Wikipedia:Peer review/Deus Caritas Est/archive1

Deus Caritas Est
Well, I think it is a fine article, the day after publication. It may be early, but I am looking to FAC soon. Comments? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Good work! I think you have an excellent start here.  I don't know much about the subject area, so I'll just comment a little on the presentation.  It's a little short, and a little dense.  I'd look to unpack it, which will help to solve both of those problems (anyplace that you have a one- or two-sentence paragraph, it's a good sign that you need to add some explanatory information).  Remember that your audience is the general public, which may not be accustomed to so much technical Catholic stuff, so more explanations wouldn't hurt.  In that spirit, you'll also want to expand the lead section, I think.  Best of luck! -- Visviva 03:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice, well-written text. I second Visviva's opinion above that the theological principles (like the difference between these two kinds of love) should be made more clear, or a source must be provided in which these topics are more thoroughly discussed (like another Wikipedia article). However, I must point out that, no matter how great the article is, it will be very hard to get it through FAC right now. I would wait some months or even some years. An ideal article on this topic should cover not only the encyclic itself, but also the reaction it arose in the catholic people, and maybe even the counter-reaction by the church if applicable. But this is still too recent for that.JoaoRicardotalk 15:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for the feedback. Does the current text do a sufficient job of outlining the meaning of the the theological terms?  There are links to the relevant articles which discuss the terms (agape, eros, logos, etc) in more detail, and I would not want to have too great an exposition in this article about the encyclical.  Someone recently added some "key passages" - I am not entirely sure our article ought to have long quotations: any thoughts? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)