# Talk:David Bentley Hart

After requesting a peer review of this David Bentley Hart article, I received the suggestion in connection to Hart's long list of selected "Articles" that "if many of these works are notable, perhaps WP:SPINOUT into another article" because the lists were too long for the main article. Hart's career has been shaped in large part by his rhetorical punch as an essayist, and the wide variety of topics that he covers in his essays across an long list of national periodicals is a substantial part of his reputation and appeal. It would make sense to expand his bibliography along the lines of the George Orwell bibliography or the G. K. Chesterton bibliography. At the same time, this main David Bentley Hart article needs to be better developed and expanded. To make room for this work on the main article while also developing and referencing the content of Hart's bibliography a WP:SPINOUT made sense: David Bentley Hart bibliography Much feedback and help will be needed in determining the selected articles to keep in this main article.--Jjhake (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Seeking improve this article in keeping with some requested peer review feedback, I have moved all lists of works to the David Bentley Hart bibliography with links there. The goal is develop this main article flows smoothly from start to finish in prose form and to allow a full accounting of Hart's notable works to be maintained in its own article. Jjhake (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:David Bentley Hart/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Helloheart (talk · contribs) 00:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

 
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)

I'll add more to this as I go:

I see a sentence a lot to or to the affect of "See Hart's bibliography article for a full list" (I see it in the "Academic Career" section, and in "Literary Writing") and I see "See the main book article for more details." when it's talking about Roland in Moonlight. Do we really need this in the text?
I see "Hart's greatest praise" in the Influences and key ideas section. Do we need "Greatest" used?
Also in the Influences and key ideas section, it says  "Hart's greatest praise, however, goes to Sergei Bulgakov who Hart has several times called the greatest theologian of the twentieth century". Should "the greatest theologian of the twentieth century" go in quotes?
"Hart also maintains a popular subscription periodical" – Exactly how popular?
‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍  ‍  00:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Helloheart: Others following this article would be most welcome to respond as well of course, but I'll share my thoughts on these points so far (and I'm glad to make edits or have you do so--whichever sounds best to you):
I agree that it would be good to cut the "See Hart's bibliography..." and "See the main book article" notes and links and to simply keep the standard "Main article" bibliography link in place at the top of the "Literary writing" section (and perhaps also in the "See also" section at the bottom as it is).
I agree that "greatest" is a fluffy word and good to cut.
I agree that "the greatest theologian of the twentieth century" being in quotes would clarify the point there about Sergei Bulgakov, and that is the phrase that Hart has repeated. I should probably find one more reference as an example (and maybe drop timestamp notes into the references cited there).
Regarding Hart's Leaves in the Wind subscription periodical, it might be better to call it a "subscription newsletter" than a "subscription periodical" (as that is the terms used by the Substack tool itself I think). As for the popularity, the subscription numbers are not public, but Hart has joked about how successful it has been for him personally as part of his income as a writer. What data is available publicly are not big numbers, so the word "popular" is not justified. There are eight videos posted to the YouTube channel of the same name that is connected to the newsletter, and the most-watch video there is at 8.5K views. His essays on the subscription service itself sometimes get just over 100 "comments" and about the same number of "hearts" from readers (on the high side). So I'd just drop the word popular and say: "Hart also maintains a subscription newsletter..."
Jjhake (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@Helloheart: I've made all of the changes above as I hate to see improvements go undone. If this is unhelpful with the processes and protocols of a GA review, please let me know, and I will not do it next time. Thank you. Jjhake (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
@Jjhake, thanks, that looks good so far. I'll keep looking and tell you if I see anything else. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍  ‍  03:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It's well written (I learned a lot), follows the MoS. I double-checked the MoS for this review, and it was good except for a few problems which were solved. It, overall, is worthy of being a good article. Good job, @Jjhake. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍  ‍  03:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for this review and the improvements! Jjhake (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

