Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Peter Martyr Vermigli bibliography/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Peter Martyr Vermigli bibliography[edit]

Featured list candidates/Peter Martyr Vermigli bibliography/archive1

Nominator(s): JFH (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vermigli was a lesser-known Reformation theologian whose influence was widespread thanks to his nomadic career. This list includes all his known published works. I've also nominated Vermigli's biographical article for FA. JFH (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 3family

The list is very well supported by sources, and well formatted. The problem I have with this list is the massive lead attached to it. If the list itself were quite long and extensive, then the lead would be fine, as it would be summarizing a large amount of listed content. But the list itself isn't very large, and so the lead is far, far too long. Would it be possible to work much of the prose into the list sections (e.g., move the content about his minor works and letters into the relevant section)?.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. I'm also nominating a featured list candidate, List of awards and nominations received by Lecrae, which I would like feedback on. I know that this might be out of your comfort zone, though it just occurred to me that Lecrae is Reformed and thus might be of interest. Thanks regardless, --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree, let me know what you think of it now. --JFH (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That looks a lot better now! I'm Supporting this article's promotion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

~~Images should use alt text for screen-reader access~~
It may be a holdover from reworking the lead, but some of the section prose is very light on links that might be useful; this isn't necessary but linking things like the biblical books or the names of people like Calvin or Luther.
~~A follow-up to this, names like Martin Luther should be given in full on their first post-lead mention, then taken back to surnames thereafter.~~
~~Kirksville, MO should read Missouri in full~~
Is there a given source for the short Latin titles used? The ellipses seem an unusual styling so I'm assuming there's a set standard being used here, can we provide a reference for it (a note like your existing note a, appended at the column header for the short titles)?

I used the short titles from the Donnelly and Kingdon bibliography, a reference for which is provided after each title. I don't have the bibliography in front of me, and I can't recall if any explanation for abbreviation is given. Often what's being cut is Vermigli's name and title. For example in the Judges commentary title "D. Petri Martyris Vermilii Florentini, professoris divinarum literarum in schola Tigurina" --JFH (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but a note explaining that the source is also where the title comes from would be useful. As it is the source just looks like it's used to cite the existence of the work, and that would be fine if the field was just "Title"; but when you use "Short title" it makes it clear that this is an adjustment of the original and it's worth showing who made that adjustment. GRAPPLE ^X 00:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added a note. --JFH (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise this seems fine to me, a thorough look at the subject and with plenty of context to it; the list tables themselves are adequately handled as well. GRAPPLE ^X 13:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I've addressed all these. --JFH (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I'm happy to support this nomination. GRAPPLE ^X 18:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by PresN

Recusing myself as a delegate.

The paragraphs in the lead are quite short, and may work better merged into 2 paragraphs. Additionally, p1 ends with "He lectured on the Bible", while p2 starts with "Vermigli was primarily a professor of the Bible", causing repetition and linking on the second instance of Bible. Additionally, the lead talks about his posthumous works, and then goes backwards to talk about earlier works, some sentences get a bit choppy, and there's some ambiguous pronouns. I think the lead would be better reworked as (links removed):

Peter Martyr Vermigli (8 September 1499 – 12 November 1562) was a Reformed theologian of the Reformation period. Born in Florence, he fled Italy to avoid the Roman Inquisition in 1542. He lectured in Strasbourg, Zürich and at the University of Oxford. Vermigli was primarily a professor of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. His lectures on I Corinthians, Romans, Judges, Kings, Genesis, and Lamentations were turned into commentaries.

Beginning in 1549, Vermigli became involved in controversy regarding the Eucharist. He published his disputation with Catholics at Oxford University over this issue along with a tract on the subject. He later wrote treatises against Catholics as well as Lutherans. After Vermigli's death, Robert Masson collected the doctrinal passages scattered throughout his commentaries into a systematic theology called the Loci Communes, which became Vermigli's most well-known work.

"Major theological and philosophical works" does not link Eucharist.
Is there any way to link the items in the Peter Martyr Library to the original works with an "Original work(s)" column? Or are too many of them a hodgepodge of different publications and letters grouped by theme?

--Pres N 20:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

Formatting: I've never seen a sources section done like that, with indentations and longdashes to blank out repeated authors of works. Huh. Not sure I like the dashes, though presumably it's not something you invented. Anyways: "McLelland 2009a" has wandered off to between Hobbs and Kirby, which makes McLelland 2009b look like Lim 2009b... which is the downside of this dash thing. Speaking of dashes, the last book, Zuidema 2008, needs one.
Spotchecks: Since all of the sources are locked in purchase-needed books... I'm going to take your word for it.
Completeness: Nothing seems obviously missing.

--Pres N 20:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much PresN. I added some notes only where the original work wasn't obvious in the PML list. The indentation thing in the sources was Ham II's doing, but I actually kind of like it. Ham II also made this change to Peter Martyr Vermigli before it was promoted to FA. --JFH (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PresN, using the dash for repeated authors is something I've used in papers before. It's in the 16th edition Chicago Manual of Style (see sample paper.)--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now Support, and Source Review passed --Pres N 16:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mymis

Some observations:

Not sure about such introduction, I see that it was split into sections throughout the list which is fine, however, it still needs to summarize the article. For instance, nothing from sections "Minor works" and "Peter Martyr Library" is mentioned in intro.
"exchanging news about the conditions in England" -> what kind of "the" conditions? I'd assume you meant church stuff, however, later in the sentence you say "theological matters as well".
"adding to it considerably" -> adding what?
In the notes section, you list how many letters he exchanged, with some numbers spelled out and some written in numbers. I'd say it would look better if you choose one way.
In the ref list, it's not consistent where you use pp and p.

Mymis (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mymis, I think I've addressed all these.--JFH (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. You have my support. Good luck! Mymis (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – Gavin (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.