Wikipedia:Featured article review/Presuppositional apologetics/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 07:45, 10 April 2007.

Presuppositional apologetics

Review commentary

Messages left at Jwrosenzweig, Religion, and Christianity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the primary contributors to this article, I don't think it meets current FA standards. In particular, it doesn't cite its sources. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor contributor to the article, I deferred to Flex's expertise throughout my work there, so I won't disagree fully. But, Flex, I wonder if we shouldn't simply decide what needs citations and add them, rather than decertifying and recertifying the article? Certainly it's informative, and accurate as far as I can tell, and there are a few citations (although I admit more could be added). Anyhow, if we are going to de-FA for this reason, maybe some kind of list should be made of what, specifically, needs citation so that it's clear what work is ahead? Jwrosenzweig 01:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for making it fit the current FA criteria and keeping it an FA, which would certainly mean adding the sources of which you speak. However, I have my hands full working on other articles at the moment (trying to get Christianity and alcohol to GA and then to FA). So if that can't be done in relatively short order by someone other than me, I tend to think it should be demoted for now. Making a list of what needs to be sourced, as you suggest, would be a good first step and would allow multiple people to contribute to the improvement effort. --Flex (talk|contribs) 01:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, some fact tags were there already, and I added an exhaustive list of my own. In my opinion, some of these tags may be a little unnecessary, but resolving them would prevent any allegation that a key piece of information is unsourced. Sadly, I lack expertise to track sources for many of these topics. Here is the list, as described by me:

the basic definition of PA
its origins and current use in Reformed churches
the "key discriminator" of PA from other types of apologetics
PA criticisms of the "block house" method
the evidentialist conclusion about the Bible
the central idea of the Van Tilian argument
~~a quotation of C.S. Lewis~~
two paraphrases of Van Til and Bahnsen in a parenthetic remark
a paraphrase from Romans
Frame's perspective on the Holy Spirit
Clark's axiomatic approach,
Clark's translation of John 1:1
Clark's allowance of competing worldviews,
the distinction between Van Til and Clark
Clark's dismissal of Thomistic arguments,
the allegation of circular reasoning
the beliefs of Van Tilians about presuppositions
the Van Tilian approach to fideism
a defense of the concept of circular argument
Clarkians' reliance on the axioms of Scripture,
the unbeliever's demonstration of the truth of theism
the use of evidence to argue in "broader circles" by Van Tilians.

Daunting, I know. All of these are currently marked with fact tags, and appear in the order I have listed them, should any of my descriptions be confusing or vague. I will copy this list also to the article's talk page. I guess we need volunteers to help resolve these questions. Anyone? Jwrosenzweig 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead section should say something very briefly about the history of the subject e.g. when it started. Andries 21:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citing sources (1c). Marskell 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 10:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1c, and the "references" and "notes" sections need a better organization.--Yannismarou 12:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Remove—1c. Don't the contributors care? Tony 23:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.