User:Whiteguru/English Standard Version
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 09:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Starts2nd Opinion.
Instructions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment
Observations
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- Infobox is has a number of useful elements. Inclusion of reading level is a plus. I am nonplussed with the link to UBS. May we have an explanation?
- Lede is strong and robust and captures the essence of Crossways in producing this version.
- Right after <ref>15</ref> there is the mention of Grudem. This is a bit abrupt as a reader does not know who Grudem is?
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- Does there need to be a section on Translation Oversight Committee ?? Consider
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Strauss certainly hit the translation crew with a trout. Mounce's reply is excellent and is a very good/totally relevant citation include (as it explains translation philosophies).
- Mounce describes various points regarding his view of the need for both formal and functional translations. is a concise summary.
- Post-publication → would 'Reception' be a better heading?
- 'the best of the best' of the KJV tradition." [citation needed]
- Inclusion of Reference 30 is excellent.
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Interesting list of editors there, a couple of clerks in there as well!!! VistaSunset, you have certainly done the hard yards.
- 326 editors, 99 page watchers, top editor is VistaSunset with 281 edits. Average of 312 page views per day.
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- The photo is described as a geometric shape, this is not true.It's a photo of a book. I need to look at the policy on taking photos of books and using them in articles. I have run into an issue with this before as a GA Reviewer; If I recall aright, the photographer has to declare the purpose of the photograph, and then release it with a CC-by-SA creative commons licence.
- OK, I found what I was looking for. See below.
- Would it not be better to grab an image from Crossway and use the standard non-free declaration?
- {{Non-free book cover|image has rationale=yes|category=Religious book cover images}}
- And list the image in [[Category:Religious book cover images]]
- Overall:
- This article is well scribed, and as discretion is the better part of valour, leaving the bulk of debate on gender-neutral language to the earlier confabulation by the Greek translators is a good decision.
- I have raised some issues above, open to discussion there.
- When we resolve these minor issues, this will be a Good Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
On hold