Talk:The Many Faces of Jesus/GA1

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

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 08:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hehehe, this looks fun. Happy you ended up nomming it. I'll try to get a review in over the next few days. Generalissima (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Criterion #1: Well-written

 * Fascinating use of section titles; this isn't against MoS or anything, I've just never seen them used like that. Might steal it.

Lede
 * Not many problems. I might put "alternately The Sex Life of Jesus or The Love Affairs of Jesus" in parens to break up a very long initial sentence.
 * I think the commas and boldfacing make it easy enough for readers' eyes to scan to the verb.
 * Wikilink Revenue Minister to Minister of National Revenue since that is a very strange title that readers might not recognize.

Background etc.
 * I think you're missing a semicolon after "Thorsen was fascinated with both Jesus and sex", and should uncapitalize "Creating" after the cite.
 * Oh, good catch! I actually just forgot to finish that sentence.

1973 etc.
 * No problems here.

1975 etc.
 * No problems here.

1978 etc. Legacy
 * do we need the "thusly"? I think we can just say "Jack Stevenson summarized the reaction:"
 * I think "thusly" sets a better tone for introducing one scholar's opinion.
 * yeah fair enough I guess! All other corrections good. Generalissima (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No problems here.

Criterion #2: Verifiable

 * Everything is correctly cited in-line.
 * Essentially nothing returned by Earwig.
 * Doing a few source spot-checks;
 * 75; Klausen, 2009; pp 108-108
 * Checks out, confirms cite.
 * 32; Reuter 1976a
 * Confirms cite.
 * 50, Eliaser 1976
 * Confirms cite.
 * 61, CP 1978a
 * Confirms cite.
 * 64, Wilson 1980
 * Confirms cite.

Criterion #3: Broad in its coverage
Absolutely. Short of a summary of the screenplay itself (which from what I understand is not avaliable), there is nothing I am missing on this story.
 * There are copies out there of Thorsens Jesusfilm, which I could in theory get my hands on and find a Danish-speaker to help me with, and I was tempted to do that for a bit while writing this. But in the end what I concluded is that there is essentially no coverage of the screenplay qua screenplay, and basically everyone reacting to the screenplay was only reacting to the idea of it without having read it (except, apparently, Mary Whitehouse), so it would not be due weight to say much more about its plot than is already in the article from secondhand accounts.

Criterion #4: Neutral
Very well done, avoids casting any negative scope on the film, rather summarizing negative responses.

Criterion #5: Stable
Yep, no issues here.

Criterion #6: Illustrated
All image copyrights check out. Makes me wish for a nice image of JC himself in the lede though.

General thoughts
Seems like just a couple of extremely minor prose corrections and we're good to go. Generalissima (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for reviewing!  I've responded above. --  Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 01:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Seems we're all good to go here. Generalissima (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)