Talk:Peter Martyr Vermigli/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

How interesting; happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "between the Bishop of Spoleto and the previous abbott" A particular bishop, or the bishopric generally? I note that many of the bishops have their own articles, and all are surely notable; if we know the name of the bishop, we should name him. (I see you name him in a footnote; perhaps that could be brought in to the main article?)
 * Single bishop, decades of abbots. Clearer? --JFH (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "overturned by the pope" Again, could we specify the pope, with a link?
 * Hmm, now that I look closer at McNair it looks like I read "Rome" and assumed that meant pope, but the footnote makes it look like he's talking about someone in the Congregation in Rome? I'm going to leave it at Rome rather than get in the weeds. --JFH (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

(Pausing for some lunch. A great read so far!) Josh Milburn (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, back:
 * "It is also possible that Valdés learned his strong doctrine of predestination from Vermigli" Perhaps this claim could do with a little more context?
 * Done--JFH (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "on 12 August 1542 by horse with three of his canons" You only name two in the footnote?
 * Done--JFH (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "During their time in Oxford she ministered to expectant mothers.[58]" Would this not work better with the discussion of Vermigli's time in England?
 * Done--JFH (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Vermigli's Eucharistic views were accepted in Zürich, but he ran into controversy over his doctrine of double predestination. Similarly to John Calvin, Vermigli believed that in some way God wills the damnation of those not chosen for salvation. His colleague Theodore Bibliander held the Erasmian view that God wills the salvation of all people, rather than the common Reformed view that God chooses some people and not others to save." If I am understanding correctly, there are three separate views mentioned here; the Vermigli/Calvin view that God wills damnation for some and salvation for others, the Bibliander/Erasmus view that God wills the salvation of all, and the "common Reformed view" which I confess I'm not fully clear about. The nature of the third view and the ways it was different to Vermigli's could be made clearer.
 * I tried to clarify. Part of the problem is that Bullinger's position is debated and probably changed.--JFH (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "the Lutheran John Marbach" I assume that this is the Johann Marbach mentioned earlier?
 * Ah yes, changed to match

Ok, pausing again. Still very strong! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Some more bits:
 * "Vermigli, as well as his contemporary John Calvin, adopted an essential literal mode of biblical interpretation. He occasionally adopted an allegorical reading, but he did not utilize the quadriga method of medieval biblical interpretation, where each passage has four levels of meaning." Do we perhaps have some wikilinks to explain these terms? I'm not sure I understand what an "essential" mode of interpretation is.
 * Hopefully clearer. "Essential" was a typo for "essentially", but "literal" was misleading anyway.--JFH (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "He also argued on the basis of Chalcedonian Christology, that because Christ retained his divine nature when he became man, the substance of the Eucharistic elements retain their character." This could, I think, be a little clearer.
 * Let me know if this is clearer.--JFH (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "on the basis of grace alone" Could you provide a wikilink for the appropriate concept of grace? I was also going to suggest a link to Will of God, but the article isn't a very good one.
 * Done--JFH (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Vermigli was a transitional figure between the Reformation period of Reformed theology and the period known as Reformed orthodoxy. In this period,Vermigli was a transitional figure between the Reformation period of Reformed theology and the period known as Reformed orthodoxy. In this period," Ambiguous; do you mean "In this latter period" or "In this interim period"?
 * Done--JFH (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "His political theology in particular shaped the Elizabethan religious settlement and his authority was constantly invoked in the controversies of this period." Interesting- could we perhaps have a more explicit mention of his political theology elsewhere in the article?
 * Yes, I was considering doing this. I made a start at it and will take another look tomorrow.--JFH (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, let me know what you think.--JFH (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The sources are excellent and I have no concerns about the images. I might personally prefer File:Pietro Vermigli by Hans Asper.jpg as the lead (indeed, I'd imagine it'd have a good chance at featured picture candidates) but the choice is yours. It's absolutely fantastic to see such a detailed article about a figure of this sort; you should be very happy with it. I've no doubt I'll be happy to promote soon. With a bit of expansion on his thought (and perhaps the place his thought has in contemporary theology) I suspect this would have a very good chance at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC);
 * Thank you very much, I'm glad you enjoyed it! I agree about the painting, though I was worried people would complain about him looking off to the right. I'll probably switch them out tomorrow. --JFH (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and please double-check my copyedits. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, I think all of these improved the article. I made a few further changes to some of them.--JFH (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the thorough review, User:J Milburn. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve it.--JFH (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I will be traveling over the next few days, so may be unable to give this the attention it deserves until the weekend. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Two quick comments on the political theology paragraph:
 * universal church is a dablink
 * "he followed Augustine's distinction between the spiritual and outward spheres of activity" I know what this means, but I worry that some readers won't. Do we have an article somewhere that could be linked to? An explanatory footnote, perhaps?

Again, I want to give the article another proper look through, and I'm a bit strapped for time right now- my apologies. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries about being busy. I added a little bit of explanatory text around your second point and linked The City of God, though I'm not sure how helpful that article would be. --JFH (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, this article is really coming together well; I like the new details on political theology a lot. I think it may be worth rewriting the lead, which is currently a little choppy, and perhaps not quite to the quality of the rest of the article. Could I perhaps recommend rewriting from scratch? I appreciate that leads can be surprisingly tricky, but they're really worth putting the effort into, as they're often all that a reader really looks at. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I agree. Let me know what you think of the new lead. --JFH (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, I'm happy to promote at this time. I think we could fiddle away for a good while longer, but I'm confident that this is now ready for GA status. Great work; I do think that FA could be achievable with a bit more work (perhaps a clearer idea of the remaining influence of his work- is he a figure of contemporary significance, or just an interesting historical footnote?), but you may want to get the second opinion of a few others (especially those with a familiarity with theology or early modern Europe). I am going to nominate the lead image for featured picture status at some point soon, by the way; feel free to drop by and offer a view, but don't feel that you have to. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have a few ideas to make it more relateable to contemporary theology. Drop me a mention when you nominate the picture. --JFH (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)