Talk:Thirty pieces of silver/GA1

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk)  23:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A bit to do before the article passes. The main issues are a longer lead and fixing the formatting of the references. I would encourage using cite book and cite web. Arsenikk (talk)  23:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * 1) The lead is extremely short. It should summarize the whole article, not just introduce it. See WP:LEAD.
 * 2) There are some readers who do not come from a Christian cultural background, and will not understand that Mathew refers to part of the Bible. It should also be referred to as the "Gospel of Mathew" on first occurrence.
 * 3) Perhaps mostly for convenience, stick in "Christianity" linked so unfamiliar people can go there.
 * 4) The biblical narrative is unreferenced. This should preferably not link to the Bible itself, but instead to a scholarly or other secondary source which covers the incident.
 * 5) The reference to Dracula 2000 is not referenced.
 * 6) As blood money is linked in the main body, it should not be in the see also section.
 * 7) Many of the references lack sufficient information. All web links need an author and/or publisher, a date if available, and an accessdate.
 * 8) Link 11 seems to link to two books; these need to be referenced as such, with a url link to Google Books.


 * Response #1
 * 1) Reworded to explicitly refer to the Christian New Testament.
 * 2) Done.
 * 3) Removed.
 * 4) Removed.
 * 5) Split and reformatted. -- Radagast 3  (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Removed.
 * 2) Split and reformatted. -- Radagast 3  (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Split and reformatted. -- Radagast 3  (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That leaves points 4 and 7. StAnselm (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Response #2
 * 1) Expanded lead section
 * 2) Expanded reference in "Biblical narrative" section - "chapter 27 of Matthew's gospel" instead of "Matthew 27"


 * Point 4 is done, referenced to two commentaries. That just leaves point 7: a general ref cleanup, much of which has been done. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think 7 has been done now. Thanks. StAnselm (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am passing the article. However, the MOS clearly states 'External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable.' It is not desirable to use an inline external link such as linking Mathew 26:15. Instead, add it as an external link at the end of the article. Arsenikk (talk)  22:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)