Wikipedia:Peer review/Gospel of the Ebionites/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Gospel of the Ebionites[edit]

Previous peer review
(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The purpose of this peer review is to prepare the article for FAC. Reviewers with experience in the FAC process are particularly encouraged to contribute. Please help to make this into a first-class article. Thanks, Ignocrates (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Tim riley
  • General
    • Italicisation: you sometimes italicise "Gospel of the Xxxxxx" and sometimes don't. I think it reads more smoothly without italics, but whichever you prefer, you should be consistent.
  • Lead
    • image caption: you use the English possessive form Salamis's here, but the American form Epiphanius' elsewhere
    • "during the time of the Early Church, however the identity"– I think you should either change the comma to a semicolon or change "however" to "but".
  • Background – another "however" masquerading as a conjunction, in the first sentence of the second para
    • Block quotations – I think you have the whole of the second quotation in opening and closing inverted commas. The Manual of Style specifies not doing so (and you haven't for the first of the two.)
    • Second quotation: query spellings Tiberias and Isariot.
    • Block quotations– "Moreover they deny…" and the one below it. See comment above.
    • "he would not eat meat on Passover"– "during" seems the usual preposition with "Passover"
  • Relationship to other texts
    • In the first para Jerome appears out of the blue. I think a wikilink or a few words of introduction would be helpful.
  • Inferences about the Ebionites
    • "syncretistic"– I say! A link to syncretism would be helpful to most of us here.
  • Notes
    • Format: when citing others' prose you generally follow the pattern Author, p. xx spaced en-dash, which looks good. But you haven't been consistent. See Notes 1, 10, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, 42–44,
    • Note 4 – does the source really have both possessive forms Epiphaneus' and Epiphaneus's in one sentence?
    • Note 41– opening quotes missing

That's all that I spotted. I hope these few points are useful. To this layman's eye the article seems impressively scholarly, and just the sort of standard Wikipedia should be aiming at. Happily, the scholarship has not impeded readability. Please let me know when you put the article up for FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I need to ask someone with extensive knowledge of the category about the proper use of italics in the names of apocryphal gospels. My understanding is that the names of apocryphal gospels are always italicized, while the names of the four canonical gospels are never italicized. However, is that still true for names with wiki-links and names within footnotes? I will ask. We also need to decide on the proper use of caps for the word "gospel" when referring to an apocryphal gospel. When is it a "Gospel" and when is it a "gospel"? The usage we apply here should be uniformly applied across the category. Again, I will ask. All other suggested fixes have been incorporated. Ignocrates (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Here is what the WP:Manual of Style/Titles#Scripture has to say about the use of italics: "Scriptures of large, well-known religions should not normally be italicized", whereas "Many relatively obscure sacred texts are also generally italicized, particularly if the work is not likely to be well-known to the Wikipedia reader,...". This is the style guideline currently being used on the article. Ignocrates (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I resolved the consistency issue by adding italics to the names of all the J-C gospels in the main text whether they are wiki-linked or not, except the first use of Gospel of the Ebionites in bold. I left the notes as is because the quotations reproduce what the sources actually say; some use no quotation marks, some single quotation marks, some double quotation marks. Ignocrates (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I believe that addresses all the points raised so far. Ignocrates (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)