Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Peer Review

WikiProject Christianity

Main project page	talk
Members	talk
WikiGrail contest	talk
Coordinators	talk
Reading list	talk
Christianity portal	talk
Project category	talk

Departments
Assessment	talk
Outreach	talk
Peer review	talk
Planning	talk

Tasks
Adopted topics	talk
Articles needing attention	talk
Articles needing cleanup	talk
Article requests	talk
Deletions	talk
Destubbification campaign	talk

Work groups
Anabaptist	talk
Baptist	talk
Christianity in China	talk
Christian films	talk
Christianity in India	talk
Jesus	talk
Methodism	talk
Syriac Christianity	talk
Theology	talk
Unitarianism and Universalism	talk

Subprojects
Anglicanism	talk
Arminianism	talk
Bible	talk
Biblical criticism	talk
Calvinism	talk
Catholicism	talk
Charismatic Christianity	talk
WikiProject Christian music	talk
Eastern Orthodoxy	talk
Holiness Movement	talk
Jehovah's Witnesses	talk
Latter Day Saint movement	talk
Lutheranism	talk
Jewish Christianity	talk
Oriental Orthodoxy	talk
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)	talk
Saints	talk
Seventh-day Adventist Church	talk

Templates
`{{Portal\|Christianity}}`
{{WikiProject Christianity}}
{{User WikiProject Christianity}}
{{Christianity-stub}}
{{Church-stub}}

edit · recent changes

Welcome to the WikiProject Christianity Peer Review page!

Goals

This project is similar to the Adopted Topics Project. Its goal is to increase the quality of articles about Christianity by focusing the insights, viewpoints, and expertise of several editors onto that article over time. Articles listed here will remain until there is a general consensus that the article in question is of good quality and is ready to be nominated for GA or FA.

Methods

List articles below which are established Start-class or B-class articles based on this scale which you would like have the Peer Review team look over. Please list new requests at the TOP of the list.
1. If you'd like to see a stub improved, suggest that on the Destubbification page.
2. If you'd like to see an article created from scratch, see the Adopted Topics page.
Once you've added an article to the list, please add the "|peer-review=yes" code to the {{ChristianityWikiProject|class=|importance=}} banner at the top of the articles Talk Page. Once you have done that, copy+paste your request for peer review summary on the peer review comment page (click on the link created, "request has been made", and paste it on the new page there).
If you add an article to the list, please review at least one other article towards the bottom of the list.
Use these criteria to judge the article, and leave feedback both here and on the article's talk page.
1. This advice may be helpful to you as you review the article.
Do as much as you can to improve the article.
If there is a general consensus here and on the article's talk page that the article is ready for GA Candidacy or FA Candidacy, nominate it and see what happens!

Staff

These editors work to improve specific articles within the scope of the Christianity Project. If you'd like to help, sign your name below.

Afaprof01 21:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)THANKS to User:Nswinton for a lot of hard work on this project.[reply]
EricStephens 23:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tinucherian (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Psychoelf
User:Kathanar
Kiwimac
HopeChrist (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lamorak (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Difu Wu (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AmericaHistory
KWcrew1983
Geof Bard^{As you sow, so shall ye reap}
JohnChrysostom (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeecup89
Micahbeatty
Stalin Sunny^Talk2Me 05:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian philosophy

This article is a mess and I'd like some help fixing it. I'm relatively new to wikipedia and would like some help and advice in bringing this article up to snuff but I honestly have no idea where to start. Any help you guys can provide will be greatly appreciated.(I'm not sure if I submitted the help request correctly sorry for any mistakes)

Congregation of St. Basil

Our Wiki page is in need of some attention from an editorial perspective. How do we move up the wiki project's to do list? Any help is appreciated. Thank you. CSBasilUser (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)CSBasilUser[reply]

Humiliation of Christ

This is an article which I have made and although it has not been rated I am sure that it is at least start-class quality. I would appreciate it if anyone could add anything to it and I hope that this will be the first GA that I have started. Please leave any queries at my talk page. Thanks! JZCL (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rockford First Church

