Wikipedia:Peer review/Irenaean theodicy/archive2

Irenaean theodicy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I created and worked on this article near the end of last year and it acieved GA status in November. I've recently been working on it again and would like to get the article to FA at some point. I'm looking for any constructive feedback from editors to help me improve the article. Thank you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Under present rules (see red highlight on WP:PR page) editors are restricted to one PR nomination. This is because too few editors are reviewing here, creating a lengthy backlog and long wait times for reviews. You should either close this review until the Augustinian theodicy review is complete, or close that one to allow this to proceed. Brianboulton (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I had meant to close the other one, but forgot. I'll do that now. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cryptic C62

The first sentence should include an IPA pronunciation for "Irenaean". Not many readers will know how to correctly read that on sight.
I have not included an IPA pronunciation as there is no established and agreed pronunciation.
Well, is there a small number of pronunciations? That could still work. Caribbean is a good example of an article whose subject has multiple acceptable pronunciations. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence introduces Irenaean theodicy in the singular, but the second sentence discusses them in the plural. This could lead some confusion as to what "they" refers to: perhaps the theodicies, perhaps to the people who created the theodicy. The confusion is compounded by the phrase "after whom the theodicy is named", where "the theodicy" suggests that there is only one.
"John Hick drew a link between the preceding theodicies" I'm not a fan of the phrase "drew a link", as it's a bit informal and perhaps somewhat ambiguous. How about "established a connection" instead? Maybe "John Hick discussed the similarities between the preceding theodicies" would be more correct.
"He supported the view that creation is incomplete and arguing that the world is best placed for the full moral development of humans" There are two ways to fix this sentence grammatically. The first is to replace "arguing" with "argued". The second is to replace the "and" with a comma, thereby setting off a new clause.
~~The verb "argue" is used 7 times in the lead and nearly 40 times overall. It would be nice to see some variety.~~
"The Irenaean theodicy is a response to the evidential problem of evil which raises the problem that" It is confusing to use the word "problem" twice in the same clause when both instances refer to the same problem. One way of dealing with this is to chop the sentence down and use a colon: "The Irenaean theodicy is a response to the evidential problem of evil: ..."
I am of the opinion that the Outline section should be expanded, particularly the Evidential problem of evil subsection. One avenue of expansion that seems reasonable to me would be to provide comparisons between the Irenaean view and the views of other philosophers for each subject.
On the other hand, it also appears to me that the Creation and development of humans and Greatest possible world subsections are largely redundant.
"Third century philosopher Irenaeus" Two problems here: First, for numbers that are close to zero, it becomes more important to specify A.D. versus B.C. Second, it would be nice to see a bit more context on Irenaeus. Even something as simple as his country of origin would work. "In the third century A.D., Roman philosopher Irenaeus..."

I may be back with more comments. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you find this sort of shenaniganry helpful. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments - I have made most of those changes. I have not included an IPA pronunciation as there is no established and agreed pronunciation. Thank you for the review; further comments from anyone would be appreciated. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]