Talk:Jesus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 14:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC) I'll give this one a go. It might take me a while, as it's a long and very significant article, but I shall get it accomplished over the next few days. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is generally of a good standard, although in certain instances could certainly be improved. For example, in the “Etymology of names” section, it states “based on the Latin Iesus, of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs), itself a hellenization of the Aramaic/Hebrew ישוע (Yēšûă‘) which is a post-Exilic modification of the Hebrew יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yĕhōšuă‘, Joshua) under influence from Aramaic.” This could certainly be clarified, making it easier for the average reader who perhaps does not know what Aramaic or Hebrew are; it doesn't mean dumbing down the content, but rephrasing it in a clearer manner. In other instances, there is punctuation missing, such as the full stop that should be found in “"Yahweh is salvation"[25] The name”. Such issues exist throughout the text, for instance, in the “New Testament” section, a sentence starts with “And Acts 1:1–11 says...”, which is something generally frowned upon in English prose. Avoid statements such as “as discussed below” and “i,e,” or “e.g.”. There are also some instances where the text could be condensed without losing any meaning, such as “On one extreme, some Christian scholars maintain that the gospels are inerrant descriptions of the life of Jesus. On the other extreme, some scholars have concluded that the gospels provide no historical information about Jesus' life.” This could easily be edited down into a single sentence. Generally, this could do with a copy edit for clarity; if requested, I am willing to carry this out.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The last paragraph of the introduction has two consecutive sentences starting with “In Islam...”; generally I think that the introduction could be clarified. For instance, it mentions the New Testament, but doesn't explain the relevance of those texts to Jesus' life. Do we need to include the views of Judaism on Jesus in the introduction ? Is it relevant enough ? Many of the paragraphs are very short, some only a sentence long; perhaps consider connecting some of them together ?
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The text is fully referenced, but a variety of different forms of reference are used; these should all be standardised, ideally in the Harvard system which is already widely employed here. In some instances the references are bunched into a single citation; in others they are kept separate. These should also be standardised (ideally, in my opinion, to the former). "Referring to the theories of non-existence of Jesus, Richard A. Burridge states: "I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."" is not referenced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Generally speaking yes, but the Chronology section seems a bit lengthy; perhaps create a separate page, titled "Chronology of Jesus", into which all the specific data can be assembled, allowing this section to be cut down to a broad summary.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There still seems to be quite a bit of discontent on the talk page, but so long as it doesn't spill onto the article, this article should be suitable for Good Article status.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	In some instances, the images clog up and lengthen the article without really adding anything of value; namely the eight images reflecting the nativity, baptism etc. Sure they show us what later Christians (or at least people living in a Christian society) have thought about Jesus, but what do they really tell the reader about Jesus himself ?
	7. Overall assessment.	The standard of this very important article is generally good, and congratulations are definitely in order, but I've put this temporarily on hold, so that the issues can be discussed, and would also ask for a second reviewer to give this a look over too, because it's such a major issue and I'd be hesitant about making a decision of such Wiki-magnitude by myself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Okay, I'm happy to pass this now. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• 2a - Thanks for reviewing! I've added a citation for the statement from Richard A. Burridge. As for ref format, we use short citations when we need to use multiple pages or page ranges from a work. For works that we only use one page or page range, short citation is not used. Explanatory notes are generally cited using short citations, with a few exceptions. Sometimes, an explanatory note is added as a postscript to a citation. As for the bundling of sources, I agree there should be a consistent method. However, I'm not sure if inconsistency you described should prevent this article from becoming a GA. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the GA criteria requires such consistency.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think you are right on that issue (although I personally think it should be a GA criteria if it isn't!), and it will not affect my decision as to whether to award GA status or not, but it is something that needs to be acted on for the article to proceed on to FA review. On a similar note, I also think there are some serious problems with the sheer length of the article right now. It consists of 189,146 bytes, whereas the article length policy suggests that "> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided". Now, I appreciate that Jesus is a really, really big, major topic, but I still think we could cut this down a bit. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The GA criteria does not specify how many bytes an article should have. However, it does say that the article should stay "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". You mentioned that the Chronology section can be trimmed, which is possible, but difficult. And just to note, a Chronology of Jesus already exists, and it's much longer than what is presented in this article. If you believe there's any other part that contains unnecessary details, please tell us.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually the article length now is 72016 characters of prose. The way to know the length per WP:Length is to install a little Javascrip item (mentioned on the WP:Length page) that gives the exact length for those guidelines. The article used to be much longer (around 90k) and in Feb 2013 it was trimmed back to 67k, and has since grown to 72k. It may be possible to do some minor minor trims here and there in various sections without removing key information, but just rewording, e.g. chronology, without affecting any single section. But as stated on the talk discussion in Feb 2013 major articles such as Abraham Lincoln, JFK are longer than this, but we can probably bring it into the 60-something region again, which is well below the WP:Length 100k limit. And WP:Length does state that the article type does allow for some flexibility based on the subject, as the Lincoln, JFK (or Russia at 95k) indicate. So it is somewhat within the more flexible WP:Length limits in fact. History2007 (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. A lot of the bytes in this article comes from its numerous citations. For articles between 60k and 100k (prose size), WP:SIZERULE says "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• 1a and 1b - I think I've fixed most of the prose issues. For the i.e. and e.g. issue, I've removed most of them except for a few, which I think are used appropriately.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to do 3b in a little while so that the chron will become a more focused. History2007 (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• 3b - The chronology is one section now, as suggested, and the prose size is at 68510 bytes, back in the sixty-something range. History2007 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice job! --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• 6b - For the images, the criteria does not list having too many images as a problem. As long as the article's "images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions", and don't violate copyrights, the use of images in the article is fine.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like History2007 decided to remove the 8 images. That's okay with me.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It was a 50/50 situation in that it could have been argued either way, but would have taken a while to talk about; so I think we should have probably just followed the GAN recommendation. I also changed "governor of Roman Judea" to "Roman governor of Judea" as suggested. History2007 (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm fairly happy to see this appointed to GA, although am waiting for a second reviewer to have a look too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Second opinion by FunkMonk I'll give this article a read soon, and come up with a second opinion. Might take a little while though, since it is a pretty long article. FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Take your time.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Scholars have offered various portraits of the historical Jesus, which at times share a number of overlapping attributes, such as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, etc." Do any non-religious historians actually label Jesus as "Messiah"? If so, why is it only second on the list?

