Talk:Session of Christ/GA1

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

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been at the back of the pile for a few months now - I will gladly review it to get it out :) -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Section by section review
Please look over the suggested changes below, which need to be done in order for the article to be promoted.

Images/Captions/Boxes
 * These are nice images, which are good in brigtening up the article :)
 * The placement of the 'Jesus series' box should be moved higher up I think. ❌ Do you mean above the first picture? I would have thought that would imbalance things...
 * Hmm. On second thought, you can keep where it is.

Lead
 * Maybe use a more neutral word than "teaches". Alternates: 'says', 'is the idea that says', etc. ✅
 * The in-line cites here are not required if this same information is stated later on in the article. (See here). ✅

Biblican references
 * Replace 'his' with 'Jesus'. And subsequently do the opposite with the later mention of 'Jesus'. So..make it read something like "...after Jesus' ressurection and ascension, he was 'exalted to the right hand of God'". ✅
 * You link in this section to the Right Hand of God article. I think it would be prudent to merge the two articles: ❌ There is overlap between these two articles, but they don't cover the same ground - as well as talking about the place at God's right hand, the Bible also uses "God's right hand" to indicate his power - e.g. Exodus 15:6 and Psalm 18:35. Hence, it wouldn't be appropriate to merge.
 * firstly, the content is very similar and
 * secondly, you need more explaination here about why the right hand is symbolic/significant.
 * Second paragraph a bit confusing - maybe change 'instrumental' to a more layman term. ✅ I linked to Instrumental case, not sure how else to explain it
 * Put a topic sentence for the second and third paragraphs in this section. ✅ I'm not totally sure what you mean by "topic sentence", but I put the two paragraphs together with an introductory sentence.
 * Remove 'evident' (see MOS:OPED and WP:WEASEL) ✅
 * The third paragraph mentions more examples in an off-hand tone. It makes the section read like a general listing of examples without real connection to a single idea. Therefore, rework organization for this section. ✅

Posture
 * Put the definition of 'session' in the lead. The definition shouldn't be all the way down in the 2nd paragraph. ✅ It actually was in the lead, but I've copied the Grudem quote there.
 * Need a cite for "This language is used in Psalm 110 and Hebrews 10." ✅ I added links to the verses
 * This is a very interesting subject. Please put more details here about the meaning of a "session" in this usage. Maybe you can find that in the Grudem source.

In the creeds
 * Incorporate this into another paragraph. The sole paragraph here is just another example of where the Session of Christ is represented. Beyond that, its fine. ❌ I appreciate your point, but I can't really think of where to put it. With the theological significance? With the hymns?

Theological significance
 * In-line cite for the first sentence. I didn't put in an inline citation, but I modified the statement from "usually" to "often", so that it's not claiming too much, and added a quote from the Catholic Catechism, which seems to clearly state this
 * Who is Berkhof? Maybe say "Professor/Pastor/Cardinal Berkhof, a researcher of the Session, notes that..." ✅ I put in a wikilink - it wasn't there because he was linked in the Biblical references section
 * Ooh. I wanna know more about this God-man thing. Please put more details on that in the first paragraph. ❌ I don't think it's really relevant to this article. Berkhof uses the phrase in passing, and this is exactly why we have wikilinks - an interested person can follow the link to find out more.
 * More analysis here that is not just quoting other people. I estimate 80% of all words in this section are quotes. ❌ Fair enough, but I'm scared of putting my own synthesis or analysis here. I don't see any way around this, to be honest.
 * Why 'right'? Any source explaining why the right side is significant? ✅ Yes, I found an appropriate quote

Use in hymnody
 * Ok.

Concluding thoughts
 * This article is interesting for me, probably because I had never heard about this before. But there is sooo much that I want to know after reading this that is simply not answered. Try expanding the article more, with greater details and more information on the significance of the subject.
 * Alot of this seems to be Jesus sitting on the right side of God. Consider merging it with Right Hand of God. That may give you a broader field to work with.
 * I wish you luck in making these changes and improving the article! You have a week's time before I will come back to consider the next step in this review. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a very careful and helpful review! StAnselm (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Well, I think this is about as much as I'll be able to do. It's your call. Either way, thank you very much for the feedback. Even if the article is not promoted, it's still been improved. StAnselm (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will look the article over in conjunction with the checklist for GA promotion. I'm leaning towards promoting it, but I just want to check the list first. - Lord Roem (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * After going over the criteria, I feel the article can be passed. I was at first shaky on this due to the shortness of the article, but I have seen other GAs that are just as long. I feel your improvements have greatly increased the quality of the article, so promotion is the best way to go. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)