Wikipedia:Peer review/Gospel of the Hebrews/archive1

Gospel of the Hebrews
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare it for WP:GAN. Please leave suggestions for further improvements to the article to bring it up to GAN quality.

Thank you, Ignocrates (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Not by any means a full review, but a few points for consideration:
 * Lead


 * Why is "Hebrew Gospel" italicised on first mention but not thereafter?
 * Content


 * It is a little confusing to read: "There is general agreement about six quotations cited in the widely used critical edition of Philipp Vielhauer, translated by George Ogg..." and then find a list of what looks like 10 quotations (1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8a, 8b)
 * Can you date the translation by George Ogg, which might explain why the translations appear to be in "King James" biblical English
 * It would also be useful to the reader to understand, without having to resort to numerous links, the chronology of the authorities mentioned; they were not all contemporaneous.
 * The word "pericope" is too obscure to use without explanation in a general encyclopedia.
 * Christology


 * Again, I'm not sure that general readers will know the meaning of this heading
 * Be consistent in capitalisation ("Gospel" or "gospel")
 * I see a reference to Dan 14.36. Can you explain? The Book of Daniel has only 12 chapters. And why are "stories" of Habbakuk being cited to Daniel anyway?
 * I found the second paragraph of this section very hard to follow, and I think many readers will have the same problem.
 * Reception


 * What does "exegetical" mean?
 * Nomenclature: "Hebrew gospel" (small g)
 * "Following the closing of the canon, the gospel is mentioned in a homily "On the Virgin Mary..." I think you mean "subsequent to" rather than "following", which suggests that the closing of the canon caused the mention.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all your comments Brian! Ignocrates (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Edgepedia Comments: Read it through, I have some comments:
 * Lead
 * The lead should be a accessible summary of the lead. Because of this you need very few references in the lead, as the points should all be referenced in the article. There unique references (e.g. 3, 6) in the lead – are these points made in the article?
 * Jerome and Church Fathers are linked twice in the lead. Clement, Origen and Didymus the Blind are linked in the lead and not in the body. User:Ucucha/duplinks.js is a useful tool.
 * second century & 4th century – can these be consistent?
 * Is there another way of saying closing of the New Testament canon to explain this better?
 * The last sentence of the lead and article could be swapped. You can link in both places. You don't need two independent references.


 * Content
 * The gospel must have also contained sayings of Jesus Why?
 * I agree with Brianboulton about pericope. Yes, I have popups switched on and can hover and get such definitions, but these articles can be printed; IPs will not have popups.
 * pericope known to modern scholars as the Pericope Adulterae Surely this can be rephrased (how about the account in John's gospel of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery) ?
 * sinful woman pericope - although clear from context isn't sinful woman ambiguous? adulterous?

Edgepedia (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all these helpful comments! I will change "pericope" --> "story" right away, sorry about that. The point about the "sinful woman" variant of this story is that "adultery" is never mentioned. The wording of the "story" is significantly different, and more primitive, than the version found in G.John. Ignocrates (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)