Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Christianity/archive2

History of Christianity

Nominator(s): Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history of Christianity. Every section has been revised. "Those who dare to engage in work that is broad-ranging enough to be categorized, perhaps, as world history, do so with fear that their work may be castigated for lacking specialist knowledge or be lampooned as a random collection of trivial generalizations." (Hyun Jin Kim, The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, page 2) I willingly face these fears, again, because every criticism received improves an article that is of utmost importance and should be among Wikipedia's best. Please help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

Holy mother of MOS:OVERSECTION! 109 section headings for the prose is a bit much, my friend. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding, and it's not just the sections but the prose length... (t · c) buidhe 03:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you're saying, but I am wondering if it's avoidable. Is there another article on Wikipedia covering 2000 years of history of much of the world impacting art, culture, economics, politics and religion that I could read to get a better idea of how to cut that down? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe

While the work that's gone into the article is commendable, I don't feel like most of my concerns from the last FAC were addressed in a satisfactory way. For example:

"Global religion" that I queried turns out to be direct quote, so thanks for following the source, but I'm still wondering whether it's one person's opinion or a widely held view (or do other scholars use this terminology at all?)
The "Challenges" section is untenable, because it rests on an implicit POV of what Christianity is and what challenges it. For example, most Pentecostals would probably disagree that they are outside the Christian mainstream or a "challenge" to christianity. I think this section has to be fundamentally rethought of and split apart with any information to be kept split out to other areas just generally talking about developments.
Prose needs work—too many quotations in some areas, I found a few grammar errors elsewhere. (t · c) buidhe 03:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry buidhe, I did think I had addressed your concerns in this last rewrite.

- Scholars do use the term "Global": Daughrity, Dyron B. The changing world of Christianity: the global history of a borderless religion. Peter Lang, 2010 and Jenkins, Philip. "The next Christendom: The coming of global Christianity." Religious Educator: Perspectives on the Restored Gospel 8.3 (2007): 28 and Mortensen, Viggo. "What is happening to global Christianity?." Dialog 43.1 (2004): 20-27 are a few examples.
- Pentecostals do not disagree that they are outside the Christian mainstream. They always have been, have always seen themselves that way, and tend to think of themselves as challenging the establishment accordingly. This article by a Pentecostal refers to Pentecostalism as being on the "extreme periphery": Foster, William D. "Leadership from the extreme periphery to the mainstream? A reflection on the critical journey and how traditioning might offer a Pentecostal denomination a rediscovery of ancient paths." Journal of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity (2024): 1-25 In this article: Freeman, Dena. "The Pentecostal ethic and the spirit of development." Pentecostalism and development: Churches, NGOs and social change in Africa. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2012. 1-38 Pentecostalism is compared with mainstream Christianity with the claim that it challenges traditional power structures better than mainstream Christianity. They are indeed on the edge, and at the forefront, and their theology presents some powerful challenges to the traditional Reformation views found in most mainstream denominations: Gelpi, Donald L. "The theological challenge of charismatic spirituality." Pneuma 14.1 (1992): 185-197.
- The section can easily be changed to developments if you prefer, but that heading will apply to almost everything, which would seem to add to confusion in my mind.
- Please point out any grammar errors. I have been using Grammerly throughout, in addition to my "Brief English Handbook". This is written in British English rather than American - could that be the problem? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

I can't see myself reviewing all 293,778 bytes! It's faaarrr too long. Would a split before the Reformation help?
Inevitably, with a subject this large, much of the coverage is pretty skimpy, but the section on "Art" in "Early Middle Ages (476–842)" is downright rubbish. The first of the two paras is:

Dedicated monks merged the Germanic practice of painting small objects and the classical tradition of fine metalwork to create "illuminated" psalters, collections of the Psalms, the gospels, and copies of the Bible. First using geometric designs, foliage, mythical animals, and biblical characters, the illustrations became more realistic in the Carolingian Renaissance.^[1]

- yes, no links at all, where there should be several.

"the Germanic practice of painting small objects and the classical tradition of fine metalwork" is completely the wrong way round. It should say something like: "illuminated manuscripts merged Late Antique traditions of book illustration with Germanic and Celtic decorative styles expressed in metalwork, and no doubt more perishable media." The rest of it isn't good either. The sequence of illuminated books produced developed from Gospel Books (early) through psalters, Bibles (mostly Romanesque), then books of hours (C14th on). In the period the section says it covers it was nearly all gospel books. The reference is very unspecialized too.

^ Matthews & Platt 1998, pp. 202–203.

The next para is about Byzantine iconoclasm, but fails to link to our long article on exactly that. When the coverage is necessarily very brief, it is especially important to use links to our more detailed articles.
In the same section, do we have much evidence of liturgical plays this early?
The para on the Investiture Controversy also doesn't link to that very full article (nor use that standard term).
You say "The cult of chivalry evolved between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries and ... Our article, more conventionally, begins "Chivalry, or the chivalric language, is an informal and varying code of conduct developed in Europe between 1170 and 1220..." By the 15th century it was hanging on in some courts, but arguably not a strong force.
The pictures are rather odd. Too many Victorian illustrations, and many in odd locations compared to the chronology.
There's a section called "Late Antique art and literature (c.350-500)" but it actually has nothing on what was arguably the formative period of Christian art, nor links to our articles. Just a bit on the pagan revival.
In all these arts areas, links to articles on specific works, in which Wikipedia is very rich, help to diffuse the vague fog of generalizations hanging around the article.
I think a lot of further work is needed. Johnbod (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[FOOTNOTEMatthewsPlatt1998202–203-1] Matthews & Platt 1998, pp. 202–203.

[1]