Wikipedia:Peer review/Huldrych Zwingli/archive1

Huldrych Zwingli

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am requesting a peer review before taking the article to WP:FAC. OK, reading a long article on a sixteenth century theologian might sound pretty dull. But then maybe this article might convince you otherwise. If not, then at least tell me why!

Thanks, RelHistBuff (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-automated review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 02:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

John Carter

Lead might be a bit long, particularly the first paragraph's content regarding the subject's academic career, unless there's evidence that he is in some way notable for his academic career, which doesn't seem indicated. It would probably help if you indicated Wildhaus was in Switzerland. Not sure if Henry Wolfllin really merits being included by name, as there seems no content on him at present. Linking citations directly to content being sourced, rataher than always at the end of the paragraph, might help as well. For FAs, it generally helps to have at least two reference citationss per paragraph, by the way. Might bear some pruning in some sections, but I'm not knowledgable enough about the subject one way or another to be sure of that. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I reduced the lead section. The universities are mentioned because they were centres of particular types of studies (humanism in Basel for example) and scholars mention these centres as early influences on Zwingli. I debated about giving out the names of Wölfllin and Bünzli, but since both Gäbler and Potter named them, I thought that wouldn't do much harm. As you noticed, each paragraph has a cite because each are summaries of several pages of text from the sources. When there are two cites to a paragraph, it means the two sources gave the same content. Sometimes there are statements that came from only one source. In that case I added a cite on the sentence. If there are specific statements that ought to be cited individually, then please point them out and I will add the cites. As for pruning, the article is not overly long compared to other FAs, but perhaps "Early years" and "Music" are candidates for some editing. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yannismarou

• "Although his name is practically forgotten". What do you mean by that? He is well-known. Do you mean that there are not as many followers of his religious views nowadays as Lutheranists and Calvinists.

The clause is taken straight out of Gäbler. I believe his statement referred to the fact that the average person who worships in a Christian church (whether Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, etc.) would instantly recognise the names of "Luther" and "Calvin". But "Zwingli" would often draw up a question mark. Concerning his "followers", the legacy section gives some explanations. To explain, you may notice that there are "Lutheran" churches, but no "Calvinist" churches. Those who follow Calvinism are called Reformed churches and they trace their heritage to several sources. Zwingli is considered to be the pioneer. However his impact on the church order, confession, liturgy, and theology comes largely through Bullinger and Calvin. But Zwingli's name is largely forgotten, which is unfortunate! There is a nice, complete explanation on the Reformed Church of Zürich's website (unfortunately in German only, under Zwinglis heutige Bedeutung) --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• "He perfected his Greek and took up the study of Hebrew. He read widely from classical, patristic, and scholastic sources. He exchanged scholarly letters among a circle of Swiss humanists. He studied the writings" I don't like that much the prose here. A bit choppy and no variety of expressions.
• Similar comments here: "He specifically rejected the veneration of saints and called for the need to distinguish between their true and fictional accounts. He casted doubts on hellfire and asserted that unbaptised children were not damned. He questioned the power of excommunication. He attacked the claim that tithing was a divine institution."
• "his was nearly two years after Martin Luther published his Ninety-five theses. The council of Zürich refused Sanson entry into the city. The authorities in Rome were anxious to contain the fire started by Luther. The Bishop of Constance denied any support of Sanson and he was recalled." Again a bit choppy IMO.
• Some of your captions could be a bit more informative. E.g. in the photo of "First rifts (1522-1524)". How old is he here? Who pictured him?
• Again:"Luther and Philipp Melanchthon arrived shortly thereafter. Other theologians also participated. The debates were held from 1-3 October.".

Many thanks for your comments. I will work on these. I really appreciate more criticism on the prose (as you can see in my introduction above)! --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I have taken care of all five items now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know if you need the "See also" section. Some if these links could be within the text. E.g. zwinglianism.

I hesitate wikilinking Zwinglianism. As stated in the legacy section, there is no agreed definition of "Zwinglianism". It was someone else who put a redirect of Zwinglianism to Theology of Huldrych Zwingli. The Theology article and an article on Zwinglianism are really not the same! I much prefer using "Theology of Huldrych Zwingli" because it makes no claim what is "Zwinglianism", but simply describes his theology. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Although his name is practically forgotten, Zwingli's legacy lives on in the basic confessions of the Reformed churches of today.[62] He can rightfully be called, after Luther and Calvin, the "Third Man of the Reformation." Besides my question on the substance above, this is exactly the same wording you use in the lead. Not a nice repetition.

Changed the lead now. It was a bit of laziness on my part as I hurriedly wrote the lead after working on the article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, a very nice article.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! If you see more bad prose, please don't hesitate to comment! --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies

Overall.

• Very comprehensive article, I thought.
• It would be good to see more material characterising Zwingli, to help bring him to life. We learn from the article that he was enjoyed music and was popular with children. Is there more on this? Did he have a sense of humour? A temper?

I added some details in the Legacy section --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Citations: I'm not sure about citing at the end of paragraphs. With so much material covered in a paragraph, it's unclear what is referenced to whom. I'd prefer to see more citations at sentence end.

I will add cites as I add content and if there are any controversial statements I will also add cites to the sentences. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

About content

• Wasn't Zwingli père the village magistrate?

Yes, he was. I will add that fact. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Zwingli placed himself solidly on the side of the Roman See. Perhaps expand to include his early attacks on the moral corruption of the clergy. These, I think, touched popular concerns and the pope - playig to the gallery - responded with promotion.
• In return, Pope Julius II honoured Zwingli by providing him an annual pension. I thought Julius appointed him as a papal chaplain with an annual papal stipend. If so, this could explained and run on the following sentence.

I looked up the sources and there are two events. While Zwingli was in Glarus (before Julius II died in 1513), the pope gave him an annual pension of 50 gulden for his support, i.e., Zwingli supported sending mercenary troops from Glarus to Julius II, so in effect he was part of the pension system that he would eventually disown. Zwingli was also appointed papal chaplain, but that was in 1518 when he was in Einsiedeln, Schwyz. The office was assigned ritual duties, but only if he was in Rome, which Zwingli never was. --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Zwingli found himself in a difficult position. Perhaps explain what this was?

I put in "papal partisan" to describe Zwingli. Basically, it was the shift from the pope to France that forced Zwingli to leave. I hope it is clear now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• he began to exegete the Gospel of Matthew, reading through the book serially. Perhaps a more accessible explanation? Exegete > appraise? What does "serially" mean in this context?

Fixed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps mention the death of his brother (1520?) I thought this, along with the plague, were spiritually (re)defining moments?

The death of Andreas Zwingli by the plague is mentioned in the sources (Gäbler said that he died in Glarus). Gäbler mentioned it in an earlier chapter, separate from describing the Zürich outbreak and the Pestlied, so it is somewhat hard to link the two events as a defining moment. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wasn't Zwingli given favoured status to preach the "true scriptures" in Zurich at about this time?
• I thought the connections between the reformation with social reform and redistribution of resources were very helpful to contextualise the Reformation, especially as it is often discussed in isolation. Perhaps more material to remind us of the socio-economic context: increasing

Another reviewer had mentioned about providing a context section. I am preparing one now. There were a lot of political issues running in the background as well. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Added new context section. Hopefully it helps the reader to see the whole picture. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Added a sentence with a cite about his concerns for the poor in the legacy section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• The theology section struck me as choppy.

Yes, it was only recently put together. Will improve this. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Very promising article. Well done, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments! I will respond to each item as I get through them. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)