Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Council of Nicaea/archive

First Council of Nicaea

A very well written article on a fascinating subject. The early Christian church has given the entire world a lasting legacy, and people tend not to have a large body of personal knowledge on the specifics. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:24, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Object:

• No coverage of differences of opinion before the council
• No coverage of the effects of the first council
• No references. :ChrisG 20:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The article on the "differences of opinion" is at Arianism and is linked in the intro. I admit it could cover the effects better, I'll look into writing a bit more on that. Also, while the formatting may suck at the moment, it is referenced as to its sources, check the bottom. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:50, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Object : no pictures / no references. Mozzerati 11:22, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
  • No pictures? Come on... it happened in 325, what do you want, a group photo? :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:50, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • A painting, engraving, or photo of something pertaining to the event that that still exists could be used. --mav 20:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object, the referencing needs to be made more informative. Does the note "Initial text from Schaff-Herzog Encyc of Religion. Please update as needed" mean that the article has been rephrased and wikified starting from a text dump of Schaff-Herzog...? Or not? If it does, not only publication information but author of the specific entry and some general information about this encyclopedia needs to be given: is it a NPOV source, or does it represent particular theological views? (And if so, is there some balancing information and views in the article, and where do they come from?). It's full title might give a clue. The external links provided seem, from the comments made on them, to be offered as further reading rather than sources. The important Χproblem isn't of formatting and formalia, but of lettiing the reader know where the information comes from, and giving the reader tools for evaluating possibilities of bias: which of the external links were used for what, how old is the dictionary, what kind of dictionary is it? That kind of thing. Oh, on another note, if you need another pic, here's a gorgeous "group photo", and here's a rather nicer version of the icon that you've got. --Bishonen | talk 09:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object, too many broken links...--Bastique 20:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Withdrawn, too many reasonable objections. I sure would like to see something on the early Christian church Featured though, any suggestions? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:27, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I think it would be a lovely article if we just get those wiki links in and put afew pretty pictures on it! I say let's dig in and work for it! --Bastique 20:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)