User:Whiteguru/English Standard Version

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

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 09:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Starts2nd Opinion. Instructions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment



Observations

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Infobox is has a number of useful elements. Inclusion of reading level is a plus. I am nonplussed with the link to UBS. May we have an explanation?
 * Lede is strong and robust and captures the essence of Crossways in producing this version.
 * Right after there is the mention of Grudem. This is a bit abrupt as a reader does not know who Grudem is?


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Does there need to be a section on Translation Oversight Committee ?? Consider


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Strauss certainly hit the translation crew with a trout. Mounce's reply is excellent and is a very good/totally relevant citation include (as it explains translation philosophies).
 *  Mounce describes various points regarding his view of the need for both formal and functional translations. is a concise summary.
 * Post-publication → would 'Reception' be a better heading?
 * 'the best of the best' of the KJV tradition."
 * Inclusion of Reference 30 is excellent.


 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Interesting list of editors there, a couple of clerks in there as well!!! VistaSunset, you have certainly done the hard yards.
 * 326 editors, 99 page watchers, top editor is VistaSunset with 281 edits. Average of 312 page views per day.


 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The photo is described as a geometric shape, this is not true.It's a photo of a book. I need to look at the policy on taking photos of books and using them in articles. I have run into an issue with this before as a GA Reviewer; If I recall aright, the photographer has to declare the purpose of the photograph, and then release it with a CC-by-SA creative commons licence.
 * OK, I found what I was looking for. See below.
 * Would it not be better to grab an image from Crossway and use the standard non-free declaration?
 * And list the image in
 * And list the image in


 * 1) Overall:
 * This article is well scribed, and as discretion is the better part of valour, leaving the bulk of debate on gender-neutral language to the earlier confabulation by the Greek translators is a good decision.
 * I have raised some issues above, open to discussion there.
 * When we resolve these minor issues, this will be a Good Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)