Talk:Irenaean theodicy/GA2

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 01:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to review this article. I should let you know that I know next to nothing about the topic. However I think this is not a bad thing as good articles should be accessible to everyone. The only issue I see with my lack of knowledge would be broadness, but I see that it has undergone extensive reviews before and has been expanded since the last nomination so I am not too worried from a first glance. AIR corn (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is very much appreciated. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have just finished my first read through and must say I am impressed. It was interesting and well written. I have left a few minor comments below. Don't feel you have to make every change, if you disagree with a comment just let me know underneath it. I will do the sources and other requirements shortly. AIR corn (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ireneus
 * a distance between God and humans far enough that belief is God remains a free choice Grammar
 * ✅ ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For Irenaeus, then, suffering is a useful moral concept.
 * It is claimed that those who do not attain moral perfection in their lives will go to Hell to continue their development until, eventually, they reach the likeness of God.
 * This would mean that, ultimately, all people will enter heaven, regardless of their life on earth.
 * "then", "eventually" and "ultimately" seem superfluous . Not a big deal at all and if this is how you like to write keeping them in won't affect GA status.
 * "Then" and "eventually" removed. I kept "ultimately" in, as it clarifies his view that all people will eventually reach heaven, but not initially go there. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As an example of how suffering can be beneficial, Irenaeus cites the Biblical example of Jonah whose suffering (in being swallowed by a whale) both enabled God's plan for the world to be fulfilled and also brought Jonah closer to God. Would it be possible to expand on this slightly for us non-bibliophiles. How did it enable gods plan for the world to be enabled and how was Jonah brought closer to God?
 * ✅ I've slightly extended that to clarify it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In respect to eschatology, I don't know what eschatology is. If it can be explained easily I would consider doing so, if not just rely on the link.
 * ✅ ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Leibniz
 * Gottfried Leibniz presented a form of the Irenaean theodicy in 1710, in his work, Théodicée. The double commas could be a bit confusing. Is the second one necessary.
 * ✅ ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hick
 * He argues/Hick argues starts a quite few sentences in this section. Would be nice to mix it up a bit if possible.
 * ✅ ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Augustinian
 * Although its proponents attempt to justify God, he is given as the reason for evil. This sentence did not fit very well. It is almost repeating what the previous sentence said.
 * ✅I've merged it with the previous sentence to clarify and tighten the writing. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Schleiermacher
 * Schleiermacher was also a proponent of universalism, suggesting that every person is predestined to go to heaven; this cannot fail. This read wrong to me. Should it be "thus cannot fail"?
 * ✅"This cannot fail" was Schleiermacher's view - since you've pointed it out, it seems needlessly ambiguous, so has been removed. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment. I've made most of the changes you've suggested - I've put individual comments below each point you've made. Let me know if you notice anything else. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Happy with the changes. Did you miss my first comment or did I read the sentence wrong?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Is philosophyonline considered reliable? Spot checks confirm information without any copy violations found.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This has been addressed since last review
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No red flags
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Looks good
 * 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:
 * Will pass this after a response to the above minor points
 * Will pass this after a response to the above minor points

Sorry, just missed the first one. I've done that now. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * far enough that belief is God remains a free choice. I would have thought that it should read "...belief in God remains...". AIR corn (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, missed it again! Fixed now. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Still not sure about Philosophy online, but it isn't referencing anything controversial. May be an issue if you push for FA. Other than that I am happy to pass this. AIR corn (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)