This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pyrotec (talk | contribs) at 22:03, 2 September 2013 (→Initial comments: adding comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:03, 2 September 2013 by Pyrotec (talk | contribs) (→Initial comments: adding comments)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 16:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I see myself multiple problems with the article, as it compares to other encyclopedic reference sources regarding this topic, and to my eyes they are sufficient for the article not receiving GA status at this time. A comparison to the rather substantial entry in the Anchor Bible Dictionary is I think relevant. Their article on this topic indicates from the first sentence that there were multiple sources, at least two, which have been referred to by this title. This specifically includes the work Jerome called the Gospel of the Hebrews, which has been, more or less, generally linked to the Gospel of the Nazoreans by modern scholarship, despite the lack of any real sourcing to support that. On the basis of its apparent failure to give what seems required weight to the Gospel of the Hebrews Jerome used, which he did call by that title, and which so far as I can tell most of the existing scholarship on Jerome uses, to some degree, in discussing his material on it, and the substantial discussion of the mild "controversy" on the topic in the ABD, I would have to say that the article strikes me as unbalanced and in no way giving remotely sufficient weight to a substantial area of discussion regarding it, the nature of the Jerome material. John Carter (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- This article is about the Greek Gospel of the Hebrews used in Egypt. The WP:SCOPE was restricted as a result of the merge discussion archived on the talk page. As a result, the discussion of the controversy was moved to the Jewish-Christian gospels article. Please note that the ABD is already used as a source for the article (Cameron 1992) and provide specific examples of topics covered in the ABD encyclopedic article that you feel have not received sufficient weight in this article. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I thought I did indicate specific examples, the use of the title by Jerome. I'm sorry you apparently didn't see that, or perhaps chose to ignore them. I can see no logical reason for the material regarding the use of the term by Jerome not being covered with roughly the same weight and attention in this article as it receives in the ABD. Also, as per WP:CCC, consensus can change, and I can see no valid reason to basically exclude the material relating to Jerome from the leading reference source on this topic based on an archived merge discussion. At this point, I believe the more reasonable thing to do would be to determine if the rules of that earlier, rather dated discussion, are enough to warrant not being considered when the article is being nominated for GA. On that basis, I am posting a message at WT:X regarding what the scope of the article should be, according to the more reliable sources, and how that should be reflected in the content. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- This discussion should not affect GA, since that is mostly about the proper use of sources and formatting issues. However, a content RfC on scope can happen on the talk page at the same time, or the GA can be put on hold pending the outcome of the RfC. Ignocrates (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I believe it most reasonable to allow the GA reviewer to determine that, don't you? John Carter (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I will leave it to Pyrotec to make that call. Ignocrates (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I believe it most reasonable to allow the GA reviewer to determine that, don't you? John Carter (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- This discussion should not affect GA, since that is mostly about the proper use of sources and formatting issues. However, a content RfC on scope can happen on the talk page at the same time, or the GA can be put on hold pending the outcome of the RfC. Ignocrates (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I thought I did indicate specific examples, the use of the title by Jerome. I'm sorry you apparently didn't see that, or perhaps chose to ignore them. I can see no logical reason for the material regarding the use of the term by Jerome not being covered with roughly the same weight and attention in this article as it receives in the ABD. Also, as per WP:CCC, consensus can change, and I can see no valid reason to basically exclude the material relating to Jerome from the leading reference source on this topic based on an archived merge discussion. At this point, I believe the more reasonable thing to do would be to determine if the rules of that earlier, rather dated discussion, are enough to warrant not being considered when the article is being nominated for GA. On that basis, I am posting a message at WT:X regarding what the scope of the article should be, according to the more reliable sources, and how that should be reflected in the content. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- This article is about the Greek Gospel of the Hebrews used in Egypt. The WP:SCOPE was restricted as a result of the merge discussion archived on the talk page. As a result, the discussion of the controversy was moved to the Jewish-Christian gospels article. Please note that the ABD is already used as a source for the article (Cameron 1992) and provide specific examples of topics covered in the ABD encyclopedic article that you feel have not received sufficient weight in this article. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I see myself multiple problems with the article, as it compares to other encyclopedic reference sources regarding this topic, and to my eyes they are sufficient for the article not receiving GA status at this time. A comparison to the rather substantial entry in the Anchor Bible Dictionary is I think relevant. Their article on this topic indicates from the first sentence that there were multiple sources, at least two, which have been referred to by this title. This specifically includes the work Jerome called the Gospel of the Hebrews, which has been, more or less, generally linked to the Gospel of the Nazoreans by modern scholarship, despite the lack of any real sourcing to support that. On the basis of its apparent failure to give what seems required weight to the Gospel of the Hebrews Jerome used, which he did call by that title, and which so far as I can tell most of the existing scholarship on Jerome uses, to some degree, in discussing his material on it, and the substantial discussion of the mild "controversy" on the topic in the ABD, I would have to say that the article strikes me as unbalanced and in no way giving remotely sufficient weight to a substantial area of discussion regarding it, the nature of the Jerome material. John Carter (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Initial comments
I've held off reviewing this nomination, for various reasons not least the controversy on the the talkpage. However, I want to make one thing perfectly clear. Reviewing a wikipedia GAN nomination does not involve comparing the relevant article against a "similar" article on wikipedia or one on the Anchor Bible Dictionary and then awarding GA-status, or not, based on outcome of that comparison. The article appears to be stable, but it now has a {{tag}}, added yesterday, which is somewhat disruptive. I'm therefore going to ignore it for now, and review the article. Pyrotec (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- No objections whatsoever. And no one would not acknowledge that any single independent print source is necessarily an absolute dictator of content. Regarding questions of disruption, if editors review the talk page history, which I believe they do, I think they might find that perhaps dubious behavior did not begin with that tag. John Carter (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't wish to read the talkpage and make value judgements on "dubious behavior". I've reviewed quite a few Israeli and Palestinian GANs and also Northern Ireland ones (and I'm English) with far far less controversy than this one. I expect those topics to be "sensitive" (and wikipedia has protocols for articles on the Middle East). The criteria for Good Articles are to found in WP:WIAGA, so the relevant decision (mine to make) in this particular instance is whether the apparent lack of the some "information" leads to a non-compliance with clause 3(a). That is the only argument I'm going to accept, not whether a "thing" is in some highly regarded book and its not in this article. However, having made these points, you (and others) are welcome to add contributions to this review. I will consider them. I'm not a subject matter expert on the bible, so I will not be reviewing this nomination as a "bible subject matter expert". Pyrotec (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- To return to the main point: I'm going to do a quick read of the article from start to finish and then work my way through the article, starting at the Origin and characteristics section and finishing with the WP:lead. I will be adding comments section by section, below, where necessary. I don't have access to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, so I shall not be referring to it. This is likely to take a few days, but I would like to finish it by the weekend. However, I'll not be doing any more work today on this nomination. Pyrotec (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)