Talk:The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism

The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism has been listed as one of the Language and literature 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.
Review: March 10, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Evangelical Christianity Low‑importance

	Evangelical Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Evangelical Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Evangelical 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.Evangelical ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityEvangelical Christianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Ruth Graham (March 6, 2025). "He Gave a Name to What Many Christians Feel". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 6, 2025. Retrieved March 6, 2025. "You know you've got a winner when people adopt the vocabulary without attribution," said R.R. Reno, the editor of the journal First Things, which published a version of Mr. Renn's argument in 2022 that became one of the publication's most-read articles in years. (The essay now has its own Wikipedia page.) "He's got a real gift for that pithy, direct social analysis."

A fact from The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 April 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a former management consultant who coined the framework of "The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism" was described by The New York Times as "a kind of Malcolm Gladwell of conservative Christianity"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2025/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism.

Wikipedia

GA review

Passed. ❤History Theorist❤ 03:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dclemens1971 (talk · contribs) 20:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: HistoryTheorist (talk · contribs) 22:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Against my better judgement (time wise), I am taking this review on. I hate to see this languish as a nomination, but please bear with me if I take a bit of time reviewing this (especially because I signed up for a good article review circle, unless you want to review my nomination yourself). ❤History Theorist❤ 22:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

copyvio

Earwig's showing 67% similarity to an article, but it's because of attributed quotes, so ultimately a nothing-burger.

source checks

Due to the number of sources cited in the article, I will probably not check all of them, but probably about 10-11 of them.

Y Twitter/X is cited but for somebody's opinion, in accordance to guidelines, and you give a pretty accurate summary of Howerton's opinion and the quotes are faithful to source.
You should probably indicate for websites like Christianity that the url-access in the cite web is limited (Christianity Today, WORLD Magazine, etc.) or registration (First Things). This would make it easier for broke people like me to know how many times we can read the article before we need to fork them money.

Done. (Looks like FT switched its practice from limited articles to registration required since I wrote this article. I added an archived link for the subject article.) Thank you for pointing that out; I wasn't familiar with those parameters since I fill out citations manually using the templates in the wysiwyg editor so I appreciate learning about them! Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- - Also want to note that sources like The Dispatch also require log-in. I will keep updating this list until I've finished my source check.
Y Good summary of the article. All quotes are faithful of the article and I believe you captured its essence, but do take a look at the note under the prose review. I am a very detail-oriented person when it comes to writing summaries, but except for the one minor note, I think this strikes the write balance between details and conciseness.
I would suggest moving one of your #2 (WORLD Magazine) citations under the background section to the next sentence (In the late 2010s..."The Masculinist"), but my subcomment might make this suggestion moot.

I don't want to seem too picky but the phrase (In the late 2010s, he began writing a newsletter) kinda borders on original research because neither of the cited sources say when he started the newsletter. However, I'd say it's not an unreasonable assumption and it's a good transition phrase, so I would be sad to see it go.

I found a source that confirms the newsletter began in 2016 so have added that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y Both Masculinist sources check out, although Renn did me no favors in how he worded his thanks to Dreher. (WORLD Magazine was much clearer about it.)
Y Besides my comment above, the WORLD magazine source verifies everything that is cited to it.
Y Everything attributed to Christianity Today checks out.
Y Reference 19 checks out.
Y Reference 6 checks out, although the last placement made it a little bit confusing because I was also expecting a reference to Pastor Clary. (nice reference to Wikipedia there! )
Y Keller quote #1 (Respectfully...) verified.
Y David French material verified.
Y Trevin Wax material verified.
Question: Did the title change for the Kevin DeYoung "The Rise of Right-Wing Wokeism"? When I click on the website now the title is: "The Case for Christian Nationalism: A Review Article."

Looks like it did appear under two different titles; see here. I updated it to the one at the link in the footnote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

prose

After reading the article, I think Renn makes a big point about how there is that evangelical leaders haven't developed much of a ministry strategy for engaging the negative world. While you do mention Dreher and how the evangelicals have rejected him, I think you should add this too.

I added a sentence that I hope gets at this point. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Life in the Negative World heading, I think you should reword According to Bennett, in the book Renn said because you sound like you're quoting Renn, not Bennett.

I think I clarified it; let me know. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better. ❤History Theorist❤ 06:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your summary of the argument, you mostly use past tense to describe things like "Renn wrote", "Renn argued", etc. but I have spotted around one time where you switch to present tense. I would recommend changing it to past tense for consistency. However, I personally prefer changing all past tense phrases literary present tense because that's how I've been taught to write about other's writing, but perhaps I could be mistaken on that point. Take what you will from Vanderbilt University's guide.

This has been fixed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under the reception heading when you mention Mike Cooper's assessment of the essay, I would recommend adding a transition word like "however" from his assessment of the essay as influential to his criticism of the essay as being revisionist history.

Changed accordingly. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not done yet and I will ping you once I have completed the review. ❤History Theorist❤ 22:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HistoryTheorist! I've made edits to address your comments; let me know if you think these work. I look forward to seeing the rest of your review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the GA review, but I think that both of us should keep more eyes out for independent sources covering Aaron Renn. Especially with the NYT article, I think he should get an article soon once more sources come out. I hope to have the review finished by Sunday. ❤History Theorist❤ 06:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: I think my work is done on this GA review and hopefully, I haven't missed anything of great importance. Good work on the article and I will pass as soon as you have addressed all of the points you have yet to consider. ❤History Theorist❤ 03:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this detailed review HistoryTheorist. Left a few comments above and I believe I've addressed everything you noted, but let me know if I missed anything. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, I will bequeath you with your third green button! ❤History Theorist❤ 03:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 one quick question, do you think this article would be better classified under "religious doctrines, teachings, texts, or symbols" or "biographies, autobiographies, essays, and travelogues"? The categories for GA nomination are quite annoyingly limited for religious articles but for songs, they get oddly specific. ❤History Theorist❤ 03:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryTheorist My 2c: I think it's better classified under the "biographies, autobiographies, essays, and travelogues" grouping. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Now, I will pass the article. ❤History Theorist❤ 03:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 21:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Aaron Renn (center), author of "The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism"

... that a former management consultant (pictured) who coined "The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism" framework was described by The New York Times as "a kind of Malcolm Gladwell of conservative Christianity"?

Source: "Mr. Renn has an unusual profile for someone who has captured the attention of American evangelicalism. He is not a pastor, an academic or a politician. He has no institutional affiliations with high-profile evangelical organizations. He is a mild-mannered former consultant with a wide-ranging Substack whose topics include urban policy, self-improvement and masculinity. . . . 'Negative world' has turned Mr. Renn into a kind of Malcolm Gladwell of conservative Christianity, a skilled taxonomist known for distilling and naming a phenomenon that many were feeling but none had articulated." https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/06/us/aaron-renn-christianity-conservative-negative-world.html?unlocked_article_code=1.104.dgfA.o5NO5i6mLhJZ

Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Dclemens1971 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

This article, promoted to GA on 10 March, is new enough, long enough, well-sourced, and presentable. No QPQ needed. No copyvio. Hook interesting, in article, cited, and citation checks out. Image free, but not very legible at 100px. GTG. Tenpop421 (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]