Wikipedia:Peer review/Comma Johanneum/archive1

Comma Johanneum[edit]

The story of a single fragment of the New Testament, one little disputed phrase among many. This particular sordid tale begins with the first person in Christian history to be executed for heresy, then continues with Jerome, Erasmus, Isaac Newton and John Locke, touching upon publishers' greed and a pope who just might've been murdered by Fascists. It's hard to tell for sure, but I think the sources I cited come from Catholics, Protestants and secular humanists alike, so the POV is probably pretty neutral. Still, this is the kind of topic which treads upon sensitive toes (if anything in the article looks bizarrely inconsistent and contradictory, see the Talk page for potentially relevant remarks).

I know the article needs more on the King-James-Only Movement, at least a paragraph or so. Is there anything else?

Best wishes, Anville 16:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There a few places that need citations, I mention a couple below. I did some copyediting - here's such parts that could be a little better:

If Cyprian had been aware of the Comma, he would likely have quoted it directly - Without a citation this is original research.
The first work to use the Comma Johanneum as an actual part of the Epistle's text appears to be - Does it appear to you, or is a reputable source claiming it?
''(A Spanish theologian... - This parenthetical sentence currently feels like it's been forcibly shoved into the paragraph.
The central figure in the sixteenth-century history... - This sentence setting up Erasmus is the only sentence of the paragraph. The next paragraph doesn't mention Erasmus at all, leaving the reader to wonder where he went.
("prœcipitatum fuit verius quam editum") - Does having this quote help the reader beyond the English translation provided?
All modern major Christian denominations are Trinitarian, with their beliefs refelected in three ancient creeds - Needs a citation.
The end feels a little weak.

I'll say this though, it's refreshing to see an article with only public domain images. Pagra shtak 02:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and your edits. Some of your points, including the weakness of the ending, were things I had already hoped to address (had I world enough and time...). I think a couple others are due to poor footnote placement, and I will get to work fixing such issues. Again, many thanks. Anville 11:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]