Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ThaddeusB ( talk · contribs) 20:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Initial comments

At first glance, the article appears to be largely in-line with the GA criteria. However, a couple of significant issues jump out:

• The lead is way too short to adequately summarize the body of the article
  • Elongated the lead, seems sufficient to me but you are the reviewer! 72.184.164.159 ( talk) 01:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• A few paragraphs are completely unreferenced (for example the art section)
  • Added many refs. 72.184.164.159 ( talk) 01:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Formatting of Bible/Qur'an references is inconsistent - such are parenthetical only, others parenthetical+footnote, others still formatted as external links. One format needs to be chosen and used throughout. See also Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible where discussion is currently underway as how to best cite the bible.
  • Am working on it, a list of references that need reformatting would be helpful though. 72.184.164.159 ( talk) 01:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    • I can't tell you precisely which ones are variant, because I don't know what format you want to use. Parenthetical "Blah blah (Exodus 4:14)" is fine; Parenthetical+footnote "Blah blah (Exodus 4:14) ^[1]" is OK, but redundant in my opinion; Just footnotes "Blah blah ^[2]" is also fine. The important thing for this review is to pick one and stick to it (although as mentioned, there is current discussion attempting to establish a consensus as how to bets handle it. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 01:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I will start the conversion to parenthetical format. 72.184.164.159 ( talk) 04:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply
        • The format has been entirely changed, please just check it over and tell me if it seems uniform to you. 72.184.164.159 ( talk) 01:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I am putting the article on hold for now. Once an attempt to address the above issues has been made, I will conduct a more formal review. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Both the genetics section and the art history section are problematic. The genetics section isn't a summary of the main article, and the first sentence, "Recently, the tradition that Kohanim (the Jewish priesthood) are actually descended from a single patriarch, Aaron, was found to be apparently consistent with genetic testing" is original research - Aaron isn't mentioned in the source, nor is the word 'single' or 'patriarch'. The art history section has phrases such as 'highly probable' and 'quite surprisingly' which also appear to be original research. I may have dealt with these by the time you read this. Dougweller ( talk) 09:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, we now have a significant problem with there being almost no non-religious material. It was already rather light (and I was going to mention it after the quick observations were addressed), but now its a major problem. Compare to Moses (which is not a GA, but is close), to see the kind of information that is lacking here... (And the Y-chromosome thing should be covered, albeit in a more neutral way.)

Also the Christian tradition is both light on content and completely unsourced. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 01:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Is now referenced, I am requesting that more formal review you talked about. Great job and thanks so far! 72.184.164.159 ( talk) 01:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Two people, one of them me, have reverted you. Someone's webpage and an article by Herbert W. Armstrong are not reliable sources. Dougweller ( talk) 08:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply

New, reputable, reliable sources have been placed. 72.184.164.159 ( talk) 20:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I can't see how the website of The Christ's Assembly is a reliable source. Dougweller ( talk) 13:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Although I don't necessarily support its specific beliefs, it is a reputable enough source. Do you disagree? 72.184.164.159 ( talk) 18:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Are we ready for the formal review now? 72.184.164.159 ( talk) 17:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply

ThaddeusB, 72.184.164.159 was apparently banned nominator Oakley77—who was completely banned from participating in the good article process in any way, shape, or form—using this IP to get around the ban: please see WT:GAN#Oakley77's sock's nominations for discussion here and a pointer to the sockpuppet discussion. I've also noticed that a number of the edits made by 72.184.164.159 to the Aaron article have been questioned (as above) if not outright reversed. It is probably most appropriate to close this review without listing the article. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Closing as "not listed". Article has some significant issues, as noted from the start, which have not been sufficiently addressed and the nominator is apparently banned from the process -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply