Talk:Shemini Atzeret/GA1

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

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 03:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this nomination. Initial comments will be posted soon. --1ST7 (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking this up. Just please note that I'm on a bit of a Wikibreak during the fall Jewish holidays.  In particular, I will be absolutely unavailable this Thursday-Friday-Saturday (Sukkot and Shabbat) and next Thursday-Friday-Saturday (Shemini Atzeret and Shabbat), so if you need feedback from me, please be patient. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, and thank you for the message. I already knew that you were on a Wikibreak and was planning to leave a note letting you know that I'll give you as much time as you need on this one. --1ST7 (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's the review:
 * 1) Well-written
 * The lead could be expanded.
 * ✅ StevenJ81 (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the terminology used in the article could confuse non-Jewish readers, such as "sukkah, lulav or etrog". Can you please add some more explanations?
 * ✅ The first appearance of these terms is now hyperlinked. At least one subsequent appearance may well be edited out. I think all other terms are explained or hyperlinked now. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a few sentences that need to be rewritten to comply with Words to watch, namely "it is not surprising that the celebration of the conclusion of the annual reading was absorbed into the celebration of Shemini Atzeret" and "is a clear reference to the fact that it falls on the eighth day".
 * ✅ I don't think any words to watch are left; please confirm. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This phrase is a bit too vague: "There are some differing views on this, but a prominent one is that this refers to the Shir Shel Yom (psalm of the day) recited by the Levites in the Temple." Please specify who believes what.
 * Edited out. See below. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Verifiable with no original research:
 * Several paragraphs need citations.
 * ✅ (I think.) See below. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Broad in its coverage:
 * 2) Neutral:
 * 3) Stable:
 * There don't seem to be any edit wars, but the use of the 2012-2014 as dating examples could be problematic, as what is current is going to change over the years.
 * Addressed. See below. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * All images look good, but would it be possible to add one to the infobox?
 * Addressed. See below. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to place this on hold to give you time to address these issues. Because you're on a Wikibreak, I will extend the hold beyond the usual week-long period if needed. Thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply from nominating editor at 16:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your review. I am going to set a target date for October 13, if that is acceptable. That would be two weeks from this Sunday, which is the date I was planning to end my Wikibreak. Without my doing any major work now, may I get a little further information on a couple of your recommendations?
 * 1) Well-written: The only question I had was about the "vague phrasing" item. I can probably identify the main source of the view I presented. However, with respect to the other ("differing") views, I was concerned that some of that gets into narrow or esoteric detail that did not seem relevant to the article overall. That is especially true at the GA level, but I'm not sure it would be all that relevant to a general audience even at the FA level. If I can manage it, would it be sufficient for me to point to an outside source about some of those "differing" views?
 * 2) Verifiable ... Many of the things I did not cite I thought were more or less in the WP:BLUE category (e.g., Torah readings, reading of Kohelet/Lamentations, Yizkor, Geshem, L'David). I can provide Siddur references for those if you think they are needed, but I did not want to clutter things up, either. I do need references at Simchat Torah, and the two paragraphs on Samaritans share the single reference there. Is there anything else you think really needs a reference?
 * 3) Stable: Hard to get around this problem in dealing with Jewish holidays, because they move with respect to the Gregorian calendar. I can commit to keeping it current; I'm sure if I left WP for some reason that other editors would jump in with a fix on dates if a future reviewer noticed it.
 * 4) Illustrated: Problem is that Shemini Atzeret qua Shemini Atzeret does not really have its own images. The images used in the article borrow from the two major "strains" influencing the day: Sukkot and Simchat Torah. I actually consciously chose not to put an image in the infobox in this case for that reason. I will if you think it really necessary, but would like your opinion in light of the thinking I have outlined here.

Once again, many thanks for your help in my getting this article promoted. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * October 13th is fine.
 * I understand what you mean, but is it possible to find out if certain views are more prominent among the Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, etc.?
 * Edited out. The one dissenting view was from a certain Chassidic Rebbe (see Hebrew Wikipedia article), but it's a minority opinion with few practical consequences. There are not major differences of opinion between different Jewish groups on this point. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be good to have one for the first paragraph of "Observances and customs", but Simchat Torah is the primary area that needs references.
 * Simchat Torah references added. As to the other, I added an intrapage hyperlink back up to the point in the article talking about the relatively meager discussion of Shemini Atzeret in the Torah. I can probably find an outside source to reinforce this, but it would be a source "proving" a negative, if you will, and I didn't think that was really necessary. If you'd like this anyway, please let me know. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you or someone else can commit to keeping the article current, then it should be fine.
 * I will commit to this. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * An image for the infobox is not necessary, just nice to have.
 * ❌ per my reasoning above. I will continue to keep an eye peeled for an open-source picture that would be appropriate. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your responses and for your work towards getting this article to GA status. --1ST7 (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry this response is a little late; my Internet connection has been very bad this past week. The article looks good to go, so I'm going to pass it. Congratulations, and thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * for your help! StevenJ81 (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! --1ST7 (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Subsequent discussion copied from User talk:1ST7
Once again, thanks for your help. Quick question: Any brief ideas on anything missing to promote it to A-class and/or FA? StevenJ81 (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. The thing I would recommend most would be to make the article more comprehensive. One thing you can do is add a section on religious views associated with the holiday and its influence, along with some opinions from prominent religious figures and scholars. It's also a good idea to get a peer review for the article before you submit it for FA nomination. --1ST7 (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Not my top priority now, but thank you for helping me understand the steps going forward. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)