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 by Dana boomer 18:51, 24 February 2013 [1].

---

Gregory of Nazianzus[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: User talk:Majoreditor (FA nom, semi-retired), Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christian history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Theology work group

I am nominating this featured article for review because the issues I raised in February about the article still exist:

• Missing page numbers in references eg. Børtnes (2006).
• Ref 25 is General Roman Calendar of 1962. An article is considered unreliable, by default
• Use of WP:PRIMARY references: PG, 37.1157–9, Carm. de vita sua, ll 1828–55.
• Inconsistency in references
• Comprehensiveness:
  • Primary sources of his biography?
  • Primary sources of his theology
  • What are his relics?
  • A Doctor of the Church should definitely have a more comprehensive section on theology and views.

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's some information for FAR consideration:

• Many of the the page references are in the article but supressed. Go into edit mode and you'll find the page refs for Børtnes, etc.

FA criterion 2c is violated: some pages are in the text, while others are in pp. format in the references.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 25 and associated material have been removed. Nonetheless, I'd appreciate it if you can describe why the General Roman Calendar of 1962 isn't a reliable source for describing how his feast day was historically observed.
• I have changed a PG citation to cite a secondary source. There are still some PG citations in the article, but they are, I believe, used exclusively for direct quotations - a practice which allowed under WP:PRIMARY.

Patrologia Graeca (PG) is in Greek. The English translation of the quote may be flawed. Secondary ref/primary ref translation is needed.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Inconsistency in references: please provide examples of what you'd like changed. There may be an issue which arose from one of the damnable bots which periodically changes reference format. Guys, if you want to de-list the article because citations have been wrecked by bots, please do so. I'm tired of cleaning up after them.

Besides inconsistency in point 1, look at formatting of ref 17 and 21; then where pages are in text compare ref 2 and 15. Citation formatting is not a huge issue, comprehensiveness is. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• When you state that "A Doctor of the Church should definitely have a more comprehensive section on theology and views" - which views and theology do you specifically feel should be included?

See note on "Theological and other works" below.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• His relics are primarily his bodily remains, including a creepy-looking skull. I haven't found a reliable source which goes into details about which specific bones and tissues are contained in his reliquery. (Is that level of macabre detail really necessary for the article to be considered complete?). I'll keep looking for reliable sources detailing his relics, but I have my doubts that it's anything other than de minimus material.
• The primary source of his biography is his own writings. Thanks for the suggestion; it would be helpful to include a sentence to that efffect (probably sourced from McG).

"Theological and other works" does not detail the names of his books/writings and the core subjects and views in each. A generic "theological writings" is used. Which writings? "Gregory's most significant theological contributions arose from his defense of the doctrine of the Trinity." what is the source of this? His own writings/his hagiographies/his discourses recorded by others???? I googled and found that the primary ref "Carm. de vita sua" is actually his book Carmen de vita sua, which is unnamed in the article. Also add the language in which the books are written. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what you mean by "primary source of his theology". Do you mean which theological schools influenced him, or which individuals influenced him?

His influences, any. Theological schools/individuals/visions/study of the Gospels ??? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your observations and feedback. I'm happy to help in small ways to improve the article. If consensus at FAR is that the article needs extensive rework then perhaps someone else will feel free to pitch in and help. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

FA criteria under discussion in the FAR section include references and comprehensiveness. Dana boomer (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, no progress, no one seems to be watching or working on this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably doesn't need much work. References may need tidying, but I'm not too sure about the other points. The article mentions his works began to be translated into Latin, from of course Greek. There's no reference to him ever even visiting a Latin-speaking region, so it hardly needs mentioning, though if people are raising the question perhaps it should be. The article did already mention "He also began composing De Vita Sua, his autobiographical poem...." - using the more usual Latin title. A little should be added on what sources about, & writings by him we have - evidently a small minority of the original output, as usual at this date, and a mixture of letters and sermons. I don't really think the questions about relics or influences actually need resolving, though his actual theological views could be expanded on a bit. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate comment - Are there any other opinions here? Dana boomer (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist from Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a number of paragraphs which don't end in citations.
  • There are chunks which feature very unencyclopedic writing. The best (or worst) example is the last paragraph of the Second Ecumenical Council. Wikipedia is not a children's book!
  • I find myself asking the seemingly obvious question "What relics?"
  • If there is more to be said about his Feast Day, why isn't it presented? If there is not anything more to say about it, why is the subject given a top-level section? Two sentences is not enough.
  • I'm a bit puzzled by the quotations used throughout the article. Gregory didn't actually write or say these words in English did he? I presume that these are modern English translations of the ancient Greek originals, but the way they are presented now might mislead readers into thinking that they are themselves the original phrasings.

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the ((featured article review)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Dana boomer (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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