Very good point. It was discussed on talk a while ago, but has not gone in the FAQ yet - will add it there, but probably too long for the intro there. It involves a somewhat subtle discussion on wording, in that "Messiah claimant" would not be agreed to by some scholars who see him as not claiming to be the Messiah, but not objecting to the title when he was called that. Others hold that he neither claimed to be the Messiah, nor was called that when alive, and others hold that he claimed it. In the scholarly literature this is just called the "Messiah portrait" so we need to figure out a suitable wording to say that without saying that he claimed it, or was just called that, or applied only afterwards, etc. Suggestions? History2007 (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

@History2007: I suggest adding a footnote right after "Messiah", explaining what you wrote above.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems good to me, I had no idea that specific issue had been the source of dispute. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I will add that as a footnote, and we should really add that to the FAQ because that issue is now one of the new directions in scholarly research with a couple of books on just on the issue of when the titles Messiah and Son of God came about, if they were claimed, or just consented to, etc. So as that research spreads out questions on that will show up on talk in time. History2007 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you add a source in the footnote? I think this kind of info needs to be sourced.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyond that, if it is there like that really needs to have a mention in the body per WP:LEDE. I will add the source to the body where the portraits are discussed in a few minutes. I think that is the way to do it, then can just say, see the section in the footnote. History2007 (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that footnotes should have sources, but I'm not sure how it is usually done here. I'm not a big fan of footnotes myself, they are rarely read, I think such info should usually be included in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I added it to the article now, and also added a link to the Messianic secret which is yet another theory that says he asked them to keep quiet, etc. Could probably trim the footnote more. History2007 (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Won't hold this back as GA, but there seems to be accuracy problems with this map. Could ideally be sorted out.

I've replaced the inaccurate map with a (hopefully) accurate one made in 1912.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• There is freedom of panorama in Australia, but only for 3D works as far as I know, so there might be a problem for the infobox image, whose author died less than 70 years ago. I'll try to figure it out.

Luckily, Australian artworks go into the public domain if the author died before 1955, so I went ahead and changed the license. FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• All images, apart from those in galleries, have date and author, only the one under "Final entry into Jerusalem" doesn't. Should add it, for consistency.

Author and date added to caption.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice. I just noticed the last supper image left to that image lacks the same info. Such should be added throughout. FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to take this to FA some day, I'm pretty sure the galleries would have to go. They seem a bit decorative as is. But for now, it's ok, but could be good with date and author info in the captions for context.

Done, the galleries are removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Some horizontal images have fixed, small sizes, though there is plenty of room for "full" thumb nail size. Is there a reason for this?

I've set the size for all horizontal images to "thumb" and set all the vertical ones to "upright". I think it's consistent now.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Criticism sections are frowned upon on the Wiki, so perhaps it can be incorporated into other sections? For example, some of it could easily be merged into the section on Jewish views and "other" views.

He already merged that into other views. History2007 (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "adhering to the Christian faith requires a belief that Jesus is the Son of God and the Christ." (under "Christian views") I figure the last part means he 'is the Christ. Now, it could read like he is the son of both God and the Christ. Could be rephrased.

c/e. History2007 (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "comments on the relationship between Judaism and Christians or other sectarians" I don't think "sectarian" can be used as a noun.

Changed sectarians to sects.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Under Ahmadiyya views: "(which is rejected by mainstream Muslims)". It is not even specific that Ahmadiya is a Muslim sect, so it will make little sense to most readers. Perhaps the section should be renamed "Ahmadiya Islamic views" or some such.

