Talk:Moses in rabbinic literature

Moses in rabbinic literature was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 16, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Bible Mid‑importance

	Bible portal 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.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Judaism High‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles 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.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Failed GA

I have failed this article under WP:GACR criterion 2, because the article is sourced only to itself (Jewish Encyclopedia) and primary sources (Exodus). It would need secondary sources. Also criterion 3b, as the page spends most of its time summarizing what the literature says instead of discussing it. --Alksub 19:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the "failed GA" tenuous, specious, sophomoric. Although citing and perhaps remotely resembling the slimmest of criterions, "sourced only to itself", this commentary is tantamount to criticism without ANY additional foundation OTHER THAN the ALLEGED ABSENCE of secondary sources. The article is definitive throughout, giving broad, comprehensive analytics, as well as prolific and extremely well sourced content. The "fail" grade is petty at best, and absent the provision of secondary sources, pretentious, and utterly unambitious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:802A:812C:2D7A:48DF:F887:8F75 (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]