Talk:Third Epistle of John/GA1

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 23:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I look forward to your comments. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments
On first pass, this looks like an excellent piece of work: very well written, well sourced, and covering all obvious major aspects of the epistle. Again, thanks for your hard work on this. I'll compare it to a few other sources to verify comprehensiveness in a minute.

The lead appears to need a little more to properly summarize the article (details below). Two other suggestions, neither of which is relevant to attaining GA status, so feel free to take or leave them:
 * You might combine the single-sentence paragraphs of the "date and location" section to avoid choppiness.
 * Usually the model for a Wikipedia article on a work would be to lead off with the work's content; I don't think the section order you have is especially problematic, though, and I'm not familiar with how our Bible articles are generally structured.

I also made some minor tweaks for linking and style as I went. Please feel free to revert any you disagree with. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That makes a lot of sense, I've put the content section at the beginning of the article and added another paragraph to the lead. I agree that the dates section is choppy but it seems non-trivial to fix so I'm leaving it as is for now.  Let me know if there is anything else I should do. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)