Talk:The Unvarnished New Testament

Article issues
First of all, I'd like to encourage the article creator not to remove these warnings until a 3rd party (or the one who tagged the article) is sufficiently satisfied. I believe one sentence added to the intro could help the context. Per our style guidelines, the first sentence needs to almost be a straight forward dictionary definition of the subject. We need to tell the readers right off the bat what the topic is. We also need to establish notability per WP:BK. Has the book won awards? Has it been reviewed by notable, independent sources, etc. And speaking of sources, adding footnotes would help (and we need to cite sources that are independent of the subject). All of these things are still outstanding issues in the article. Hope this helps explain some of the major issues. -Andrew c [talk] 15:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for tagging and running. The article's since been wikified and now has a context so I dropped those tags.  The remaining notability and sourcing issues (as well as Original Reserach) issues remain.  Specifically:

Phrases like need independent citations, such as book reviews, scholarly papers, or interviews at the least.
 * "attempt to produce a translation of the New Testament that was simpler and more straightforward (1991) than most English translations.",
 * "That book had generated interest in come circles, so he went on to translate the rest of the New Testament.
 * "In addition to simpler sentence structure, he also chose to translate a number of words that are important in Christian theology with words that do are more commonplace and familiar "

If the forward of the book is being used as a source, that needs to be noted with one of the CITE templates, and giving the ISBN of the books published, would also improve its notability.  MBisanz  talk 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In Bible translation circles, the fact that a new translation is published is generally adequate to make it notable. In the larger world, this book may not make ripples, but any new published translation is noteworthy to collectors and theologians.  I point out that this translation is quoted on several other Wikipedia pages.  What is "notable" should include input by people with some expertise in the field.  I'll do more to meet your criticisms. Pete unseth (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)