neutrality is all you will find, at least, that's what I expect. There is some evaluation of each of the theories, but that is part of their scholarly presentation. That some theories are more/less supported is necessary to include in a discussion of ten of them and kind of the whole point of the article. At any rate, happy hunting. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S., I think you need to be a little more careful in your p. vs pp. in your sfn citations, otherwise you'll start getting lots of citation errors. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I will check them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now been through the article and all 400+ citations, twice, and I believe I have corrected any and all errors in p and pp usage. I hope. I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This - checking multiple references - is going faster than I thought. I am already about halfway through the article. There aren't as many as I thought. I should be done tomorrow I'm thinking. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 ✅ I have reduced all citations of four or more throughout the entire article. This also created corresponding problems in the bibliography, so those refs w/o citations are now gone as well. The page and pages are correct. This all went much faster than I expected. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

WtW, layout, & list incorporation

 * On a quick read-through, I can't find much breaking the words to watch guideline. However, as this is a very academic article, make sure you always note MOS:AWW, MOS:EDITORIAL and MOS:SAID.
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are, however, breaches of the list incorporation guideline, in the notes. Note 6 and 7 should both be combined into prose. I will address their necessity when we discuss unnecessary detail in the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did that because I don't know how to create separate paragraphs in a note. I write it with paragraphs and the note automatically combines it into one long block. Is there some way to prevent that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * AirshipJungleman29 This has yet to be addressed and I don't want to miss anything that you want done. Can you help me with this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * parabr should do the trick. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * AirshipJungleman29 Bless you and thank you! That really does look so much better! I learned something new, and that is always awesome. This is great! ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I try to be careful about attribution and the rest, and just in case I missed something myself, before nominating this I asked my friend Gråbergs Gråa Sång to do a run through. They are really great at finding those problems and tagging them. I fix them. If I have failed at that, it isn't for lack of trying, but I will do another recheck to be sure.
 * About the same time a random editor, Anywikiuser, came along and did some phenomenal work on restoring and organizing and adding content. It is their work that gave me the confidence to renominate for the third time. This has been a collaborative effort and these others deserve credit for this article. I wish there was a way to do that.
 * Responsibility for the final product is mine, so if there are any of these problems, I will fix them. I will go through it again later today. Did you have anywhere specific in mind or is this a general warning? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If I don't understand what I just read, it follows that whoever wrote it is a dummkopf. Perfectly sensible attitude for a WP-editor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess that's me because I can't tell who you are calling a dum head! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Some people would say that I may not be perfectly sensible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not be among them. Your sense of humor - which is great - sometimes comes across as a little whacky, but that's the nature of humor, right? You're fine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Praise from the praiseworthy is praise indeed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you and your family celebrate Christmas? I wish you and yours any and all of the good things in life you may want - peace and love and lots of good food and drink and friendship and family - and eventually quiet... Bless you my friend. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The see also section can be trimmed. Several links can be incorporated into the article if they aren't already; others, such as Reconstructionist Roman religion, can be exclude.
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Single or two-sentence paragraphs can generally be combined with others, unless they are somehow very long.
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think that the further reading section has a reasonable number of publications? Too many? Too few? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think further reading is reasonable. I have trimmed it for the third time now! I also trimmed see also. I will look at combining paragraphs while I check attributions and wtw. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * All ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Have shortened the first section considerably. No failures of attribution or wtw that I saw. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * AirshipJungleman29 I have trimmed and shortened everything I am able to with a clear conscience. The detail remaining is what I consider absolutely necessary to adequately summarize what is usually complex detailed information. I have boiled it down as far as I dare imo. No doubt you will feel differently, and I will do my best to cooperate or explain. At any rate, I think everything mentioned here is ✅. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality and detail
I will address these issues together. May take a while, and may involve me advising you to cut/change things you feel are essential, so sorry in advance for that. To start us off, here are some preliminary recommendations:
 * Note 2 is unnecessary. The wikilink to the edict provides the translation.
 * Note #2 is now gone. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unsure about the relative emphasis on epidemiology, both in the lead and in the body. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the only discussion of it as a "model" is as a refutation to a line in Pliny. Price 2012 covers this in a single paragraph, and Collar 2022 doesn't seem to have any relevance at all. It doesn't seem like this deserves a full paragraph-section in the body and a phrase in the lead.
 * Since it has been put forth as an explanation of the spread, it seemed necessary to me. Not all the theories are supported, but I don't think that automatically excludes them from a discussion of theories. I don't know what you mean about Collar. You can see her book on Amazon and the Chapter 1 section titled Innovation, persuasion, strong ties and community where she discusses the likelihood of someone adopting an innovation is unlike their vulnerability to disease. There is discussion before and after with more detail, but that seemed relevant to me. The lead lists all the theories in the article. Is that not correct to do? You have never liked that list! Perhaps I should trim that down? Okay, I have done that. Tell me what you think. Is it an improvement? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To say that the contagion theory has been put forward as an explanation of the spread seems exaggerated. If anything, it is just a comparison in the original Pliny, and a vague comparison in a 2000-year-old text does not belong in a discussion of modern approaches. Collar's work does not discuss disease; it may discuss adoption of innovations, but to join the two theories together is pure original synthesis (and incidentally, I think Price should be cited to page 10).
 * It is true that I am not a fan of those lists in the lead. The reason is simple: they get treated as a sort of odd-sock-basket, where anything not worthy of a dedicated couple of sentences just get a phrase of a few words, connected by semicolons. Not everything covered in the body needs to be covered in the lead. Your rewriting is an improvement, although as above, one can't really say 'an alternative epidemiological theory has been generated'. In fact, the only thing to really say about an alternative epidemiological theory is that there isn't one. I hope you understand my position. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I accept it. Epidemiology is now removed from the article. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure that the hatnote at the beginning of the history section is necessary. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Dating is the single most controversial aspect of this entire field of study right now. Without going into a long discussion of it in the article, a simple acknowledgement of what choice has been made seems like a courtesy to me. I will remove it if you feel strongly about it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, it predominantly seems to be used in quotes from Peter Brown or other historians. To my eyes, there are only four instances that might possibly require the hatnote. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The hatnote is now gone. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * AirshipJungleman29 ✅ ?? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The Enfield and Levinson link doesn't work.
 * I have replaced it with another and checked it, and it seems to work now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think a paper on the use of hand gestures among children is what you were going for. Given that it seems to be a collection of articles, you will want to use the parameter |chapter= in the citation, and put Levinson and Enfield down as editors, and cite the actual authors (presumably Boyd and Richerson) in the citation and the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have accessed the paper through private sources. As the Boyd and Richerson article only uses game theory as a comparative psychological tool, I think the section as it stands verges on WP:SYNTH. You may wish to merge the psychology and game theory sections, and remove references to the latter. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Holy cow! What a mess! I have no idea what happened there - completely wrong citation. All of those quotes and all the information is from the Boyd and Richerson article. I don't know where I got Enfield and Levinson. Too many late nights maybe! Thank goodness that's a one of a kind!
 * Boyd and Richerson did use game theory, so I thought that was sufficient, and now there is only the one sentence from them as I have shortened game theory to the one paragraph.
 * I have also added evolution as a section.
 * If you look at it and still think game theory should be removed, I will do so, but it would be a shame. Thank goodness the bad link tipped you off! Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Game theory has statement A from one source, and statement B from a different source, but there is no statement C, no conclusion. Is that okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there a bot to check for dead or bad links? Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, that is not okay, per WP:SYNTH (If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources). Can't think a bot like that off the top of my head; will come back to you. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. Statement B is gone. Oh, and Happy holidays! Me and mine had fun. I am so exhausted I am going to bed early tonight! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * AirshipJungleman29 Can you help me do a better job on Game theory? The way it is right now has no connection to RE at all. Game theory is used to evaluate the spread of Christianity in RE, but as you noted, the refs I have found are all sociologists doing that, not game theorists as such, so where does that belong? Anywhere? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What if I just wrote that? That sociologists Boyd and Richerson have used game theory to evaluate CoRE? Then perhaps the Game theory and evolution section should be combined. I tell you, how to best organize all of this has given me headaches from the get go! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly I think this emphasis on game theory is just undue. Boyd and Richerson explicitly ascribe the process as some sort of cultural evolution, which is what should be written in the article. Game theory might make the topic sound more advanced and sophisticated, but as B&R do not specifically say "we use game theory to analyse this", the entire paragraph should be deleted. I might just go ahead and delete that paragraph, so we can get over this hump. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for making that call. I couldn't. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Further comments:
 * Why is note 9 a note and not a citation?
 * They are old. It is now a citation.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In note 2: "Robin Lane Fox provides examples ...In the 250's" is just not grammatically correct and should be changed.
 * Fox is in note 4, but I went ahead and checked both 2 and 4. I believe they are both correct now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We have two sections called sexual morality, which could cause problems for redirects.
 * The other editor who worked on reorganizing and reinstalling material divided that section and moved the one paragraph - recently. I am fine with it there - or back where it was originally - either way, but I did go ahead and change the section title of the one he moved. If you would, you decide where you think that last paragraph goes. I will do what you say. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * AirshipJungleman29 ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

, I think that's about it for me. Keeping the good article criteria and this essay in mind, I feel that this article is ready for promotion. If the article were to face a GAR, I think it would be on charges it doesn't meet 3b); I think that the concept of 'unnnecessary detail' differs from person to person, and to me, this article is satisfactory on that count. I will note that it is definitely below FA standard, so a nomination there will require significant efforts, should you wish to pursue that course. Congratulations on the promotion, and thanks to you and others for working collaboratively with me over the past three weeks. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)