Wikipedia:Peer review/Josephus on Jesus/archive1

Josephus on Jesus[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is very comprehensive, well-written, and well-sourced. I am requesting feedback from the reviewers to prepare the article for submission to WP:FAC. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In view of this talkpage discussion, is this the right time, and are you the right person, to be requesting a peer review for this article?. You appear to be engaged in a fairly hostile current discussion with the article's main editors, and are not a main editor yourself. It would be better if you first resolved your dispute, and then got the agreement of the main editors as to whether the article is ready for review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair question. In all honesty, I stepped into something I didn't expect would happen. The article has not been without controversy because of the nature of the topic. However, my only interest as the nominator is to see a well-written article get its due. I think a good peer review at this time would help to settle any remaining controversies rather than stir them up. Ignocrates (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a peer review requires that someone responds to points raised. I am not going to waste time doing a detailed review, only to find that the main editors ignore it as they didn't want it in the first place. Brianboulton (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is your call of course. However, I'm not going to pull the request for a review. Ignocrates (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria is that there be no ongoing edit wars and that the article is stable (not changing significantly as a result of such edit wars). Looking at the directions at the top of WP:FAC it says in part that Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Articles nominated at FAC by people who are not major contributors and/or where there is an ongoing content dispute have their nominations quickly closed.

Furthermore the Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy states that PR is not for resolving content disputes. The basic idea is that it is pointless to make detailed comments on the article until the content dispute is resolved, as the final version may change significantly. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments

Section headers do not follow WP:HEAD which says that there must be a unique name for each section (I think there are too many headers too)
Watch WP:OVERLINKing
It seems to me that the article could be tightened somewhat by avoiding multiple repetitions of the same arguments in different places.

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Several key points are missing. The 62 (Josephus and Jerome) vs 69 CE (62 (according to Josephus and Jerome) or 69 (Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Early Christian tradition) being this biggest problem. Note that his conflict is noted in Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic, ISBN 978-0801031144 pg 189 and Bauckham The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1: Origins to Constantine by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young 2006 ISBN 0521812399 page 297 but efforts to put these point sintot he article have been repeatedly removed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I agree with Brianboulton's statements. I do not agree with Bruce. But in any case, the other editor who used to be active on the page (Lung salad) is now permanently blocked from Wikipedia, and I have spent more than enough time on this page already. Hence, in view of the comments above, I also see no further point in this review and I think it is best abandoned and concluded. History2007 (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article is, and will remain, a C-class piece of junk. Further evaluations of article content in peer review serve no useful purpose. Ignocrates (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, time to move on. I therefore assume this discussion is over, and someone will close it. History2007 (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]