Template:Did you know nominations/Mount of Temptation


 * Hey look, I don't really have much of a personal value judgement to make about IntechOpen - as a platform, it does not seem that dodgy, and it seems to be electively sharing just a chapter here of what it claims is peer-reviewed material that appears to have been originally published on that platform, no biggie - all I am pointing out is that by entertaining a link on the page that is currently flagged as predatory, the content is being placed at risk, since an editor with a stronger position on predatory resources could easily come along and rip out the link and all of the associated material. My suggestion was simply to avoid this risk by inserting a less onerous link, and there is indeed a research gate link that does just that - it also, incidentally, has a doi that then links back to IntechOpen for anyone interested in following the trail of breadcrumbs. In fact, I've gone ahead and made that switch, as I think having a more benign link will be better for the stability of the encyclopedic entry in the long run, though you can revert it if you feel strongly about the issue. As for the other material, I mainly provided feedback just for your information, but as you say, it's largely by and by. I prefer the temptation theme and ALT0 overall, since ALT1 blends two factoids and arguably brushes over the more theologically significant one. For ALT0, however, I wonder if it could be fleshed out a little more, for instance by mentioning the association with a specific cave, and also possibly inserting "in Christian mythology" since this is the corpus in which the 4th century mentions appear. If you add the latter component, the first part could always be rewritten 'temptation of Jesus' to avoid the double use of 'Christ' - speaking of which, perhaps it is also worth inserting the explicit 'by Satan' note about the temptation from ALT1, to aid the uninitiated in the ins and outs of the gospels. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If there aren't any problems with the hooks or articles, great, but you still need to sign on a particular one and use the subby template so people know the review is over and it's ready for the front page. —  Llywelyn II   08:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @LlywelynII: I raised some questions/made some suggestions pertaining to ALT0 - I was just awaiting a response/confirmation that you saw the feedback. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But none of those questions/suggestions had anything to do with its eligibility. There are 5 other options if you still don't like it. — Llywelyn II   11:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @LlywelynII: I think the angle in ALT0 and ALT1 is correct; I just wondered if we couldn't have the best of both. I'm confused as to why your seem unwilling to even engage with my suggestions, even just to dismiss them. You said in your first comment that you appreciate people not just going through the motions, which I took as a sign of encouragement that you would be interested in some constructive feedback from a third party. However, if just going through the motions is what you would now prefer, I can do that too. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Assessment: