Talk:Third Epistle of John

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Third Epistle of John has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
March 18, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Bible (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religious texts (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing this article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Third Epistle of John/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 23:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, I look forward to your comments. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

On first pass, this looks like an excellent piece of work: very well written, well sourced, and covering all obvious major aspects of the epistle. Again, thanks for your hard work on this. I'll compare it to a few other sources to verify comprehensiveness in a minute.

The lead appears to need a little more to properly summarize the article (details below). Two other suggestions, neither of which is relevant to attaining GA status, so feel free to take or leave them:

  • You might combine the single-sentence paragraphs of the "date and location" section to avoid choppiness.
  • Usually the model for a Wikipedia article on a work would be to lead off with the work's content; I don't think the section order you have is especially problematic, though, and I'm not familiar with how our Bible articles are generally structured.

I also made some minor tweaks for linking and style as I went. Please feel free to revert any you disagree with. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, I've put the content section at the beginning of the article and added another paragraph to the lead. I agree that the dates section is choppy but it seems non-trivial to fix so I'm leaving it as is for now. Let me know if there is anything else I should do. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is excellent. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead needs a small bit of expansion--it doesn't appear to summarize the sections on the date and location, canonicity, and manuscripts.
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.
2b. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. I'm not an expert, but comparing to a Google Books sources such as Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, the article appears to cover major aspects.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without 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.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Added US PD tag at Wikicommons.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass