Talk:Wicked Priest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Wicked Priest has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on August 29, 2007.
August 31, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
 WikiProject Religious texts
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Wicked Priest is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] GA nomination

Hello. You'll be glad to know that this article does not meet any of the "quick fail" criteria. I'll review the article thoroughly and see if it can be promoted to GA status, if it may not be promoted, or if I will need to put it "on hold" if there's any problems. As a preliminary suggestion, please include the ISBN for the books used as references. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 21:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added ISBNs or ASINs where available. Savidan 21:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Some observations: "More recently, some scholars have argued that the sobriquet does not refer to only one individual, most notably the "Groningen Hypothesis" advanced by García Martinez and van der Woude, which argues for a series of six Wicked Priests." This needs a reference, and perhaps needs to be removed, per WP:WEASEL (it includes phrases such as "some say..."). Also, free images should be moved to the Wikimedia Commons. Finally, per WP:CITE#Footnotes_come_after_punctuation, references should go at the end of sentences, after the punctuation marks. --Boricuaeddie 22:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
There are references for this in the appropriate section. There are indeed multiple scholars who say this, and this is a situation where it would be undesirable to simply list their names because the view is held by multiple people, and it isn't so novel that their names would normally be listed individually, as would GM and vdW. When there is an easily identifiable section that the lead is summarizing, there do not need to be references in the lead. I don't have a commons account, nor is this the only article that these images are used in so I don't see how that affects this article. I'll go through and check the location of the references, but I think that the ones that I have no at the end of the sentence are there for a very good reason, i.e. because part of a sentence is cited to one source and another part of it to another source. Jumbling them all together at the end of the sentence would not be an improvement. Savidan 02:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
For example, when a reference is being used to list the examples of the three different types of references (cultic non-observence, violence against TR, and punishment) moving all of those to the end of the sentence would be an obvious disimprovement. Or, when the article says that Cross, Milik, and Vermes advance the this theory, the references after their names are obviously better because its associated with the author rather than having to fish through four references at the end of the sentence to follow up on an individual claim. I think we need to use common sense here. Or to put it in the language of acronyms, WP:IAR. Savidan 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look at it, the policy that you are quoting says, "Some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence." Savidan 02:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. I still think the "some say..." thing should be removed, even if it is true. The only thing left is for me to read the article in detail, and I'll pass/fail it :-) --Boricuaeddie 22:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You're taking objection to all collective adjectives just because they could be used to slip in original research? Do you have any suggestion for how to reword this better? Savidan 22:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Complete review:

  1. It is well written. In this respect:
    (a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct;
    (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
    (a) provides references to sources used;
    (b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles;
    (c) contains no original research.
  3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
    (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;
    (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details
  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.[1] In this respect:
    (a) the images are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status;

Passed. Please note that this is my first GA nom review, and that I have a belly button. If I have made any mistakes, please yell at me or fix it yourself. Thank you for your contributions, Savidan, and congratulations. --Boricuaeddie 02:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The date includes"

I don't understand the sense of "The consensus date for the founding of Qumran (150-140 BCE) includes five High Priests...." Could it mean that if the "consensus date" were right, those five people should be considered in searching for the identity of the Wicked Priest? D021317c 02:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the half-year response time but its fixed now. Savidan 01:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)