Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Catholic Church/1

Catholic Church

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Catholic_Church/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: No consensus. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Several uncited sections, including almost the entire first section of the History section. History focuses disproportionately on 20th and 21st century. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Disagree that the history weighting is a significant problem. Might require a minor rebalancing—-I’m not sure why John Paul II has his own section while other popes do not (aside from Francis, but the case for having a section on the current pope is strong)—-but that’s a modest edit, not a reason to delist. The several uncited paragraphs in the History section (which look to be the only significantly uncited section to me) do need fixed, but I note that History of the Catholic Church has a pretty well-cited early history section, so that shouldn’t be a hard fix. Reassessment seems a pretty big overreaction for these problems—-it’s pretty firmly WP:JUSTDOIT territory. El Sandifer (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep on grounds offered. The first part of the History section appears to be a lede-style summary of the subsections afterward (a la WP:LEADCITE), with the relevant citations in the respective subsections.  If truly desired, go and move the relevant citations back up, but this is a style that isn't unreasonable.  As for focus - the Catholic Church is a topic where multi-volume books have been written on it, there is no one perfect amount to cover on each time period.  I will say that random readers are probably more interested in the recent history aspect, so it wouldn't shock me if the 2424 article on the Catholic Church disproportionately focuses on the 24th century.  SnowFire (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delist 1) if the unsourced content in the history section is a sourced elsewhere in the article, it is redundant and needs to be removed per GACR#3b 2) obvious recentism in the history section. The Catholic Church has a really long history so the twentieth and twenty first centuries need to be covered in similar amount of detail as other historical epochs, and summary style needs to be used. Note that I did not look at the rest of the article (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no obvious "recentism" in the history section. The 20th century section does not appear disproportionately long compared to the rest of the section. I also see no uncited sections. Note that my comments pertain to this most recent revision. –Zfish118⋉talk 18:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that 's comment follows my examination and removal of the offending parts. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent work in trimming the history section! –Zfish118⋉talk 03:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)