Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thirty pieces of silver/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:40, 10 October 2010 [1].

Thirty pieces of silver

Featured article candidates/Thirty pieces of silver/archive1

Nominator(s): St Anselm (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because of all the articles I've started, this is the one I'm most pleased with, thanks to the help of a number of other editors. But it covers the topic nicely, and looks good as well. Indeed, I believe it meets all the FA criteria. And it just so happens that it puts me in line for a Four Award. St Anselm (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: 1c/2c related from References section. Generally, many of these are uncommon presses and need location details. There are missing bibliographic details, and in particular a stylistic change between (Publisher, Year) and Publisher, Year. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this, I've made a start fixing the easy stuff. I'm indenting responses - hope that's OK. St Anselm (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it our habit to prefer the NIV on Wikipedia? Delink, or link to a multiple translation source.

Linked to multiple translation source.

Eerdmans is a non obvious publisher, location please.

Done

And a correct citation of Eerdmans, "Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing"

Done

Location: Liturgical Press

Done

Did you read Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889. or did you read this indexed exerpt you quote
- If so, fully cite the one you used, either "Thayer's Greek-English... as indexed by..." or give the publisher and location details with page numbers
- 1c: Hasn't biblical concordance research moved on since 1889?

This reference was added by User:Radagast3 (who has since retired), and I don't know whether he had Thayer's in front of him, but I don't imagine scholarship on that particular word has developed any. I'll follow this up, though.

Location: Tyndale Press,

Done

1c: Michael E. Marotta (2001). "So-called 'Coins of the Bible'" was Originally in The Celator "Letters", Jan 1995 what makes this a high quality reliable source?

Marotta is a regular columnist in The Numismatist, and would qualify as an established expert in the field (WP:SPS).

Location, spell out in full: BST [publisher]

Done

Fully cite the edition you used, including translator and location found in source: John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Edited by whom? Craig L. Blomberg, "Matthew," in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament

Done

Translated by whom? English trans from German

Done

What was the title of the article you referenced? Was the article individually authored, if so by who. What makes this a High Quality Reliable Source? James Hastings and John A. Selbie, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Part 6 (Kessinger Publishing, 2003), 703

Yes, I've got title and author now, though no particular views on it being a High Quality Source.

Location: Uitgeverij Verloren

Done

Out of style for publishers in parentheses: E. Stock, London, 1906, ; Wordsworth Classics, 2000, ; Cambridge University Press, 2002, ; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing ; Howling At The Moon Productions, 1998 ; Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1946

Done, except that I'm still looking into how I can use the citation template to get the Jeffrey reference consistent with the others.

Location: Howling At The Moon Productions,

Done

Location: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Done

Comments: An interesting and unusual article. A couple of issues:-

The article does not address an obvious question arising from the biblical narrative: why did the high priests find it necessary to pay Judas to identify Jesus for them? Jesus had drawn a lot of attention to himself in the previous few days: a triumphal entry into the city; overthrowimg the moneychanging tables and other trading posts in the temple court; daily preaching in the temple. He was one of the best-known figures in the city, so why did Judas have to be paid to identify him, and "betray him with a kiss? I don't expect an answer to this theological conundrum, but the point should be raised. I can't believe that none of the theoloical sources mention it.
I can't see any basis for claim that the first line of "The Lost Leader" has anything to do with the payment to Judas or the betrayal of Jesus. Read the last lines of the poem.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There could be something in why the chief priests were interested, but the scholarly explanations are awfully prosaic. For example, Craig S. Keener says of the kiss, that "others around Jesus, the shade of olive trees, and the importance of getting the right person immediately... demanded that Judas specify the right person." St Anselm (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see from the history that I am the third largest contributor in terms of edits - the 2nd is the nominator and the 1st has recently retired. I was not notified - not sure if I should have been. I must say I never saw the article as FA material, & still don't. As it is so short the Gospel texts should at least be given - the GA review may have sent it in the wrong direction here. The ultimately rather tedious question of what sort of coin was used should be gone into more thoroughly; various types get hyped by coin dealers on this score. The formatting of the references is not a style one often sees at FACs these days, but I leave that to others. The article should explain that the Browning poem is about William Wordsworth; I think an allusion to the 30 was probably an element in the first line, but I'm not sure it's worth having here. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no objections to the Browning poem being removed. In any case, Dostoyevsky and Shakespeare provide enough evidence of significant literary allusion. St Anselm (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is the referencing system with parenthesis around the publisher and date inappropriate? E.g. William J. Leatherbarrow, The Cambridge Companion to Dostoevskii, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 98. I'm getting that vibe with these comments, (and the fact that the citation templates don't support it), though I've always had the impression that one system was as good as another. St Anselm (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe - I'm not the one to know that sort of thing. I was thinking more of having all the sources up in the notes - usually they are split into "notes" & "references", especially for books as opposed to websites, and those used more than once. As it is, when you see "Schilder, Christ in His Suffering, 71", you have to go back through the earlier refs, which don't even begin with the author's surname. Mind you, if Brianboulton hasn't mentioned it it may be ok. The article is not long after all. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention it because I thought Fidelfoo was dealing with sources matters in this review. However, I will say that the references here are arranged unhelpfully, as Johnbod points out above (particularly the surnames issue), and a number of them are incomplete. Ref 1 is a bare link to a menu of biblical translations; 5 lacks publisher details and retrieval date; 11 has no publication information, and "Even John Calvin" is straight POV. Why are the links in 15, 16 and numerous others formatted through the page number whereas in say, 19 the link is via the title? Book publication dates should be formatted consistently. Locations and ISBN information are optional, but in each case it's all or none. The referencing should have been sorted out before this FAC nomination, not during it. I think the decision to bring it here was perhaps over-hasty; GA is not a reliable quality guide. Brianboulton (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed Ref 1 to that bare menu because Fidelfoo said "Delink, or link to a multiple translation source". St Anselm (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo :). Given that standard biblical texts are available in n+1 translations; Wikipedia shouldn't preference on particular translation. Especially as some religious groups feel strongly about One True Versions. I've never seen (Location: Publisher, Year) except in Chicago where it comes up sometimes in Contained Author, "Contained Work" in Work Editor (ed.) (Location: Publisher Year), range. But consistent is fine. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If the above is saying that the references, as they stand, are OK, then I'm afraid I have no option but to register a definite Oppose. The refs section is, as I have indicated, a mess than needs tidying up. I suggest you consult WP:Citing sources and work from there. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Your intro mentions that the thirty pieces of silver story is found in Matthew. Your "Biblical narrative" section states: According to the gospel accounts, Judas Iscariot was a disciple of Jesus. Before the Last Supper, Judas went to the chief priests and agreed to hand over Jesus in exchange for thirty silver coins. The "thirty pieces" is found only in Matthew, correct? Is that worth mentioning? While Mark states that Judas was promised money for the betrayal of Jesus, Mark 14:10-11, and Luke states money was offered for that betrayal, Luke 22:3-6, only Matthew contains the story of the thirty pieces of silver. See Brown, Raymond E. (1994), The Death of the Messiah, New York: Doubleday. Vol. One, p. 59 (Special Matthean Passion Material). ISBN 0-385-19396-3.

In contrast to Mark and Luke, only Matthew has Judas asking for money, which "dramatizes his iniquity". Id., pp. 119-20, fn. 5. Kablammo (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.