The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot ( talk) 13 December 2020 [1].
This article is about the history, major types, and impact of Biblical criticism. Biblical criticism permanently changed our understanding of the Bible, which in turn, has permanently changed our Western culture. This is an important topic. This article is thorough, makes complex concepts clear and accessible, discusses both pros and cons, strengths and conflicts, and does so better than any other article in any other online source on this topic that I have ever seen. This is, and should be, among Wikipedia's best because of the significance of the topic. It's obscure to the average person, and it shouldn't be. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 02:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Moving all of my section to the talk page of this FAC, as the FAC is now so long and filled with templates that it is causing a problem with the entire page. (A reminder please, not to use templates on this page like smiley faces, as they cause the entire FAC page to reach template transclusion limits, that cuts off other FACs on the page and in archives.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for an article with an amazing scope article, Jen. I'm afraid I'm not at all familiar with academic looks at religious topics, but that may be an advantage for testing how a lay reader may react. I'll skip the lead for now, and can read only in bits at a time. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
resolved --
Gerda Arendt (
talk) 22:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
Lead image
TOC
18th century
Too tired for more. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Next level of replies -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC) And another -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
18th century
first quest
19th century
2nd quest
today's batch -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
20th century
3rd and 4th quest
today's batch is shorter, - I think I get better in understanding ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Legacy
Evangelical
Catholic
Jewish
Changes in Methods
Thank you for the article! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Lead
I like the conclusion! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
Jen, thanks a lot, - I'm ready to support at this point, for enlightening me with enough clarity about a complex subject. I have no time, nor the scientific background, to check the sources and their representation. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
This has been open for five weeks and has only received a limited amount of attention. It is already in urgents, and if it doesn't attract further reviewers soon I shall be considering archiving it. Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Responding to the plea I noticed on AlanM1's talk page. Bible-related topics strike me as one of those areas that probably has a lot more interest from readers than editors, so I share the sentiment that getting this page over the finish line should probably be prioritized over pages in other, more niche areas. I'm relatively new to the FC nomination process, so I regretfully don't have the time or expertise to dive into a full source review, but I'll take a skim over the sources and leave some comments with anything I find. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Resolved comments
|
---|
Non-source comments Take the below with the caveat that I don't have any subject-specific expertise in biblical criticism, so if some of these points just reflect my ignorance, take them as indicative only of that.
{{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Source comments
|
Looking over what I just did, maybe that does count as a source review; I'll leave that to the coordinators as I haven't done a source review before. I was mostly just looking at how they display, not diving into the links to see if they adequately support the article text. Pretty much all the references are scholarly, so I don't really anticipate issues with reliability. Hopefully this will at least make it easier for someone else to complete the review. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Small lingering things
None of these I view as reasons to hold up the nomination (I consider my concerns satisfactorily addressed), but just placing them here given that I've collapsed the above:
Input from other reviewers on these things would be helpful, as Jenhawk and I have already discussed them and gotten as far as we can by ourselves above. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Resolved comments
|
---|
More later. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
MOS:QUOTE allows for non-noted typographical changes, but other types of changes should be indicated. Check throughout. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
|
Pass on source review and spotchecks. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Resolved issues
|
---|
Starting a section for my comments. Jen, I will make minor copyedits as I go through the article; if you disagree with any of them, feel free to revert them. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC) I've skipped the lead, since I think it's worth reading that last, to judge if it's a good summary of the article, and am starting with the "Definition" section.
I'm going to stop there for the moment, since I suspect if I understand this paragraph fully I'll have a lot easier time reading the rest of the article. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
|
Resolved issues
|
---|
That's it for tonight; I'll pick this up in the morning if I have time, otherwise it'll probably be tomorrow night. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 03:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
|
Resolved issues
|
---|
Starting a new section for this. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
More later. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
That's it for the methods section. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC) |
Resolved issues
|
---|
That's all I can spot in this section. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC) |
I waited to read the lead until I'd read the whole article. Some comments:
Biblical criticism was the practice of critical analysis of the Bible that began in the eighteenth century and ended in the twentieth.This surprised me. I don't see anything in the body of the article about biblical criticism having ended, and in fact in the last paragraph of the lead you discuss biblical criticism as a continuing enterprise, albeit in new sub-disciplines.
