Wikipedia:Peer review/David Bentley Hart/archive1

David Bentley Hart


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to help improve this page but want to get a variety of ideas for how best to do this before I work more on it. Eventually, I'd be interested to submit this article for consideration as a featured articles including use of the sidebar Template:FAC peer review sidebar when it might be ready for that stage after some initial work.

Thanks, Jjhake (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720
Before submitting for FAC, I suggest taking the article to good article status. This is a step towards creating a featured article and an editor will give additional feedback for improvements.

Some comments after a quick skim:


 * Ensure that there is an inline citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum.
 * Personal life suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION. Suggest removing these level 3 headings.
 * The "Selected bibliography" section is quite long, especially because these are selected works. If many of these works are notable, perhaps WP:SPINOUT into another article. Otherwise, perhaps this should be trimmed.
 * Bare URLs should be formatted in the references.

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Very helpful suggestions. I will work through your list as a next step. Jjhake (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you again. Your suggestions above actually lead to a lot of revisions to the article that took me a long time. However, I've done all that I can think to do to improve it and have just tried to list it for a good article status nomination as a next step. Jjhake (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda
Invited, I'll review, knowing nothing about the subject, and leaving the lead for last, when I hopefully will know more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox
 * Used to meeting editors who despise infoboxes, I'm surprised how detailed this one is. His works could be summarized by a link to his bibliography, no? Or at least be reduced to books with an article? What does a reader gain by just a title?
 * I tend to see heavy use of infoboxes on articles for academics and philosophers, and Hart's infobox was much more cluttered when I first started to work on the article. I cut it down a lot. However, I've tried to execute all of your ideas to trim this down even more.--Jjhake (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Awards could mention just the awards' titles, leaving years and by whom for the text.
 * Some award names made little sense without the organization names, but I've tried to trim substantially.--Jjhake (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Main interests could perhaps have three main? The others in the lead and the text?
 * I've actually cut this down to just one as it is within the "Philosophy career" embedded infobox, and Hart is fairly focused on philosophy of mind when it comes to his philosophical writings (with a substantial book on this topic due from Yale UP in the current year (2023).--Jjhake (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "Opponents" is a new parameter to me, and I'm surprised by the mix of people and ideas. To me - not knowing people and some of the ideas - it means nothing.
 * This category seems to be used for articles on academics (especially philosophers and critics with Hart being both of these). It feels difficult to balance between 1) the readers who know more about Hart's primarily areas of work and who will find this list clarifying and 2) the readers who will find this list largely meaningless. I left this as it was, but let me know if you think that some substantial trimming here would improve the article. Glad to do so.--Jjhake (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Early life
 * I miss a section like that, because I'd like to know about his background before entering academic studies. I conclude from lead and infobox that he was born in 1965 in America (which needs a citation) . Not where, parents, school, interests as a child. Perhaps we know nothing but even then I believe that some of the Personal life should come here, such as in which church tradition he grew up.
 * I've created a section on "Early life" and provided several citations to support it. Glad to develop it more, but I'm not thinking that it should be too long, and I've covered most of the facts I could find.Jjhake (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Academic career
 * I wonder about upper case for the subjects he studied.
 * Not sure about the capitalization myself. I was following what came from the source cited there. My guess would be that, when referring to the title of a specific department or major, the capitalization would make sense. However, if read as subjects studied, capitalization does not make sense. I'll get rid of it as that feels most natural here.--Jjhake (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "has taught" implies - at east that's what I was taught - an ongoing activitity, - is he really teaching at all these simultaneously, or are some in the past?
 * Yes, fixed this tense to be clear. Also adjusted some language to clarify that, since the completion of his fellowship in 2015 (which including some very light graduate course instruction), Hart has only had research and writing responsibilities with no teaching assignments.--Jjhake (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know more precisely what he taught where.
 * From what I have seen, this would be difficult to recreate (other than from the specific academic chairs that he held and the departments to which they were connected). From what I have gathered, his primary areas of instruction, while he was still teaching, were religious studies (or world religions), New Testament exegesis, and some historical theology. If helpful, I could likely find some citations for this and add a note about this into the section.--Jjhake (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * His interests need links, - as said before I know readers who'd never look at an infobox.
 * Makes sense. Will add these now.--Jjhake (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer refs not accumulated (5!), but rather right behind what they support. If all 5 all of the para, perhaps leave only the most important 3?
 * Makes sense. Done.--Jjhake (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

See also
 * All these items should be linked from the article, and I bet some are already. The section could probably be empty, and the quite generic portals could also be dropped. How about making a navbox for him (which might include portals)?
 * I've removed the "See also" section and tried to start creating an "Navbox" but this is new to me. I'm not at all sure what you have in mind. Are there any great examples I could look at? Also, you note below that the "two seas of blue - influences and essay topics - would profit from some grouping." Those "two seas of blue" were in the "Infobox" when I started working on the article a while back, and I trimmed them a little once. Would it make sense to move them both into the "Navbox" as I develop that?

