This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
A fact from Canon law of the Eastern Orthodox Church appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 September 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that some canons of the Canon law of the Eastern Orthodox Church contradict each others? Source: Vasile, Mihai (2017). "Introduction". Orthodox canon law reference book. Brookline, Massachusetts: Holy Cross Orthodox Press. pp. 8, 32. ISBN 978-1-935317-45-6. OCLC 856076162.: "Canons related to heretics show some evolution in the matters of their reception in the Great Church and of the validity of their sacraments[.] [Examples of canons contradicting each others.] Eventually, by the time canon 2 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (in Trullo, 691) was established, all previous canonical inheritance was recognized as valid, including canons that seem to be contradictory. Moreover, disciplinary canons issued later seem to he [sic] harsher than those issued later. [Overview of some canons contradicting each others.]" (p. 8) "Respect for this work [the preservation and passing of Orthodox Canon law throught time] was so great that nothing was omitted, even though some canons contradicted others [...]." (p. 32)
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting:
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Article is new, long and sourced. Hook is interesting, assuming good faith on the source. qpq is done, and no copyvio detected. It has clean-up tags for using too many quotes, and this has to be fixed before the hook can be promoted. The hook fact should also be mentioned in the body of the article, not just the introduction. If the article gets cleaned up in enough time, this nomination can still be approved. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BuySomeApples: Thank you for your review. I have tried my best, but for now I cannot manage to reduce the number of quotes anymore. I will try to dig into it more tomorrow. Also, feel free to give a hand to help reduce the number of quotes. Veverve (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: thank you for working on the page! Usually it's fine if improvements take up to a week, so take your time. I'll try to work on the page if I have time, but no promises, sorry. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has clean-up tags
Article is new, long and sourced. Hook is interesting, assuming good faith on the source. qpq is done, and no copyvio detected. It has clean-up tags for using too many quotes, and this has to be fixed before the hook can be promoted. The hook fact should also be mentioned in the body of the article, not just the introduction. If the article gets cleaned up in enough time, this nomination can still be approved. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing all of that! The article looks good (no tags or apparent issues). This nom looks ready @Veverve:. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
To T:DYK/P1