Talk:Joseph Smith/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jkolak (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too many unreliable sources. No consensus on NPOV.

Question to Jkolak: Every source is widely cited in mainstream academic works; so in what sense do you consider them to be unreliable? Also, please be more specific about your NPOV comment. Should it be the "consensus" of Wikipedia editors, or the consensus of mainstream scholars? Should this article be treated like FA Evolution, where no matter what the consensus of mainstream scholars is, a vocal fringe perspective will always be represented on Wikipedia? COGDEN 19:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

just an observation that I think we should take to heart on this subject. I think Bushman here gives a good critique of what this article is lacking. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Jkolak or another reviewer fails to respond by tomorrow, I will make a note on this article's entry at WP:GAC that it is still in need of a reviewer. I don't expect a complete review by then, but I'd appreciate some confirmation that the review will consist of more than two short, vague sentences. ...comments? ~BF izz 18:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering his Edit Summary was "vote" I think he thinks this is like an AFD discussion. He also seems to have only made 18 edits last year and only 5 so far this year... I think he may not be even be aware of our processes with GA criteria. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]