Reformed baptismal theology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
	Reformed baptismal theology has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 12, 2016 Good article nominee Listed April 22, 2024 Featured article candidate Not promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 29, 2016. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in Reformed theology, baptism is believed to be a replacement for circumcision as a rite signifying forgiveness of sin?
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Theology / Reformed Christianity High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Reformed Christianity (assessed as High-importance).

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reformed baptismal theology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 16:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Relentlessly (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

General comments

This is really good: clear and well written.

Thanks!--JFH (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The period from the Reformation to the eighteenth century seems well summarised, but the entire modern era seems to be Schleiermacher and Barth. Important as they are, could there not also be a summary of the general trends in nineteenth and twentieth-century theology? I don't know enough about the subject to say what this could be, however.

Added some.--JFH (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specific comments

• I'm not sure whether the opening sentence complies with WP:BEGIN. It seems to me that "reformed baptismal theology" is a descriptive phrase. I'm open to persuasion here.

 Fixed

Yeah, that's much better. Relentlessly (talk)

• I feel that the opening sentence of the second paragraph of the lead should begin "According to Reformed theology..."

 Fixed

• "it would not be beneficial to someone who placed an obstacle in the way of the sacrament" It's unclear what this means.

 Fixed

• Link justification (theology)?

I ended up removing reference to justification, I think the new content is more accurate.--JFH (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "He also, however, argued against" – this feels clumsy. I suggest "Nevertheless, he also argued against"

 Fixed--JFH (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "essentially identical to circumcision of Israelites" – needs "the" before "circumcision".

 Fixed--JFH (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "sacraments as God's promises to the baptized person attached to outward signs" – I think I see what this means, but it could be a little clearer.

 Fixed I think --JFH (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Regeneration (theology)?

 Fixed--JFH (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Baptism also represents forgiveness or remission of sin by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ" This concept seems obscure; it's unclear how it's related to the other imagery of baptism.

I added some to (hopefully) clarify--JFH (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Reformed Christians do so on the basis of the continuity from the old covenant between God and Israel and the new covenant with the church" – is this because infants were circumcised?

 Fixed (and I'm told it's much more painful for adults!)--JFH (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, though – really good! On hold. Relentlessly (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Relentlessly! Let me know if there's anything else to improve. --JFH (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant stuff. Promoted. Relentlessly (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should confuse classical Reformed theology with Reformed Baptist theology, which is something altogether different. Reformed Baptist is its own article. Ltwin (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree, and my last edit was a compromise with the prior edit. I don't think the qualifier "classical" is even necessary. In reliable sources it is pretty much always the paedobaptist view that will be presented as representing "Reformed theology." If there is consensus here, we can go back to this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reformed_baptismal_theology&oldid=916594649 --Jfhutson (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]