Hello, I was wondering if there is a way that I could get a peer review on this article from you guys. I would really appreciate it. I think that I have formatted it to the best of my ability and knowledge of Wikipedia. Thank you! Amandaallard05 (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St James' Church, Stretham

I developed this article from scratch. I have tried to maintain a high article quality on this nearby church, seeking sources for every fact. I thought I had recently discovered a source for the clock maker but in the end, was unsuccessful; I have had to make do with an image. I am aiming for this article as a GAN candidate if a reviewer thinks it is able to reach that standard --Senra (Talk) 17:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Pentecostal Holiness Church

I am requesting a peer review for the International Pentecostal Holiness Church. I have worked it alot but I a am the only editor who has worked on it in some time. It would be good I think to have some fresh ideas and approaches to this article. Ltwin (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Grace World Outreach

I am requesting peer review of the Greater Grace World Outreach article. I am working on it with another editor who has different opinions about what should be included. We have both been accused of conflict of interest and so it will be very helpful to get a third opinion.Spinkava (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Church of God (Anderson) and Daniel Sidney Warner articles

I am requesting a SME on the Church of God (Anderson) review these two articles. An unregistered user has added several statements to both that I believe are POV, but I do not know enough about the topic to correct accurately. Absolon S. Kent 13:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked the Daniel Sidney Warner article. It is still off-balance in "The Movement that Followed" section in that most of the material focuses on the splinter groups instead of the main body. What is there is accurate, but does not present the main part of the movement sufficiently. I am not acquainted enough (without some research) with the Church of God (Anderson) to put much into the Warner article about that group. The unregistered user that keeps putting POV in will have to be persuaded, somehow, to desist or both articles will remain inferior in quality.Mikeatnip (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol in the Bible

I have requested a peer review of this article. It has already been rated GA, but I'd like to get it to FA. Please share your thoughts at Wikipedia:Peer review/Alcohol in the Bible/archive1. Thanks! --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black church

I've had this peer review up for a while on the main peer review page. But it doesn't seem to be getting any attention. I was wondering if someone here might take a look since it technically falls under this projects scope. Thanks. CJ 15:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the Bible

See my comments on the talk page. This article needs some copyediting, referencing, more diverse sourcing, and formatting. Nswinton\^talk 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Jerusalem

Bluntly put, this article is a mess. It looks as if it's been abandoned to cranks who have added some truly bizarre & tangential information there. This article was brought to my attention by an edit war between two parties neither of whom (IMHO) look to rescue this article from its current sad state. I am very tempted to just delete this article & put in its place a couple of paragraphs to see if this drastic act would allow it to get back on track -- but I'd rather entrust it first to some well-meaning folks who will nurse it back to health. -- llywrch 02:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Church

This article, formerly little more than a stub, has been expanded and "completed". Commentary has been limited so far (thank you to those who have commented). I'd like to get general reviews on it now, especially regarding the scope and focus of the article. This article is intended to discuss the Church as a "unified" institution (i.e. to the extent that the Church is viewed as unified, what are its characteristics and what is its history). Thanks. -- Mcorazao 16:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks fairly complete, except for the Criticisms section. I'm sure various criticisms of the church could go on for a while, but I'm not sure which should be included. The article is (quite rightly) very historically focused. Improvements might include some major criticisms throughout the ages, like a very brief summary of problems that led to splits of a global church (Protestant Reformation, etc.) and a short counter-point to the global church, explaining the "local body of believers" / "church autonomy" concept. That section also needs either some citations or some sentences removed. -- Nhoj 04:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christendom

Anybody care to do a little "improving" of this article, especially as per comments at Talk:Christendom#Sentence_needs_clarification? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to take it on if you are willing to wait a bit. I am currently in the process of nominating History of Christianity for FAC, and since I have worked on that for 2 years now, I need to finish it before moving on to anything else. Should be done by June 1 I'm guessing. If you're in a hurry and want someone else, no hard feelings. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Jesus

Article has alot of content, and as can be imagined, alot of debate on the talk page. I am honestly not sure where to go with this article, but it's been tagged as a Christianity article needing attention, and there are several sectional tags through the article itself calling for citations and POV checks. If there were a top ten list of Christianity articles needing attention, I would put this on that list. Nswinton 21:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to Christianity