For anyone else following edits on this article and interested in helping, please note that there is a second peer review underway here (by an exceptionally experienced Wikipedia editor) that is driving another round of article improvements with the hope of reaching featured article. Jjhake (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

For anyone following the work on this page, please note that, as a part of an ongoing peer review (see topic above), a navbox has been created for this article and all articles for books by Hart. See Template:David Bentley Hart (and the bottom of this article on Hart as well as each book article).
As part of this, to help keep Hart's main article text clear and readable, some of the many wikilinks to Hart's interests, influences, and opponents (from the article text, the infobox, and the "See also" section in its entirety) have been relocated to this Navbox. Ideas and help welcome of course with these substantial (and ongoing) edits. Jjhake (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Note that within a peer review of this article underway here the point has been made that a “lead should normally have zero citations because it should be a summary of the body.” This is the last step in this second peer review (along with a third full article review recently as part of the recent GA review process). In the next couple of days, I plan to move all citations in the lead down into the article body and to rework the lead (as moderately as possible) so that the lead is a complete (and succinct) summary of the entire article body. Ideas and help with any of this task welcome with edits or comments here. Jjhake (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Update: In addition to the relocation of citations and the summarizing of all content from the article body within the lead (both done in recent edits), the final peer review comment recommended a first paragraph in the lead that would summarize just the key elements of the entire lead (a kind of "summary of the summary"). So I'll be seeking to do this next as the last item to implement from this most recent review. --Jjhake (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

For anyone following or able to help with ongoing edits on this article, please see the featured article candidate project page for a recent set of recommendations. Jjhake (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I'm excited that this article is scheduled to load onto the DYK feature for 24 hours starting on April 5 with the photo of David and Roland that you complimented at some point as I recall (which gave me the idea of nominating it there).
However, I'm also noting that the FAC for this article is getting archived for now as "stalled" with a recommendation that I look into the FAC mentoring scheme which is where I first contacted you. With this first attempt, I did get the image credentials improved and made a substantial number of edits responding to everything that I could find to do with the helpful criticisms from SchroCat. I don't have much time, but as I come back to this and other projects in the future, I'm curious if you would add any recommendations to this list of ideas for how to better prepare for next time:
Spend some time reviewing other FAC candidates and making suggestions just to get to know various other editors and better understanding how the process works.
See if any other editors might enjoy helping with improvements on this DBH article and possibly supporting with any future FAC nomination.
Contact another person or two on the FAC mentor list for possible help as well.
Thanks for all of your amazing support so far (and the several others who helped with the peer review and DYK nomination. I've never gotten this involved with an article before or watched the processes connected to these categories. It's been fun to learn! -- Jjhake (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, - you a good model for taking the processes as a fun learning experience! "Stalled" just means: lack of support over a certain period. I think I recommended some of what you plan to do (listen to other voices in a peer review, reviewing to interact with potential reviewers and understand the process better): go for it! See on DYK day who is interested in the article - those who make changes - and ask them for feedback. Your best bet for a mentor is SchroCat, experienced and well connected. I'm rather a niche person there, just at the beginning of the alphabet, - without FA this year ;) - Read some of his articles! - Sharing impressions from vacation on Madeira 20-30 March, pics now at 25 March. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you so much. Makes great sense. -- Jjhake (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess people find it funny but this is the perfect example of an "academic" best ignored. 145.102.152.2 (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedias should not ignore those whose literary and academic works are recognized by some of the world's top academic institutions (several books with Yale UP) and reviewed within some of the world's top magazines (such as The Times Literary Supplement, Publishers Weekly, and Los Angeles Review of Books). -- Jjhake (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

If I’m correct in interpreting David Hart, I can say unequivocally: The story of Jesus walking on water during the storm, where Peter gets out of the boat, and as he is drowning, Jesus approaches, lifts him up a proof text for understanding the early church fathers beliefs while writing the Nicene Creed. 2601:3C7:4200:1A1:9DFC:6432:F655:A42B (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)