Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesus/archive3

Jesus
(October 2005 Jesus peer review located here: archive 1) (April 2006 Jesus peer review located here: archive 2)

We seem to have reached a relative low point in things to be edited. We've recently instituted a newly re-done section on the teachings section, the only citation needed tag seems to concern the Star of Bethleham and something about Jupiter and Saturn being in conjunction I think, and really, it seems most everything else is referenced. So therefore, I think its high time for yet another peer review, Does anyone think this might nearly be an FA? What about A class? The only disputes really left now are some UFO theory on the talk page right now, and occasionally people edit the wording in the excruciatingly discussed introduction and make people unhappy, but other than that, most of the new content proposels constitute adding in good amounts of material which may or may not really be necessary. But hey, if anyone has suggestions about more material, it can't hurt. Homestarmy 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a references section which could all do with in line use. I also think a point the article needs to make is what Jesus was preaching: love most of all. Wiki-newbie 20:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 20:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I read through the narrative portion which gave me enough issues to not need to go further.
 * References still need work throughout the narative section. Here is a sample paragraph The Gospel of John describes three different passover feasts over the course of Jesus' ministry. This implies that Jesus preached for a period of three years, although some interpretations of the Synoptic Gospels suggest a span of only one year. The focus of his ministry was toward his closest adherents, the Twelve Apostles, though many of his followers were considered disciples. Jesus led what many believe to have been an apocalyptic following. He preached that the end of the current world would come unexpectedly; as such, he called on his followers to be ever alert and faithful.
 * "some interpretations" and "many believe" need to be properly detailed and referenced. This is a commmon problem throughout the narrative portion of the article.
 * Also the Bible is not being cited properly when it is used as a reference. Especially when you are using direct quotes you need to give the exact edition you are quoting.  I also believe you should use the proper citation template whenever you use the Bible as a reference.  However beyond even that, it would be better if you could find a more reliable source as to use as a reference.  Preferably one that examines several older copies of the Greek manuscripts (which it identifies) in order to write a scholarly opinion focused only on the matter Jesus, rather one that examines unknown versions and translates them with the idea of providing a complete holy book in English.  Maybe there is not such a reference, but I would find it surprising.
 * Also I wonder about the scope of what you are trying to do in the narrative. Rather than summarizing the important opinions on various portions Jesus's life (which have daughter articles) and puuting them into the context of why this is important, the article seems to want to account for every discrepency mentioned in the scriptures.  This is a problem throughout the narative portion, but a good example is Many scholars hold that the Gospel of John depicts the crucifixion just before the Passover festival on Friday 14 Nisan, called the Quartodeciman, whereas the synoptic gospels (except for Mark 14:2) describe the Last Supper, immediately before Jesus' arrest, as the Passover meal on Friday 15 Nisan; however, a number of scholars hold that the synoptic account is harmonious with the account in John.  Try to focus on telling an account of Jesus and if people disagree about things explain why they disagre and what that really means.  Avoid making tis portion of the article about the Bible.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  19:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Much of the narrative part has been refactored somewhat recently, though alot of it was re-arranging sentences and choosing different words and whatnot. Homestarmy 03:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick glance shows the same problems I outlined above. I will not waste my time going over an article when the nominator neither responds to my review nor makes significant edits to the article within a week.  I think it unacceptable for people to make nominations for Peer Review when they are not prepared to immediately to significant work to the article.  To many nominations never get more than the semi-automated review and it a shame for people to waste time on unresponsive nominators.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)