Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ninety-five Theses/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2017 [1].

Ninety-five Theses[edit]

Nominator(s): JFH (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This short work started the Protestant Reformation. It will turn 500 years old on October 31st, on which date I hope the article can be featured on the main page. The article was just promoted to GA by Coemgenus. JFH (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

Why is Palmer in your sources list? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover, now removed. --JFH (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I reviewed this at GA, as the nominator mentions. I found very little to complain about there. The only thing I'd recommend as for FA that I didn't care about at GA involves citations. Everything is well-cited, but sometimes an entire paragraph sourced to the same source is marked only by a cite at the end. That's all good, but in FAs I like to cite every sentence, even if it appears duplicative. That way, if someone adds a sentence to the paragraph later, we can distinguish what information goes with which citation. It would be unnecessary on paper, but in a dynamic encyclopedia, it makes sense. But this isn't required by the rules, I don't think, so if the nominator and the other reviewers disagree, I won't let it stand in the way of my support of this excellent article. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Iry-Hor[edit]

This is a well-written, spotless article on a topic of profound importance given the consequences it had and continues to have on world history. I did a random spot-checking of the sources and found no problem. I wonder however if the lede could better reflect the content of the article: the piece of the lede referring to the content of the theses is a single sentence "They advance Luther's positions against what he saw as abusive practices by preachers selling plenary indulgences, which were certificates believed to reduce the temporal punishment for sins committed by the purchasers themselves or their loved ones in purgatory" while the section discussing the content is a good quarter if not a third of the article. Given that people coming to read the article are likely to be at least as interested in the theses themselves as in the historical circumstances surrounding them, I think it would be good to add another sentence to the lede incorporating Luther's positions in more details, in particular vis-a-vis the pope, given that this is what led to the opposition of the church. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've expanded the lead. --JFH (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gladly Support then! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Looking good, some questions below:

~~Why was Tetzel barred from entering Saxony?~~
~~In theses 41–47 Luther begins to criticize indulgences..~~ ~~why not just, "In theses 41–47 Luther criticizes indulgences..."~~
Luther begins to criticize the doctrine of the treasury of merit on which the doctrine of indulgences is based in theses 56–66 - ditto
there are a lot of disputations in the first para of Luther's intent

~~Otherwise~~ looks good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've addressed these. --JFH (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Display name 99[edit]

Overall the article looks very good. I have a couple concerns.

In the "Content" section, you say:

"In theses 14–16, Luther challenged common beliefs about purgatory"

He does so in many statements after that, seemingly up through thesis number 29. Thus, you may want to say "In theses 14-29, Luther challenged common beliefs about Purgatory." Then go into more specific detail about what he said in 14-16.

Luther is famous for his assertion, condemned as heretical by the Church, that salvation is attainable "by faith alone". I don't see any specific mention of this in the article. Is there any statement in the 95 Theses that was understood by some to imply that argument? Display name 99 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified that at least for Luther the Theses don't imply that doctrine. I don't believe any of my sources argue that they imply that, only that they set Luther up to be open to disagreement with the Pope.

Thanks for your comments!--JFH (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article is comprehensive, well-written, and well-sourced. I believe it meets the criteria. Display name 99 (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Excellent piece of work, clearly and concisely written. I made a couple of minor edits for page number formatting. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Was there a source review for formatting/reliability? You can make a request at the top of WT:FAC if not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Laser brain[edit]

No problems noted, everything looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda[edit]

Interested in the topic, I am grateful for a great article. Just minor concerns:

Lead

"involves inner spiritual repentance rather than the system of sacramental confession of the Catholic Church", - perhaps it will be more precise in the body that sacramental confession of the Catholic Church also aims at spiritual repentances, but was perverted by people making money. Reads overly simple.
In the quote, Catholic Church - especially with that general link to today's Catholic Church - seems also overly simple. At that time, it was rather a catholic church, one for all of of Western Europe (and its colonies, as reflected in Catholic Church and the Age of Discovery).
I suggest to mention and link Protestant Reformation at the very beginning of the lead, because we can't count on readers knowing the Theses are connected to it.

Background

"In the Catholic Church, indulgences are part of the economy of salvation." - as before, this is not true for today's Catholic Church, - at least say "were" (tense in the whole paragraph and following), better refer to the practise of that particular time (when they had to finance St. Peter).
Background might include please that All Saint's Day is 1 November = the day when the relics were displayed. I also miss the German name of the Church, which after turning Protestant (a little later) was simply known as Schlosskirche, - no Saints. - I am actually surprised that allegedly (looking at our article name) the common name of that church is the English translation of how it was called until the early 16th century.

Distribution ...

The image needs more explanation.

That's all. Thank you again for presenting a complex topic! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! I incorporated all your suggestions but the name of the church. Are you saying you think I should use Schlosskirche? That's not common at all in the English literature on Luther. "Castle Church" is, but I defaulted to our article name, and "Castle Church" seems a bit informal. --JFH (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the church article talk (before I ever came here. No, I would not want you to change the name which is correct in the context of 1517, but can you tell you that I never heard of it before reading English Wikipedia, - it's completely "uncommon" in German, Schlosskirche is the term used in German, perhaps worth mentioning? see de:Schlosskirche (Lutherstadt Wittenberg). - If you look at de:95 Thesen: no mentioning of Allerheiligen. - Castle Church is an awful translation, Schloss is not castle ;) - but that is the name used as a World Heritage Site (not their only sloppy name). - I'll read again, but not now, still think that the link to Catholic Church is misleading when pointing to today's church. How about Christian Church, at that point, and then - new paragraph - explain what that was. We should perhaps have an article Western Christian church before the Reformation, not to be confused with today's Catholic Church which is rather a result of the schism than the organisation which was split. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best article we have seems to be Christianity in the 15th century. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit to clarify that there were not competing sects in Europe at the time. As for the link, the Christian Church, or Christianity in the 15th century, includes Eastern Orthodoxy, along with Waldensianism and Lollardy and many other sects. Surely any good Catholic will agree that the institution called the Catholic Church today is the same institution we're talking about here, even if it has changed some of its practices? --JFH (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt, are you satisfied with the edits I made? --JFH (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will look, - past midnight, better after sleep. - Check Samuel Rodigast, who went to a university but not todays. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked and liked most. Minor: All Saints is 1 November, so it was in preparation. Reformation Day is more a holiday than a festival, and not a National holiday anymore as it used to be in states with dominantly Protestant population, but once more a National holiday, now nationwide, in 2017 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda Arendt. I've made those changes.--JFH (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: We have four supports, all the checks are complete and I think Gerda's concerns have been addressed. I think if there are any further concerns, they could be raised on the talk page, and I don't think we need to hold this up any longer. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.