Yes, but somewhat complicated. There are in fact two Ahmadiya groups (and I forget the names now) but some of them are more rejected by other Muslims than others. They split into two main groups after Ahmad's death, etc. I will look that up, and we have to see how to word it again. History2007 (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I found it again: they are called the Lahori and the Qadian (and some do not like that term) but in 1984 the Government of Pakistan enacted anti-Ahmadiyya laws which made the Ahmadi a non-Muslim group; so the Lahori changed their name in Pakistan but not elsewhere - source Valentine's book ISBN 1850659168 page 59. The Ahmadi see themselves as an Islamic movement, however. But that is a complicated topic well beyond the scope of this article, and in fact the article on Jesus in Ahmadi Islam itself has multiple tags on it and depending on which of the two groups edited it last may not be relied upon. The Ahmadi have their own three way ongoing struggle with the other Muslims, but this article is probably not the place to detail that. So edited it accordingly to just say they believe it, but not the others. History2007 (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• There seems to be enough info on Jesus in Buddhism to make it a section (much more info than on Ahmadiya). Then the "orphaned" stuff under criticism could be moved to "other views".

There used to be a section on Buddhism, then was trimmed back due to lack of sources, etc. then grew with sources. Probably deserves a section now as you said. The section on Criticism was specifically added based on user comments that there needs to be one because other articles such as Muhammad have that, so this should have a section called that. We can fold that in, but it is likely to regenerate that criticism. History2007 (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but Wikipedia guidelines trump random user concerns. The criticism section on Muhammad is minimal, and would probably be removed during a FAC. I'm wondering whether it was even there during the GA review. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead reorganized the content as you suggested. I doubt this will be controversial.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, looks better now. History2007 (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Under "existence" the following two sentences seem to be almost duplicated info: "However, the question of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure should be distinguished from discussions about the historicity of specific episodes in the gospels, the chronology they present, or theological issues regarding his divinity." and "The historical existence of Jesus as a person is a separate issue from any religious discussions about his divinity, or the theological issues relating to his nature as man or God."

Right. Trimmed it. History2007 (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Jesus was referred to as an Ioudaios on three occasions" though there is a wikilink, could there be a brief explanation of the meaning of this word?

c/e History2007 (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "to those who wanted nothing Jewish about Jesus" doesn't sound very eloquent.

c/e. History2007 (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "also include the reasoning that Jesus was Aryan because Galilee was an Aryan region" what is an "Aryan region", and how was Galilee such?

Trimmed out the Aryan region part. Discussing the reasoning would open a big Pandora's box of WP:Fringe theories, and would run over WP:Due because of the multiple arguments and counter arguments. History2007 (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps show one of the earliest images of Jesus under "Depictions"?

Dura-Europos is pretty early, perhaps earliest. Added it. History2007 (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "the earliest depictions date to the late 2nd or early 3rd century, and survivors are primarily found in the Catacombs of Rome" "survivors" seems an odd choice of words in this context.

c/e History2007 (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• This sentence is way too long: "The Protestant Reformation brought a revival of aniconism in Christianity, though total prohibition was atypical, and Protestant objections to images have tended to reduce since the 16th century, and although large images are generally avoided, few Protestants now object to book illustrations depicting Jesus."

c/e. History2007 (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Everything under "Historical analysis" seems much more important than what precedes it, until "Ancient sources and archeology". Should be moved up after that section, which it logically belongs with ("historicity of Jesus as a person" block). The rest is much less important (race, depictions, relics).

Makes sense, so reshuffled. History2007 (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• The sections on "life and teachings" are a bit heavy, so I'll finish those at a later time. But I think there's enough to work with here for a while. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The suggestions above have all been dealt with now, one way or another. History2007 (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• What is the point of the "Final week: betrayal, arrest, trial, and death" section? All of it is repeated at length below, it seems redundant.

Indeed. I've removed most of it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of it still seems like it belong in "Final entry into Jerusalem", but it is now much better anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph, which discussed cheering crowds after his entry, was out of place. I've moved it down.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "and are a rich source of Christological content." seems a bit loaded. Could it be reworded?

Changed "rich" to "significant".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Jesus age during one of his life events is mentioned (30), are there more of such statements in the Bible? Could be nice to add throughout, if there is.

Actually, that's about it. His age is not mentioned often in the bible. Other than 30, the rest of the mentioned ages concerns his childhood.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Now that the related historicity sections have been moved together, the subheading "Historicity of events" seems redundant/misplaced.

I've removed the "historical analysis" heading, which is essentially the same thing as "historical views"--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's about it from me. When these issues are fixed, I'd support a pass, but the original reviewer is of course supposed to do this. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• All seems good to me now. One last thing, perhaps "Language, race and appearance" should be changed to "Language, ethnicity and appearance". "Ethnicity" encompasses more of the discussed aspects than "race". FunkMonk (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Changed all the "race" in the article to "ethnicity".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk. Your comments were pretty helpful. I fixed one link and added John 8:57 that mentions a vague age range. And from what I can see Trillionaire has made all the other suggested changes now. History2007 (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)