Wikipedia:Featured article review/Revised Standard Version/archive1

Revised Standard Version

Review commentary

Messages left at Bible and Christianity. Marskell 11:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the FAR page finally settling down, I thought I'd nominate one myself. This article fails to meet the criteria on a number of counts:

2a. The LEAD, consisting of one sentence, is obviously insufficient.
2b. The headings are entire phrases, in some cases.
1c. Completely lacks inline citations. There are references, but unfortunately sourcing will be difficult for someone relying on the web.
1a. Not terrible, but many one sentence paragraphs. Some of it is stylistically limp, such as "owing to its aim" in LEAD. Later: "The RSV New Testament was well received, but reaction to the Old Testament was different. Many accepted it as well, but many also denounced it." This doesn't need to be two sentences and it feels like it was written with a six year-old in mind.
1b. This weighs in at 13.5k. Yes, it's comprehensiveness not length, but the size is on the low-end of what you'd expect. The description of the drafting of the version overlaps the first and second sections and needs to be better rationalized and expanded. The International Council of Religious Education is redlinked and the reader needs to know what it is. Who were some of the scholars involved? How were they chosen?

A tough nut, to be sure. Hopefully someone will pick up on it. I can work on the prose, at least, if there is interest. Marskell 11:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article has several serious flaws, and, personally, given the significance of the textual differences of the various editions, could and should be much longer. I also agree with all of the above reservations cited by Marskell. Badbilltucker 17:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are LEAD, style (headers), citations, prose and comprehensiveness. Joelito (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Nothing doing. Marskell 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. No improvement. Sandy (Talk) 20:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove No inline cites and an insufficient lead section. LuciferMorgan 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]