Talk:Gospel of Jesus' Wife/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 21:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I am beginning the review now.
General
- I found much of the article to be rather confusing, and I think that the sections could be organized better. A significant amount of work will need to be put in so that this will pass. However, passing is not out of the question.
- The most precise information on how the text was discovered is contained in the lead. This is a problem. The lead is supposed to be merely a summary of everything else in the article. I suggest adding a more detailed account of its presentation to King in 2012 to the "Publication" section. I also suggest that this be moved up to become the first section, as it deals with the text first being made known to the public.
- Right now we don't seem to have clear information on who presented the "gospel" to King or who the author may have been. That's rather important.
- There are a few places in the article that mention evidence which implies that the text is fake, but does not get anymore specific. A little bit more detail would help the reader better understand this information.
Features
- Trying to read and make sense of the text of the "gospel" is extremely confusing. The words don't make much sense. Is that actually word-for-word what it says? Is there a way that we could make it more clear?
- I also suggest making the text its own section, so that people may find it easier. It's probably the first thing that a lot of people look for.
Provenance
- Right now there is a lot of information in the first paragraph which doesn't seem to have a source.
Analysis of the text
- Who's Mike Grondin?
Interpretation
- I recommend that you find some way to call attention to the fact that these interpretations took place before the general scholarly consensus emerged that the item was a forgery.
- The last sentence before "Links to modern theories" and the last sentence of that section both need sources. Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Follow-up
[edit]MagicatthemovieS, I see that you have put into place many of my suggestions. I thank you for that. However, I still think that there needs to be more detail in "Analysis of text" to show why the manuscript is considered a modern-day forgery. Display name 99 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- MagicatthemovieS, you still haven't done anything. If within two days you do not respond to the above post I will be forced to fail the review. Display name 99 (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Display name 99, is this version better? If not, I am more than happy to find some more stuff to add to the article. :) MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- It looks good now. I think the article meets the criteria. I have chosen to pass it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Display name 99, is this version better? If not, I am more than happy to find some more stuff to add to the article. :) MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)