Talk:Knesset Eliyahoo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 20:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers to both "Bombay" and "Mumbai". Shouldn't this be standardised? (Particuarly, should "Mumbai" be being used in the Background section given the timeframe being discussed? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, wherever releavnt I have changed it to Bombay and mentioning "Mumbai" as the present name.
"It is also said..." By whom? What is the historicity of this statement? If this is a part of Jewish folklore in the region then that needs to be specified. Avoid WP:Weasel words. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is from the New York Times interview with Harry D. Wall

"the Jews residing in Mumbai had come as representatives of King Solomon". I'm no expert in Jewish history but this strikes me as a problematic statement. Next to nothing is known of King Solomon, so how do we know that the first Jews residing in Mumbai were his representatives? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This book reference [1], which I have added now states, "The origin of Jews remain uncertain, but according some accounts they may have come as emissaries from the court of King Solomon (950 BC)." However, in view of your opinion I have deleted reference to King Solomon.
  - The Birnbaum link in the text doesn't seem to be working, and also we need page numbers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry about the ref. I have refixed it with page numbers I hope you are able to open it now.

File:Brockhaus and Efron Jewish Encyclopedia 033-7.jpg - this image is problematic. It was clearly taken in (British occupied) India but has a Russian PD tag; there's something wrong here. I'd scrap the image unless you can provide a firmer rationale for its use. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now deleted the image.

Right now I see this as a borderline case I'm afraid. Generally I'm happy that it meets most of the GA criteria, but the use of sourcing is still a major concern for me. Some of the statements being made feel a little like folklore that is being presented as historical fact. Clearly, free web sources have been consulted but these are not ideal WP:Reliable sources; do we not have any academic texts discussing Mumbai's Jewish history or its architectural history that could be used? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Midnightblueowl I have now supplemented the text at several places with a book reference. I hope it meets your objections.Nvvchar. 06:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for such a speedy response. I've raised a few more issues, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Midnightblueowl. Yes, my mistake. I have refixed the ref with page numbers now. Pl see.Nvvchar. 11:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think that the article is now of a sufficient standard to pass GAN criteria. I still think that it would be great to use better quality sourcing, where possible, that shouldn't stop it from becoming a GA at this stage. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl Thanks for promoting the article to GA status. I will try to find better book sources. As I do not automatically get bot messages of GA approval on my talk page, I request you to leave such a message of approval on my talk page. Thanks again.Nvvchar. 03:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]