Talk:Crucifixion darkness/GA1

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

Reviewer: PiCo (talk · contribs) 02:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Just for reference, I'm pasting the GA criteria here (I have no previous connection with this article or with the article's GAR process). The bold is the individual GA criteria and the bullet-point text is my comment; where I agreethat the article meets the criteria, I simply repeat the description of the criterion.

- tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and - have suitable captions. PiCo (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well-written:
 * the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
 * I haven't checked closely as to whether it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * A suggestion: how about putting the 3 gospel accounts in a table (at the moment the material is in 3 boxes)?
 * Verifiable with no original research:
 * I think referencing/citation could be better. I suggest a separate References section listing the books/sources used, and I like to use sfn style myself though it's not mandatory.
 * some of the sources seem dubious to me - Bible Probe, for example. If anything said there is worth saying, it'll be repeated in more reliable sources.
 * Just a point about structure: I'd incline towards grouping eclipses (both kinds) and "other naturalist explanations" together as "naturalistic explanations" - that and two other subheadings, "miracle" and "literary creation" shopuld cover everything (not sure that "literary creation is quite right, though).
 * Broad in its coverage:
 * I imagine "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" - I can't think of anything else;
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
 * Pretty much, though I think it could explain a little more clearly that Matthew and Luke take their material from Mark - i.e., they're not independent witnesses to events, so that in fact we only have a single witness to this miracle, the Synoptics as a whole, which in turn raises the question of why John doesn't mention it). I also think the discussion of the theological aspects of the story is a bit brief.
 * Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * No idea.
 * Illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * It's a very short article, so perhaps one illustration is enough. The tagging could be improved - images should be:


 * Thanks for taking the time to review this, and for all the useful suggestions, most of which have been incorporated. I think I may introduce an extra section about the theological interpretations of the darkness story when I have time. --Rbreen (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the review going to be done? No comments in over a month? Wizardman 21:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)