Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bible code

Bible code

 * Article is no longer a featured article.

These concerns were have been on its talk page for 3 days with no response whatsoever I have some major problems with this article, especialy it being a FA: In sevral places the prose doesn't flow well. In ohter places the text doesn't make sense, like here:

"Additionally, since the English translation (of which there are hundreds of versions to choose) is not the original text of the Bible, this would require one to believe in the design of the English language or translation—either through the influence of an omniscient entity, or through careful construction"

Now, what is that supposed to mean. The bible code is in Hebrew, it's not meant to be translated. The Enlgish langaugae wasn't designed to be compatible with ancient Hebrew. It doesn't work traslated. This sentence among others makes no sense.

Also, this article has one picture, just one; And the pic shows the bible code on a traslation. The part of the definition of the code it is in Hebrew. The picture itself is inaccurate. The "overview" section should be the intro. For some reasons this article has an intro, then an overview. This article has way too many redlinks, unorganized refs, and just looks bad visualy. Also, there are no inline citations. Above all, this article has a major lack of information. It mentions no predicted events and Names no supporters or opposers. It doesn't explain the programing used in the code. It also doesn't explain the spiritual views on it. This article is terrible. Tobyk777 04:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Your criticisms of the text don't flow particularly well, either; would you care to point out awkward sections in the article? The context of the quote is within an explanation as to why English is not used for Bible code. (I.e., aside from the fact that for religious reasons Jewish scholars prefer to use the Torah, since the English translation etc.,) The sentence makes perfect sense to me. Pictures are not a requirement for FAs. The requirement says that an FA "has images where appropriate," and that pics are not a prerequisite. Perhaps you could suggest some other images which would be appropriate? The lead is too short, but I don't think that the overview is entirely useless, more incorrectly titled. It's not an overview of the article, it's an overview of the technique. If the title of the section was fixed accordingly, that problem would cease to exist. Red links are easily fixed. Either start stubs on the people mentioned or remove the links altogether. This alone shouldn't be sufficient reason for demotion. FA guidelines are silent on the topic of redlinks; on the WP:FAC page, articles with redlinks are passed regularly. I don't see how it looks bad visually. At all. Furthermore, this article does indeed name supporters and opponents. Under the history section, the article lists at least seven supporters, and under the "Criticisms section," at least six prominent critics are mentioned and their criticisms explained. The programming of the code is mentioned in the "Overview" section. Your biggest concern, in my mind, is the "no inline citations." WP:WIAFA does now require inline citations, and this is a bit of a sticking point on this page. So let's all be bold and try to add some inline cites, a few paragraphs to the lead, and retitle the "Overview" section, and we'll be in business! There's nothing wrong with this article that a bit of hard work can't fix. The Disco King 18:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove per nom. - Mailer Diablo 09:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove. Not comprehensive, no inline citations, poor prose. --Danaman5 05:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Response to your criticisms - First off, three days is not very long. Don't jump the gun on these nominations; a lot of people don't have time to check Wikipedia every day.
 * Strong keep. Invalid criticisms. Titwatcher 23:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that it does name supporters and opponets. However, I feel it doesn't go into nearly enough detail on their reasons.  You are right in that it does talk about the programing, but once again, in far too minor of detail.  It doesn't touch on the coputer programing used, how it works, (or doesn't), or how it was written.  If its an overview of the code.  That's what the section should be called.  Not just "Overview".  There are many instances where the prose here doesn't make sense, similarly to the one I already mentioned.  Also, to me, this article looks horrible visualy.  Tobyk777 03:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)