Talk:Keturah/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 23:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this one. It looks OK, but it's a little short, no? Just letting you know that I might have some comments on where to elaborate a bit. Then again, I might not. BenLinus 1214^talk 23:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

For the wife/concubine citations, what version is this? What does it say in other versions? Also, you really need a wife/concubine etymology and translation section. This will help in making the article more comprehensive.
At the end of the first paragraph, why is there an external link to Genesis 25:1-6 and a citation to Genesis 25:1-4?
How is the "origins" section appropriately titled? It's basically just appearances in various religious texts. Please elaborate on Keturah's various appearances instead of just hiding them in the references. In fact, I find the quotes inside of references a bit of a bizarre practice. Why not transfer them into readable prose or quote them instead of making your reader search for elaboration?
In the "descendants" section, please transfer the hidden quotes into readable prose or in-text quotes. Also, the John Gill and Bahá'í Faith things should also be expanded.
Is there any more commentary on Keturah than just whether or not she is the same person as Hagar?

@Richwales: My main problem with this article is that it needs a lot of expansion in order to address the main aspects of the topic. If you need more research time, just tell me and I will fail it for now and you can renominate in the future. For now, I am putting it on hold. BenLinus 1214^talk 00:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd like to work on the article for a few days and see if I can improve it to your satisfaction. As for length, there just doesn't seem to be a huge amount of material about Keturah; she is mentioned in only two places in the Bible, and the rabbinic commentaries all seem to have dwelt on the question of whether she was or was not same person as Hagar — and if she was Hagar, on the significance of her having repented of her unspecified transgressions and having remained celibate until returning to Abraham. But I'll try to flesh out the text with some more detail. I'll contact you in the next couple of days. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work on the article. Answers to your points above:

I've changed the Biblical citations to use English translations from the 1917 Jewish Publication Society of America version. I also added a new section ("Relationship of Keturah to Abraham"), in which I give the Hebrew words translated as "wife" and "concubine", along with cites to these words in Strong's Concordance.

The stuff at the end of the first paragraph was another editor's well-intentioned but superfluous recent addition, which I have removed.

I've renamed the "Origins" section to "Sources of information". I also listed several Jewish commentaries which discuss Keturah (and which are discussed at greater length in the "Keturah and Hagar" section).

I removed most of the quoted texts from the citations. I've learned from past experiences to include such quotes as a rule, to forestall controversy, but I'll concede in this case that most of them were not truly essential, and/or that the material in question could be successfully incorporated into the article body.

In the "Descendants" section, I added the grandsons' names to the article body (and removed them from quotes in citations). I moved some material from the John Gill (via Olaudah Equiano) and John Able citation quotes and worked this into the body of the article; I'm really not sure how much more can be added here.

As I said a bit earlier, there really doesn't seem to be very much about Keturah, and the Keturah-vs.-Hagar controversy dominates the commentaries on the two Biblical passages that mention Keturah.

I'm going to bed now. Let me know what you think about the article now, and then I can work on it some more. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Richwales: Actually, I like it a lot more now. It's basically as comprehensive as it can be at this point. You can certainly work on it some more if you would like, but I feel quite comfortable passing now, as I believe that it meets the criteria, despite its length. For an article on a very minor Biblical person, it's very good. Neutrality checks out, citations are appropriate, no OR, well-written, etc. Pass. :) BenLinus 1214^talk 16:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: