Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the delay.

This appears appears to be at least GA-standard, nevertheless, I'm working my way through the article; and at this point will just highlight any "problems" or "difficulties. Pyrotec (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've adding a caveat: it would be if the article was correctly referenced (see below). Pyrotec (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I understand citation 6, as it is currently written: i.e. (John S. Kloppenborg (1994). The Complete Gospels. Polebridge Press, Robert J. Miller ed.. p. 436. ISBN 0-06-065587-9). Its (obviously - I checked elsewhere) a reference to page 436, in a book called The Complete Gospels, whose editor is Robert J. Miller. Who is John S. Kloppenborg and what is his contribution? If he is a chapter editor, then the chapter title aught to be given.
Ref 7, 12, 19 plus many in the 30-series are abbreviated Havard-style citations, i.e. author, date, page number, but Oskar Skarsaune (2007) is undefined: it needs to be listed, in a list called "sources" "biography", etc, I'm not going to to dictate its name, but without it these references are WP:Unverifiable.

Note: (See Cuthbert of Canterbury, which I've just review of a correctly referenced GA) Pyrotec (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 18: "ditto".
ref 21: "ditto".
Ref 27: in respect of James R. Edwards (2009) "ditto" - Nicholson is defined.
Ref 29: "ditto".
Ref 30: "ditto".

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold: there are just too many WP:unverifiable ciations. Pyrotec (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will attempt to address all of your citation concerns by the weekend. Sorry for the delay; I have been traveling. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the title The Gospel of the Ebionites to citation 6. You were correct in surmising that Kloppenborg is the contributing author of that section in the chapter on Jewish-Christian Gospels. Ovadyah (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed all the issues with undefined citations by creating separate sections for Notes and References. Ovadyah (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an informative, well-referenced, article.

I suspect that this article has the potential to become a WP:FAC; but I'm not sure how the combination of "notes" and "footnotes" into a single "note", such as e.g. citations 1, 2 and 7, would be viewed by FAC. They might require their separation into Notes and Footnotes - but that is speculation on my part. I would suggest that if the article were to be submitted to FAC, it should be preceeded by WP:PR. Pyrotec (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]