CTSWyneken (talk | contribs) |
reply to invitation |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
I think it is an improvement, yes. I rather not get into the actual discussion on the page, however, since I have other things to fry. --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">[[User:CTSWyneken|CTS]]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">[[User talk:CTSWyneken|(talk)]]</font></sup> 15:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC) |
I think it is an improvement, yes. I rather not get into the actual discussion on the page, however, since I have other things to fry. --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">[[User:CTSWyneken|CTS]]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">[[User talk:CTSWyneken|(talk)]]</font></sup> 15:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
==Thanks for the work== |
|||
Thanks for the effort in this rewrite and the invitation to read and contribute. This is a significant improvement. |
|||
While I saw a couple minor places where I could suggest an edit, I think it better for now at least to try to get it accepted as a whole and then let everyone have a chance to tweak it. I will reread the main Talk page to see what some of the issues are. |
|||
[[User:Baccyak4H|Baccyak4H]] 19:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:22, 8 September 2006
- Tone: Encyclopedic rather than theological.
- Verifiable: most of the article focus on the verifiable facts about OD rather than on opinions.
- NPOV: Both sides of controversy presented roughy equally.
- Separated opinions: Opinions are included in their own section, rather than being haphazardly interspersed through the article.
- Short: old article is almost 90KB-- this page is under the recommended 30KB length. Focus on summarizing, rather than full expositions.
Other decisions:
- In general, points of view are summarized without troubling the reader with learning the specific names of the commentators (names of course should be in footnotes). Escriva and the Popes are obvious exceptions.
- Criticisms that are more applicable to the Catholic Church rather than specifically Opus Dei are only very briefly mentioned. For example, OD's stance on birth control.
- The existence and character of the controversy is conveyed-- not debated. Brief summaries of the major criticisms, the major lines of support, and the major replies to criticisms. Not a full-blown presentation of evidence or debate of that evidence, or of the relevant expertise.
- Theology briefly summarized. A full and complete exposition of the Theology of OD, its motivations, its biblical justifications, etc. is probably outside the scope of Wikipedia, and at the least should be covered by the Theology sub-article.
- I didn't get into whether OD is conservative or not. "Conservative" is a word like "east"-- something is only conservative relative TO something else. Seemed like a huge can of worms to get into.
Comment
Both the current version and your proposed version do fit GA standards, providing you provide as much name, title, publisher, place and date for the references that link to internet resources. This standard is more focused on format than content. Typically, if a text is easy enough for an average reader to understand, has sufficient and valid looking inline citations, seems complete to a reader and doesn't impose a judgment on the matter upon the reader, it will pass GA. FA is a whole 'nother matter. --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is an improvement, yes. I rather not get into the actual discussion on the page, however, since I have other things to fry. --CTSWyneken(talk) 15:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the work
Thanks for the effort in this rewrite and the invitation to read and contribute. This is a significant improvement.
While I saw a couple minor places where I could suggest an edit, I think it better for now at least to try to get it accepted as a whole and then let everyone have a chance to tweak it. I will reread the main Talk page to see what some of the issues are.
Baccyak4H 19:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)