Talk:English Standard Version/GA1

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

Reviewer: Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs) 05:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Initial review (not actually failed)
Note: before Aussie Article Writer was blocked, they posted the following two sections. Although the next section claims that the article was failed, it was not, in fact, failed, and the review was set to continue when the block occurred. A new reviewer will be needed to do the detailed review that Aussie Article Writer did not get around to conducting. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 1, 2021, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: There are structural issues in the article
 * 2. Verifiable?: Symbol support vote.svg Pass
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: I am not convinced it covers everything
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Symbol support vote.svg Pass
 * 5. Stable?: Symbol support vote.svg Pass
 * 6. Images?: Symbol support vote.svg Pass

My biggest criticism is in the structure. The lead section doesn’t summarise, it seems to cram a lot of what should be in the body into the lead.

I also think that much of “criticism” should be placed into the history section. I find “criticism” sections problematic, because really most of this is around the philosophical approach to the translation by the translators. There also seems to be an overly unbalanced take on gendered language (this is my opinion).

I am also curious if there are not more articles in religious and theological journals about the ESV.

I have therefore not done my more detailed GA review as we need to deal with structural issues first.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
I will look at this shortly, but I’m afraid this article has some major issues. I’m not sure a GA review will fix them. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you so much for helping review this article. I really appreciate it. I have been its primary editor over the past year. It's open to critique! VistaSunset (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m sure it can be fixed eventually, I’m asking a friend help me review this article. The ESV went through enormous review, and the gender-neutral language issue seems to take up a disproportionate amount of the article. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , just letting you know that I have now finished my work on a major restructuring of the entire article (whew!). The lead section is now concise and the "Criticism" section has been merged with the "History" section. The article also features a little bit of new content, along with new citations. I guess it's just difficult to avoid talking about the gender-neutral language debate too much, as the ESV has been somewhat central to it. I have also done my own comb through Google Scholar, and I couldn't find any other applicable and/or tidy scholarly sources. The article should be ready for review again. I think that the status of this page is still currently "In review", according to the GA page? Please let me know if you have any further feedback or comments, or if there is anything I can help with. VistaSunset (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking of new citations, these include a couple of quality comments from Tim Challies surrounding the ESV. VistaSunset (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, that's looking a heck of a lot better! I will have another look, soonish. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

New reviewer needed
I've changed the status of this nomination to "second opinion" in the hopes that a new reviewer can be found that way, since Aussie Article Writer has been blocked and cannot continue this review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers BlueMoonset, much appreciated. VistaSunset (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA 2nd Opinion
Hope to get to this shortly. ''' --Whiteguru (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)



Observations

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 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):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 there is the mention of Grudem. This is a bit abrupt as a reader does not know who Grudem is?


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Does there need to be a section on Translation Oversight Committee ?? Consider


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * 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 inclusion (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."
 * Inclusion of Reference 30 is excellent.


 * 1) It is stable.
 * 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.


 * 1) 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):
 * 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?
 * And list the image in
 * And list the image in


 * 1) 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.
 * We need to resolve the book photo issue.
 * When we resolve these minor issues, this will be a Good Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Whiteguru, thanks very much for your help! I have now resolved the main points that you brought up. I'll jump through them all quickly:


 * 1) I feel that UBS in the infobox shouldn't need an Efn (I personally think that doing so would be odd, as that should be the purpose of the wikilink), so I haven't made any changes here. The UBS article explains that Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft is a member of UBS. It's a little tricky this one, but I feel that this is fine to leave.✅
 * 2) I have tweaked the wording surrounding Grudem near ref 15 to be less abrupt. It's better now! ✅
 * 3) The Translation Oversight Committee section is relevant to briefly detail the major contributors that worked on the project. There was a small disagreement a while back surrounding how this should be rendered. I'm satisfied with how this section stands. ✅
 * 4) I would personally prefer to keep the sub-heading "Post-publication", as this ties nicely with the "Pre-publication" sub-heading. I feel that "Reception" wouldn't work as well. ✅
 * 5) Quoting Grudem saying "'the best of the best' of the KJV tradition" belongs to an immediately prior citation (minus an Efn). I think that adding it again would be an unnecessary duplicate? My sense is that this is a quote, and you need to cite. Just put the previous citation in straight after it, duplication and all, yea.
 * 6) I have now added an appropriate Non-free image to the infobox, including an accompanying caption. ✅

Please let me know if you have any further comments. Thanks again for your help! VistaSunset (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

...also! Just out of curiosity, what reference was reference 30 specifically? I can't see the one (via numbering) I think you're referring to in either Read or Edit. VistaSunset (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC) It was the list of changes given out by Crossway; it is a signal inclusion - and gives evidence - to understanding transitivity and reading of the bible. There will never be a static reception of The Bible. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Post-GA, I have tidied the citations to adhere to MOS:REFPUNCT and avoid citation overkill. VistaSunset (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)