Talk:Canonical criticism/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused): 
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- I'm failing this article under Wikipedia:QUOTEFARM. The huge number of quotations make the prose almost impossible to read, it's not a coherent narrative/acount, but instead a series of quotations that are strung together, without anything tying it all together. When you string so many quotes together, it makes the prose flow choppy and difficult to read.
- Another concern is that doesn't cover all the context of the subject. According to this source, the concept is not just defined by Childs, but by Sanders also. HOwever, that's not brought out in the current article. And it appears that the two scholars use the term in different meanings, which also isn't brought out in the current article.
- There also appear to be a number of sources that haven't been consulted for this - see this google scholar search.
- I recognize that this article has been waiting a LONG time for a review, but quite frankly, it's incoherent and doesn't explicate what the subject is to this non-biblical scholar. Perhaps a biblical scholar would be able to fill in the gaps of knowledge, but we're not writing just for specialists, we need to write for non-specialists also, which this article fails to do. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)