Wikipedia:Peer review/Seventh-day Adventist Church/archive1

Seventh-day Adventist Church

I am asking for peer review on this article as I am struggling to see where to place edits and overall direction of the page. There seems to be a lack of unity in the editing, such as the addition of sections such as "Biological Tests Performed on Seventh-day Adventists" which not needed on the main page but I have no idea where to place it, are spiralling the page's progress. It is hard to work out what would be ideal for the page as there are no current Featured Articles of denominations. Thanks for any suggestions MyNameIsNotBob 02:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my comments:

The section "Number of members" is badly formatted. I don't like the use of bullet points in lieu of paragraphs.

"The Adventist church runs one of the largest education systems in the world. ... This education system involves some ... 1,257,000 students." -- That doesn't sound like a very big education system, when you look at the public education systems of places like California. Maybe it's one of the largest private education systems, though.

The sections from "Education" to "Other activities" are too short, considering they are major headings. They would be better grouped as subjeadings under a major heading.

"Works vs Grace" -- I don't like this heading. I feel the "vs" is amateurish, for some reason.

The subsection "Christology" begins with the word "they". Whilst flow is important, the subsection should also be able to stand alone in isolation from the rest of the article.

The subsection "Annihilationism" uses phrases like "Compare this with" and "Also consider": we are meant to be informing the readers, not telling them what to do to inform themselves. It should be changed to "This can be compared with" and things like that.

Under "Investigative Judgment and Salvation", it says "a proof quote from one of her books ... suffices as evidence" and then a quote is given. This is wordy.

In fact, the whole "Investigative Judgment and Salvation" subsection reads very strangely. It is as though the person who wrote it is trying to make an argument on this matter. I'm not saying that it's POV, just that phrases like "it must then be asked" give the section a narrative feel that is not present in the rest of the article. It just doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. Needs to be made more sterile and boring.

Shouldn't the "Notes" section be named "References"?

That's about all I can find on my perusal this afternoon. - Mark 07:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your comments. I have to agree with all of what you have said, although I need to find further information on the first and last points. I have made some of the easier changes suggested and will get to the more difficult ones shortly (within the next day or two). Regards. MyNameIsNotBob 09:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, made as many changes as possible within my skill base, have put the other ones on other peoples desks. Thanks. MyNameIsNotBob 21:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to stop trying to avoid the difficult parts - well sort of. I have moved what was the criticisms section to an outside article, Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and summarised the rest of the article on the Seventh-day Adventist Church page. So that is all of Mark's suggestions followed up. MyNameIsNotBob 01:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Homosexuality section, consider using replacing homosexuals with a more respectful term. The Recommended forms section of Terminology of homosexuality has some suggestions. For example, gay men and lesbians is an acceptable replacement, but gays probably would not be. Also, to avoid repeated use of the word homosexuality in that paragraph; same-sex orientation could be used. Finally, if your denominations distinguishes between celibate and non-celibate people of same-sex orientation, consider including something on that. JonHarder 00:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have attempted to make suggested changes. Can you check my adjustments and clarify what you mean or just change it yourself? Sorry, I'm not one for politically correct terms. Regards. MyNameIsNotBob 01:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have followed up your suggestions and believe that the paragraph is better as a result. Thank you for your help in improving this article. Regards. MyNameIsNotBob 02:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]