Wikipedia:Peer review/Augustinian theodicy/archive2

Augustinian theodicy[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After bringing this article to GA status in December, I've recently begun editing it again. I am hoping I can get it to Featured Article quality in the future. My two main issues with what I had previously done were was sourcing (a lot of the references were unreliable) and the prose (it wasn't written as well as it could be). It would be good to get feedback on both of those areas, as well as any general comments that could help it reach FA status.

Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz's comments

Make explicit that this is a Chiristian perception of evil/God. OR is it sectarian??
" first developed by Augustine of Hippo", " was supported by Thomas Aquinas", " Alvin Plantinga's free will defence" etc. add dates in lead to a sense of history
More context. The article needs 2-3 lines about "evidential problem of evil". Without understanding the problem, it is impossible to grasp its response, the theodicy.
"Augustinian theodicy was first identified by John Hick" Who is John Hick? date. Give a short summary for all historical figures eg. "the 13th century theologian and priest Thomas Aquinas" in lead, "in which Paul" -> the apostle Paul
jargon like "ex nihilo" needs to be linked
"Reception": either have the Organization concept-wise or person-wise. John Hick has his section and then his ideas are repeated in "concept of Hell"
Any modern scholarship on this issue??

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I'll look at making those changes now. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done most of what you've recommended from points 1 to 5. I plan to re-write the lead tomorrow when I'm less tired, as I've neglected that. I also need to take another look at the reception section, as you said - I'll try and categorise those by thinkers, which should then help find more recent opinion. Thank you again for your feedback - I appreciate it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the reception section, I have removed the section of Hell (which simply repeated the section on Hick) and renamed one of the sections after the philosopher. I have retained 'process theology' as a section, because it encompasses the view of a school of thinking, rather than a specific person; I have also maintained the 'scientific implications' section as it is, because it is not an argument from a philosopher, per se, but a summary of the scientific issues the theodicy has, proposed by numerous thinkers. Would that be ok? I plan to have a look at the section on Plantinga and determine whether it should be included in the development or the reception section, with reference to how the sources refer to his arguments (as a response or a development). I will then look for contemporary opinion and finally look to readdress the lead. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to read more about the primary sources of Augustinian theodicy. What works of Augustine et al have the theodicy? or is it an oral tradition?
What is the official position of the Church or sects??
Add dates for all people mentioned in all sections
After reading the article twice, I still think it is difficult to flow, mainly due to the fact that there are no many concepts to understand. May be a reorganization with logical grouping of the concepts, would help. Not sure, an expert in Christianity may suggest you something better. I suggest the following:
- Development/History: Names of works and authors who advocated the theodicy. Emergence of rival theodicies in chronology
- Outline: The problem of evil and sections on the major ideas of the theodicy. Any examples given by the authors to explain the arguments
- Opposition: arguments against

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't read through the article, but as a suggestion about sourcing: I have a copy of Brown's biography of Augustine and it looks like it might have some useful information for the development section. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it looks like "Tyler & Reid" are listed in the references section, but not the bibliography. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your comments; they are very helpful. I plan to work on the article tomorrow; Redtigerxyz, your structure looks decent. I might retain the sections already in place, but expand upon, especially the outline section. Perhaps if the key ideas are presented in the outline, they will then be easier to follow, both in the development & reception section. Mark, thank you for that source - it looks very helpful. I shall try to find where in Confessions and City of God Augustine's main argument lies, as well as take a look Aquinas' and Calvin's view. When it comes to the reaction of church bodies, should that come in the development or the reception section, do you think? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the feedback, I really appreciate it. I've now closed the review. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]