To be continued. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * such helpful feedback. Thank you. As I have time in the next few days, I'll start from the top of your list and briefly note here what I get finished (as I'm going along). Hopefully, I'll catch up to you shortly after you've finished the review. Jjhake (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Btw, I've made a few edits to the article today unrelated to this work because of this Template:Did you know nominations/David Bentley Hart work that I had gotten started as a suggestion from someone else after the GA designation. Jjhake (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Congrats to the speedy approval of your first DYK! - I would have tried to word a hook around the spectacular image with his dog. - I'm almost done with the review. I found the literature much easier reading. Just the two seas of blue - influences and essay topics - would profit from some grouping, - or who would ever read them start to finish? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Your idea of tying a DYK word hook around “the spectacular image with his dog” is so good now I’m tempted to switch it up again. Ha! In the book Roland in Moonlight, we learn, just incidentally and in connection to a joke at the expense of Hart’s older brother, that Roland was once a god in the Tuṣita Heaven. That might be too much, but the options would be abundant for hooks. Oh well. Jjhake (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Feel free to reply to my bullets right below, beginning with the bullet and indenting - the easiest way to connect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I read through all replies up to this point, and am happy with changes and explanations so far. I am just one voice, from my angle. I really love your response "makes senese" and please only make changes if it does, and you are behind it.   As for DYK, feel free to suggest another hook, but do it soon, because the more work was invested the ess willingness will be there for a change ;) - navbox, I made them only for composers but perhaps that helps: Benjamin Britten - perhaps areas of his thinking could form left-side groups, having on the right related works? - looking forward for more --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I found as a navbox for a philosopher Isaac Newton, and I found (below that in his article) other navboxes bout fields related to him. To be considered. From my angle, I find the latter quite overwhelming ;) - You can make a navbox for Hart in a sandbox and I'll look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your navbox examples were very helpful. I've got one started in the article and gotten a start trimming down the two "seas of blue." Still a good bit of work to do in cleaning up the article text as far as influences and key ideas, but it's trimmed a bit as a start. I also moved the "Opponents" content from the infobox to the navbox. Jjhake (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually can't figure out if the navbox is supposed to be on a separate "Template page" (as is currently the case) or if I should just have it all within the article on Hart. It's easy to move if it should all be kept within the Hart article. Jjhake (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, much improved! The navbox should be separate, Template:David Bentley Hart, and be in all linked articles, which will tell you what to drop. But that's a separate discussion, perhaps on the template's talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Now I see how it works. It looks like the separate navbox template needs to be much shorter and only focused on articles directly related to Hart (such as his books). It seems justified but will be short. Other more broadly "Related articles" and "See also" content that has been removed from the article text should be organized in another navbox under the external template on just Hart's main article (like I'm seeing on the Isaac Newton article). Following this model, I'll chip away at some more cleanup along these lines and let you know here when I can't think of anything else. --Jjhake (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the extra note. My comment directly above was confused about Navboxes still. Now I see that they seem to always follow an external template and get nested together in some cases. Anyway, I wont be creating anything at the bottom of Hart's main article page, and I'll read more about them and look at examples before doing much with Hart's new one. It should not be too long or widespread, obviously, for a living author with only more modest influences in wider academic world. Jjhake (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I've made all of the improvements that I can find to do based on the recommendations above (and a few more that the work brought to mind). Near the start of your peer review work, you noted that you would be "leaving the lead for last." Do you have some recommendations for the lead? I would guess that the five citations after the first sentence might be a little over the top. Anyway, thank you for all of the super helpful feedback here, and please let me know if anything else comes to mind for you when you get a chance to review my most recent edits and look over the lead again. --Jjhake (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked, and you are right: the lead should normally have zero citations because it should be a summary of the body.
 * I don't see a summary of where he came from and studied what. Want to try? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll take a shot at moving citations down into the body and making the lead a more complete summary without getting too long. Is the lead okay to be two or three paragraphs, or should it ideally be a single paragraph? Currently, there are two but they are broken up by the info-box on a mobile device view I've noted. I'll take a look at documentation about the ideal lead setup. Thank you for the initial thoughts. Jjhake (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ideal - we never know. Three paras is fine. The only bio FAC I participated in was Kafka (4 paras), so please ask others, or look around at comparable articles (not many). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It was a little terrifying, but I moved all the citations out of the lead into the most appropriate locations throughout the body. Then I did slight rewrite of the lead in an attempt to fully summarize the body of the article. I think this completes this peer review. Thank you so much for the input, and please let me know if I've missed anything. I'll also be wondering what might be next in as far as getting this article on Hart considered as a Featured article.
 * I like what's in the new lead, just the order. I'm used to have a paragraph that is the summary of the summary, containing all that a reader should know who has no time for more. Then should follow the origins ( ow now at the end), and then the rest. That's it from me. Good look with attracting other views, and then FAC. It was a pleasure so far. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What does the abbreviation "ow" stand for? Also, I feel like perhaps I'm too close to the material to know what "all that the reader should know" would be in the "summary of the summary." Any chance you could draft some idea of this? If not, I'll give it my best shot and then look to see if anyone else can help or give advice on the way to FAC. I've learned a lot! Jjhake (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So sorry about "ow" ;) - it stands for that my n-key is resistent. - Regarding the first paragraph, compare almost all leads of FAs I know. Yours is fine, just the need to look up a word on dict strikes me as not reader-friendly - could that come later? Then chronology, - that's what I observe in biographies, for example take Percy Grainger, by the much-admired Brian Boulton. I see the same pattern in today's It's That Man Again by Tim riley. Repeating: my voice is one of hopefully many! Canvassing is frowned upon on Wikipedia, but requesting to participate in a peer review is a different thing, - perhaps look around who might have an interest in your topic or knowledge in FA writing, and approach them. You may also want to look at other FACs and participate in reviewing, for more feel of it. Scaramouche is open, a peer review going for GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Very helpful. Thank you. I'll remove the specialized term and review several examples to help with another rework of the first paragraph. I've enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia since 2004 but only very modestly on a few topics that I know and enjoy. I do try to remain impartial, and see the need to work on a wider variety of projects and avoid canvassing in order to learn. You've taught me a lot, and I appreciate these links to other editors and projects! Jjhake (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)