Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Gospel of John

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator

DYK toolbox

Gospel of John

[edit]
(
)
  • Comment: Open to other ideas for the hook; this was the first thing that came to mind but I think there's room for improvement in the "interesting" department.

Improved to Good Article status by Jujutsuan (talk) and Cerebellum (talk). Nominated by Jujutsuan (talk) at 19:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC).

  • - it's not appropriate to say that it contains no parables, as that is evidently a matter of opinion and dispute: the article says "Most scholars consider John not to contain any parables... Some scholars, however, find some such parables in the Fourth Gospel..." StAnselm (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@StAnselm: I believe ALT1 solves this issue. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes it does - the problem is that it makes it even longer, and it is far too convoluted for a hook. StAnselm (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, you're right. Do you have any other ideas? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 02:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's better to stick to factual claims, rather than scholarly opinion - even if that is approaching a consensus. This doesn't have a reference in the article yet, but how about...
StAnselm (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I like that a lot, and I just added refs for it. But I would rephrase it like this:
or
Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 03:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Date and length OK. I am going to approve ALT4 as the original is a bit wordy and as for the other ALTs, just because John didn't include it doesn't mean we shouldn't. QPQ done, no close para. No image. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The ALT4 hook is not cited inline. Several paragraphs under Comparison with the synoptics and Representations lack at least one citation, per Rule D2. There are also a few tags on sections, but I don't think they are a problem for DYK eligibility. Yoninah (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually the 2 citations do support ALT4, but the phrasing of the article content was ever so slightly off so as to obscure that. I've corrected that. I'll get on the rest of the citations soon. juju (hajime! | waza) —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Jujutsuan, it's been over two weeks. How soon do you anticipate finishing the work? Please let us know here when it has been completed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset et al.: I unfortunately don't have time to continue this process, as indicated by the break banner on my talk page. If no one can take up the mantle here and closing is the only other option rn, so be it. juju (hajime! | waza) 02:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Nominator will not be addressing issues raised above; marking for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Gospel_of_John&oldid=1018279343"