Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star of Bethlehem/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:23, 8 June 2008.

Star of Bethlehem
Nominator ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 07:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nominator does not appear to be in the top 10 (nor on the list of) editors who have contributed to the article. --Moni3 (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see on the talk page of the article any query about nominating for FA. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I'm responsible for most of the writing in this article and it's an unexpected surprise to it nominated. Kauffner (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FAC instructions, pls identify as significant contributor. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
 * I apologize for not informing the significant contributors before hand. That was a mistake on my part, still not entirely used to the FAC process. -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This FAC has broken every rule in the FAC rulebook. Anyways, on to comments:


 * Format references so all include title, url, publisher, and accessdate. For bible passages, I would suggest using cite book and harvnb instead.
 * Lots of MOS issues, such as ""astrologer"[9]) arrived" — see WP:FOOTNOTE
 * "Matthew. [8]" — space
 * for all date ranges, use en dash, per WP:DASH — same goes for all bible passages with dashes, I believe, and for all page ranges, too.
 * "(or 'wise men') " — use double quotes

These are only from a quick sample of the article. Gary King ( talk ) 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think bibleverse is the proper template for citing scripture, since it would be difficult to fill in a cite book template for the bible. And I believe the other issues listed here besides maybe some ndashes still and citing (which I will fill in when I come back from school tonight, if someone doesn't do it before hand) have been corrected. -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Far too many prose issues. I may search for more later. In any case, I won't be able to support unless this is given a full copyedit by a pair of fresh eyes. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 16:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No citation for the alternate names in the lead.
 * Footnotes as Gary said
 * Don't begin section titles with articles.
 * "The magi then went to Bethlehem, found Jesus and his mother, paid him homage, worshipped him, gave gifts, and then returned to their "own country".[3]" - very awkward sentence. Consider splitting up into several sentences.
 * "In modern times, astronomers have proposed various explanations for the star, including a nova, a planet, a comet, an occultation, and a conjunction (massing of planets)." - also awkward. What do they mean "including a nova"? If you mean they thought it could have been a nova, make that explicit.
 * Weasel word - "many". Also, that paragraph is too short; consider merging. In fact, there's many other short paragraphs that hsould be merged.
 * "Some writers have suggested Luke was referring to another event such as the mass oath taking when Augustus was given the title "father of the nation" (3-2 BC)" - vague, weaselly. Make "some" explicit.
 * "The magi may have decided to travel to Jerusalem when they somehow, "conjectured that the man whose appearance had been foretold along with that of the star, had actually come into the world", according to Origen.[22]" - I believe that the comma after the "somehow" is incorrect.

Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think this is a great starting point for this article, but I also think that there is work to be done before it reaches FA.  Here are some examples of issues (this is not a comprehensive list):
 * Per WP:MOSQUOTE, do not use calloutquotes.
 * A lot of the article is cited specifically to the Bible, with no supporting citation to a scholarly work. This is problematic, because it is original research to point to a certain Bible verse and say it means X or is representative of Y concern.
 * The article presents the statements in the Bible as historical facts. This is not an era in history that I have studied heavily, but I would think that there might be historical facts that dispute some of this.  To me, the tone of the article feels a little like sermonizing.
 * There is nothing in the article about the legacy of the star and how it is viewed today (or even throughout history). For example, see Jeanne HAnson's Star of Bethlehem: The History, Mystery, and Beauty of the Christmas Star
 * I would expect there to be more scholarly sources cited in the article. I did a quick search on Google Books and Google scholar and found many references that have not been consulted.  Those that have been consulted seem to be only referencing one or two facts.  It makes me wonder what else was in those sources that has been left out, making the article not as comprehensive.


 * As far as the issue of whether the Bible is history or not, this is addressed specifically the section "historical fiction." As for the other sections, mythology can be analysised for its own sake and on its own terms. Kauffner (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Many WP:MoS breaches and the prose is poor;  some sentences are very difficult to understand:
 * The statement that Herod was "troubled" by what the magi said has told him implies that he was disturbed by their statement that the "king of the Jews" had been born, since that was his own title. Graham Colm Talk 18:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: the "historical fiction" section - I'm pretty sure it should be renamed to "Historiography", which seems to be what the author intended. Raul654 (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Double check that all web site references (including pdfs) give a last access date and publisher
 * Double check that all book references give page numbers and any other bibliographical details, including author, publisher, and ISBN when known.
 * Double check that all website references give a title for the web link, not just a number
 * Link checker tool shows a few dead links.
 * External links is for websites, Further reading is for printed material.
 * When that's all double checked, I'll come back and check the sources for reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.