Talk:Acts of Peter and the Twelve/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jenhawk777 (talk · contribs) 15:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Hello TriplePowered,  I am Jenhawk777. I was asked to review this article by Mike Christie, so I am going to begin. Looking forward to working with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

Prose

 * Okay, I've done my first read through, and I am uncomfortable with the lead. It is a common problem when writing of something commonly known in a field of study that is not commonly known outside that field. There are technical terms that the average sophomore - for whom we write - will not understand. I see that tractate is explained but Codex, and the Nag Hammadi are not, and neither are explained later in the body either. So I would like to see that added to make it more accessible to that broad audience. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, the generic 'codex' has been replaced with more context-friendly 'sheepskin-bound papyrus codex' and the meaning of 'Nag Hammadi library' is more explicitly stated in the opening. TriplePowered (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanx for getting back to me so quickly. Imo, adding sheepskin doesn't clarify anything. However, now that you've changed it, it looks like there is no good way to include explanations that don't make it worse rather than better. You have all jargon-terms linked, the explanations are available, so shorten those two sentences, and that will be good enough.
 * How about this: "It is the first [tractate] in [Codex] VI of the [Nag Hammadi] texts, taking up pages 1–12 of the codex's 78 pages."
 * Sorry to be fussy about that, but stats indicate most people never read beyond the lead, so it needs to be clear.
 * Moving on down through the rest of the article.
 * Remove the link to lodging. I'm guessing someone else came along and did that for you. Overuse of links that add nothing substantive, but are a distraction, is an ongoing problem on WP. If someone doesn't know what 'lodging' is, I'm guessing they won't be reading this article. There are a few other similar unnecessary links through the remaining paragraphs as well. Use your best judgement and remove them.
 * Do that and I can pass this first requirement with a yes, it is well written. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have edited. TriplePowered (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will be going through the citations now. That always takes a little longer than just checking prose and punctuation. Everything looks good so far. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):