![]() | Matthew, Mark, Luke and John has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Several corrections of errors - a frequently quoted author is "George" not "John", and he does not quote Ady as claimed - having read the actual book. I also chunked all his quotes together in one section, which shows that very little of it has to actual do with this rhyme, but appears to be a change to the Lord's Prayer made by a witch as recorded by someone else - ie Foster instead of Our Father. I'm not sure why this is all in here, but I kept it for now. MaxKen ( talk) 12:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)MaxKen
This article needs some cleanup. There appears to be original research with no verifiability. Some claims don't have cites, and the conclusion is original research. Since this is a popular children's rhyme, many feel different about it, so without proper research, it also violates the neutral point of view. Suggest putting original research in origins section, with citations if they can be found, else it violates neutrality (not everyone agrees), original research (if can't be cited), and verifiability. Also, since this is a children's prayer rhyme tagged for the WikiProject Children's literature, suggest if original research has too much about witchcraft casting with no relationship to actual history of *this* topic, that it be tagged for moving. MaxKen ( talk) 10:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)MaxKen
I'm putting the actual Catholic origin of this rhyme back in. The user's original material purports that a well known children's rhyme is a black paternoster spell, and in support misquoted original source material, even getting the name of their most cited author wrong – they never read it. I'm not going to edit this users material again (author's name made up, material in source quoted isn't there - I looked, original research used and not cited). A quick check online reveals almost *no one* calls this the "black paternoster". I'm putting the Catholic origin of the material back in, as well as the quote from Thomas Ady, which is the only material that seems to mean anything about origins. I was too kind not to simply delete material about black / white patornosters which not only does not have anything to do with *this* kids prayer, but could be viewed as harmful to kids. It's a different topic. If there is formatting errors that is no excuse to delete actual material. Just reformat if it isn't an excuse. If you want to edit your sections, all your material is still there. We can discuss moving it to another article later.
MaxKen (
talk)
01:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)MaxKen
Since Ady isn't in the material of Sinclair, as the quote was untrue, there is no link to use of souces to most of the rest of the article. also a patornoster is a generic term. Fyi - "being a bit puzzled" isn't an authorative manner of writing - you overuse it. I can find a few references to virtually anything, but that is the problem - a few late books on witchcraft doesn't mean this rhyme is "called" that by the millions who actual use it. You should just admit you used original and wrong research, and let go. The whole article is junk because it has no authorative source. When you check the original source you used - which Wikipedia indicates you originally wrote this article, that source does not quote Ady like you claimed and was not written by the person you originally cited. This poem, which is a kids prayer, does not deserve original research turning it into a "spell". MaxKen ( talk) 15:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)MaxKen
"He cites by Ady, but not by name" is called not citing, and is as childish as the rest of this behavior. I'm reverting your recent vandalism, and also putting back the citations to a catholic origin for the rhyme, which is against Wikipedia rules to remove. If you have any other research, you ought to put it in, as I am sure it will interest everyone that I direct to this page in the future - we want to know who is doing things like this - and indicates child abuse. I am sorry if that is your motive, but the best way to get over that if it is is just be truthful about it. MaxKen ( talk) 00:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)MaxKen
i remember from childhood it was "Matthew Mark Luke and John, Hold the horse while I get on." Where does that come from| 86.173.98.24 ( talk) 02:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 22:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 22:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
On first pass, this looks quite strong--well written and sourced, and clearly just about ready for promotion. It's brief, but Google and Google Books searches show that there's not much out there. This appears to cover the available "main aspects" well. Again, thanks for your work on this.
I only have one initial note before moving onto the checklist:
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose is clear and correct. Spotchecks against the Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes show no copyright issues. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
File:Gloag Four corners to my bed.jpg and
File:Grosseteste bishop.jpg appear to need US public domain tags.
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass |
![]() | Matthew, Mark, Luke and John has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Several corrections of errors - a frequently quoted author is "George" not "John", and he does not quote Ady as claimed - having read the actual book. I also chunked all his quotes together in one section, which shows that very little of it has to actual do with this rhyme, but appears to be a change to the Lord's Prayer made by a witch as recorded by someone else - ie Foster instead of Our Father. I'm not sure why this is all in here, but I kept it for now. MaxKen ( talk) 12:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)MaxKen
This article needs some cleanup. There appears to be original research with no verifiability. Some claims don't have cites, and the conclusion is original research. Since this is a popular children's rhyme, many feel different about it, so without proper research, it also violates the neutral point of view. Suggest putting original research in origins section, with citations if they can be found, else it violates neutrality (not everyone agrees), original research (if can't be cited), and verifiability. Also, since this is a children's prayer rhyme tagged for the WikiProject Children's literature, suggest if original research has too much about witchcraft casting with no relationship to actual history of *this* topic, that it be tagged for moving. MaxKen ( talk) 10:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)MaxKen
I'm putting the actual Catholic origin of this rhyme back in. The user's original material purports that a well known children's rhyme is a black paternoster spell, and in support misquoted original source material, even getting the name of their most cited author wrong – they never read it. I'm not going to edit this users material again (author's name made up, material in source quoted isn't there - I looked, original research used and not cited). A quick check online reveals almost *no one* calls this the "black paternoster". I'm putting the Catholic origin of the material back in, as well as the quote from Thomas Ady, which is the only material that seems to mean anything about origins. I was too kind not to simply delete material about black / white patornosters which not only does not have anything to do with *this* kids prayer, but could be viewed as harmful to kids. It's a different topic. If there is formatting errors that is no excuse to delete actual material. Just reformat if it isn't an excuse. If you want to edit your sections, all your material is still there. We can discuss moving it to another article later.
MaxKen (
talk)
01:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)MaxKen
Since Ady isn't in the material of Sinclair, as the quote was untrue, there is no link to use of souces to most of the rest of the article. also a patornoster is a generic term. Fyi - "being a bit puzzled" isn't an authorative manner of writing - you overuse it. I can find a few references to virtually anything, but that is the problem - a few late books on witchcraft doesn't mean this rhyme is "called" that by the millions who actual use it. You should just admit you used original and wrong research, and let go. The whole article is junk because it has no authorative source. When you check the original source you used - which Wikipedia indicates you originally wrote this article, that source does not quote Ady like you claimed and was not written by the person you originally cited. This poem, which is a kids prayer, does not deserve original research turning it into a "spell". MaxKen ( talk) 15:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)MaxKen
"He cites by Ady, but not by name" is called not citing, and is as childish as the rest of this behavior. I'm reverting your recent vandalism, and also putting back the citations to a catholic origin for the rhyme, which is against Wikipedia rules to remove. If you have any other research, you ought to put it in, as I am sure it will interest everyone that I direct to this page in the future - we want to know who is doing things like this - and indicates child abuse. I am sorry if that is your motive, but the best way to get over that if it is is just be truthful about it. MaxKen ( talk) 00:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)MaxKen
i remember from childhood it was "Matthew Mark Luke and John, Hold the horse while I get on." Where does that come from| 86.173.98.24 ( talk) 02:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 22:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 22:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
On first pass, this looks quite strong--well written and sourced, and clearly just about ready for promotion. It's brief, but Google and Google Books searches show that there's not much out there. This appears to cover the available "main aspects" well. Again, thanks for your work on this.
I only have one initial note before moving onto the checklist:
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose is clear and correct. Spotchecks against the Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes show no copyright issues. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
File:Gloag Four corners to my bed.jpg and
File:Grosseteste bishop.jpg appear to need US public domain tags.
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass |