Wikipedia:Peer review/Jew/archive1

Jew

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because its a well-sourced and well-documented article, its clear and good to read and well-lengthed. In definitive, its a great article and very close to The perfect article.

Thanks,  Fixman ( Praise me ) 05:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review Phil Burnstein (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Sorry for the delay but there's a lot of holidays now.

1. There's probably nothing you can do about the template, but Emma Lazarus being the fourth most prominent Jew in history?

2. The words `people' and `group' surrounding the word `ethnoreligious' should not be bracketed, their meaning has nothing to do with the topic Jew.

3. Same as above for the phrases `political economy' and `national homeland' preceding the phrase `land of Israel'

4. Something to think about. According to the `ethnoreligious' article you can't separate the concepts `Jew' and `Judaism', yet this is exactly what you are trying to do! Actually, as I think about it, one article on Jews, Jewish, Judaism, etc. would be too long.

5. "'included' and `have been `absorbed'" seems to be saying the same concept twice.

6. In footnote 10, who or what is Johnson? I see no references to him or her or it.

7. The last sentence in the first paragraph probably needs a footnote or two.

8. In the first sentence of paragraph two, it is too easy to read the semicolon as a comma. Put in a transition word such as `comprising', or `consisting of' or something.

9. In the last sentence of paragraph two, you have `secular' and `political' underlined. I don't think that `secular' needs to be underlined as a hyperlink, and the hyperlink from `political' is, at best, misleading. I don't think misleading the reader is fair. I would put the words `law of return' explicitly into the sentence. The same applies to the `who is a Jew' link in the proceeding sentence.

10. In the next paragraph, do you think anyone will click on the word `biblical'?

11. I have a difference of opinion with regards to the Judges. I see them only as local liberators, and that autonomy didn't begin until King Saul. But I may be wrong.

12. In the next section, I think the link `Khorastan' should link to `Greater Khorastan' instead of a disambiguation page. Hmmm, perhaps it shouldn't be `Greater Khorastan'. Please check this out.

13. I think the number of citations is getting smaller on a per paragraph basis.

14. Instead of `Emancipating', shouldn't it be `Emancipated'? Furthermore, I read the sentence as saying that Germany and Poland were freed, not their Jewish population. Anyway, what's wrong with using the word `Haskala?

15. Again, as in section 9 and 10 above, I don't think anyone will be clicking on United States, Australia, or the U.K.

16. Under `Who is a Jew' I think your cites of nation.. are appropriate. They are relevant to the article and they afford the opportunity to be compared to each other within the scope of Judaism.

17. Why didn't you bracket `matrilineal descent'?

18. Under ethnic divisions paragraph 2, you say that in medieval Hebrew Ashkenaz means Germany. In the gemara in Sanhedrin chapter chelek, it refers to the country "Germamia shel edom" (Germany in Europe), where Rashi explains that Germamia means Ashkenaz. That would be 450-500 CE. Whether it was used before that, I don't know. I do know that it was referred to long before the middle ages

19. In the paragraph before the section header `DNA and Jewish Interrelationship' sentence 2 is partially false (all countries are previously without Jewish communities) and I think sentence 3 contradicts it.

20. A. Try `genetic studies of DNA' to stop avoiding the subject, and 20. B. Why is the link relevant to the concept `Jew'.

21. You are back to a better density of citations. Good.

22. In this DNA section, your phenomena alternately proves the folklore that conversion affects a persons DNA, i.e. a convert literally becomes a son of Abraham.

23. Note 38 under Ukraine is literally correct. I would try to find another source on purely aesthetic reasons, although I wouldn't put a lot of work into it.

24. Note 52. I finely found out who Goldstien, Johnson, etc. are. They are sources in the reference section. I don't know what wiki protocols apply here. BTW, Goldstein is spelled wrong either here or in the reference section.

25. Section Diaspora. Paragraph 2. Why aren't Canada and Argentina marked as links?

26. Are you sure that the `Islamic Republic of Iran' is not an Arab nation. if it is, it needs to be further from `Arab nation' to avoid confusion. If it is not, it doesn't belong in a paragraph beginning `The Arab countries of..'.

27. I think this entire section from `History of the Jews' thru `Israel' should be spun off into its own article. Whether this new article be independent or merged with `Jewish History' is a matter for further discussion. I will say that this section is very well written.

28. The illustration `Jewish prayer at the Western Wall' is in the wrong place.

29. I wish the end of the section on the holocaust was a little more horrific.

30. The rest of the article is fine.

31. Try submitting this article for review to someone who is not Jewish after you change it. (sic).

Respectfully submitted, Phil_burnstein Phil Burnstein (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)