Article is brief, has most of it's content actually covering the baptism aspect of conversion, and has no images. I think at the very least it could use a few images, a brief mention of both sides of "perseverance of the saints" or "once saved, always saved" theology. I'm no theologian, but I'm sure theologians in WP Christianity would be able to singnificantly improve this article. Nswinton 14:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of images? There are some on the baptism pages that we may be able to borrow or do you mean something like an altar call. Akubhai 16:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I had in mind was one image of baptism (ideally not borrowed from the Baptism article, but anything will do) - possibly an image of an altar call (Billy Graham campaign?), or else I recall some classic painting showing Paul's conversion... can't remember the name. I might just look around for some images later this afternoon... That was kinda what I had in mind. Nswinton 16:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is brief, especially the introduction. Section referring to believer's baptism could be longer, including a mention of altar calls and perhaps evangelists. This could be in tandem with the previously mentioned addition of a picture of a Billy Graham Crusade altar call. --Nhoj 20:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I found this image, and i'm not sure if it's legal for wikipedia or not. I'm so confused by how image free-use stuff works. I think this might be one good image to use, though, if we can. Do you guys know how to handle stuff like this? Otherwise, this might work. Nswinton\^talk 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue. --Nhoj 01:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright. I found this: "Also note that in the United States, reproductions of two-dimensional artwork which is in the public domain because of age do not generate a new copyright — for example, a straight-on photograph of the Mona Lisa would not be considered copyrighted (see Bridgeman v. Corel). Scans of images alone do not generate new copyrights — they merely inherit the copyright status of the image they are reproducing. This is not true of the copyright laws of some other countries, such as the United Kingdom." on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy.

Based on that and looking at other paintings here: Conversion of Paul, I got a copy from the Web gallery of art and uploaded it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:4paul1.jpg. Someone who knows how to insert a picture and resize it and all, feel free to do so. Akubhai 12:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nswinton\^talk 13:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on this image for an "Altar Call" image? I couldn't find anything really good with Billy Graham. I might have been looking in the wrong places though. Nswinton\^talk 14:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Graham (pastor) page

Can some editors please give some serious input on the Jack Graham (pastor) page? This page has been in edit war mode for a couple of months now and consensus is badly needed. The main issue at hand now is whether or not to include a section talking about Pastor Graham's comments 5+ years ago regarding Calvinism to which I (and at least 6 other editors) believe to be unnecessary for this article as it is given undue weight and is not even a notable topic. User Lyonscc sums up his position very nicely on the discussion page of this article and any other feedback one way or another would be appreciated. ThanksJohnb316 (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Apostolic Reformation

Expert attention requested please, for New Apostolic Reformation. Please see discussion at Talk:New Apostolic Reformation#Merging article into Global Harvest Ministries. IMHO, this article should be merged into one of the existing articles on C. Peter Wagner, but another editor disagrees. Much obliged for your help, OttoTheFish (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in China

Need advices how to improve this article.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bridges (Anglican missionary)

I have made some vast improvements to this page from here to here and I would like some advice as to new improvements I could make. I know it needs more references, and I would like some assistance with the lead section as I am not very good at writing them. Once the improvements are finished, I would like to have it reassessed for quality. Ryan Vesey (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edict of Torda

The article is about a decree which has frequently mentioned as an early example of religious tolerance. Its its comprehensiveness and neutrality should be chequed before its GAN. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and Violence

This article is tagged as biased. I believe that is because it uses loaded language in several places and also because the information in it is weighted on one side. There is much current scholarship that balances what is in this article. I have tried editing this article twice. Then I attempted to write another article which could be merged with it, and I have been told to stop writing it as a draft, that it will be deleted. It is redundant and won't be merged. It can only be in user space in notes. I am getting frustrated, and I need help. I want to comply with Wiki's rules and regs, it is not my intent to be hostile to anyone, I just want to create a better more neutral article. Perhaps you could look at the last revert and tell me what I did wrong? [[1]] Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]