Resolved issues
|
---|
That's it for the lead. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
|
I'm leaning towards a weak support here. Support, because the material is all here, and I think the structure is right, and the prose is professional. Weak, because I think the article could be made to flow better. There's a lot of reliance on quotes, and on naming individual scholars. In places this is fine -- in the historical section, for example, one expects the story to be dominated by the names of the important scholars. Even there, though, I think the reader would benefit from hearing a single voice narrating the story, with the quotes used to illuminate the tale, rather than to construct it. This is not a fatal flaw, which is why I expect to support once the points above are addressed, but it's an area where I think real improvement is possible. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Support. The last issue I had was addressed. This is a fine article. One minor point which doesn't affect my support: "criteria" is used in a couple of places where I think "criterion" might be better, but I didn't want to fiddle with it myself since I'm not familiar with the material. The only really jarring use is criteria of neutral judgment has been changed
which has a single verb with the plural form, but there are a couple of other places I thought a change might be worth looking at.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library) 23:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
A contravorsal topic if I'd say so. I'm more a MOS type guy thus my comments wouldn't involve that much of grammer. Since it's big and I don't really have that much time to review it in one straight row, I will review it in a couple of parts. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 13:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Lead
Definition
Can you tell me where it is? How do I go about finding overlinks for myself? It's such an easy mistake to make. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 22:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
That's it for now; will come back soon. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 17:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Eighteenth century
That seems redundant to me and perhaps irrelevant to the context. It seems to me that if someone doesn't know what the Jordan is, they won't care either, and it doesn't matter to the sentence or the concept. But if you feel strongly about it I will do it. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Nineteenth century
Will continue later on. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 19:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Twentieth century
The rest will follow soon. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Textual criticism
That's anything from my Sunday. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 17:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
All right I'm back but I'll be doing this much slower than expected. I hope I finish the sections' part (before I can move to the next phases like sources, images, infobox, grammar and issues in general) in the coming week. But I won't promise anything!
Problems of textual criticism
Source criticism
Source criticism of the Old Testament: Wellhausen's hypothesis
Critique of Wellhausen
That's anything for now. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 15:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Source criticism of the New Testament: the synoptic problem
That's anything for now. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 12:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I am archiving this nomination. It has been open for nine weeks and there is little sign of a consensus to promote. The discussion above suggests that its nomination may have been premature. It also suggests that there is a promotable FAC there, with some further, off-FAC, work, and I look forward to seeing it back here in the future; subject to the usual two week wait. Gog the Mild ( talk) 13:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot ( talk) 13 December 2020 [1].
This article is about the history, major types, and impact of Biblical criticism. Biblical criticism permanently changed our understanding of the Bible, which in turn, has permanently changed our Western culture. This is an important topic. This article is thorough, makes complex concepts clear and accessible, discusses both pros and cons, strengths and conflicts, and does so better than any other article in any other online source on this topic that I have ever seen. This is, and should be, among Wikipedia's best because of the significance of the topic. It's obscure to the average person, and it shouldn't be. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 02:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Moving all of my section to the talk page of this FAC, as the FAC is now so long and filled with templates that it is causing a problem with the entire page. (A reminder please, not to use templates on this page like smiley faces, as they cause the entire FAC page to reach template transclusion limits, that cuts off other FACs on the page and in archives.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for an article with an amazing scope article, Jen. I'm afraid I'm not at all familiar with academic looks at religious topics, but that may be an advantage for testing how a lay reader may react. I'll skip the lead for now, and can read only in bits at a time. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
resolved --
Gerda Arendt (
talk) 22:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
Lead image
TOC
18th century
Too tired for more. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Next level of replies -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC) And another -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
18th century
first quest
19th century
2nd quest
today's batch -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
20th century
3rd and 4th quest
today's batch is shorter, - I think I get better in understanding ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Legacy
Evangelical
Catholic
Jewish
Changes in Methods
Thank you for the article! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Lead
I like the conclusion! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
Jen, thanks a lot, - I'm ready to support at this point, for enlightening me with enough clarity about a complex subject. I have no time, nor the scientific background, to check the sources and their representation. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
This has been open for five weeks and has only received a limited amount of attention. It is already in urgents, and if it doesn't attract further reviewers soon I shall be considering archiving it. Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Responding to the plea I noticed on AlanM1's talk page. Bible-related topics strike me as one of those areas that probably has a lot more interest from readers than editors, so I share the sentiment that getting this page over the finish line should probably be prioritized over pages in other, more niche areas. I'm relatively new to the FC nomination process, so I regretfully don't have the time or expertise to dive into a full source review, but I'll take a skim over the sources and leave some comments with anything I find. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Resolved comments
|
---|
Non-source comments Take the below with the caveat that I don't have any subject-specific expertise in biblical criticism, so if some of these points just reflect my ignorance, take them as indicative only of that.
{{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Source comments
|
Looking over what I just did, maybe that does count as a source review; I'll leave that to the coordinators as I haven't done a source review before. I was mostly just looking at how they display, not diving into the links to see if they adequately support the article text. Pretty much all the references are scholarly, so I don't really anticipate issues with reliability. Hopefully this will at least make it easier for someone else to complete the review. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Small lingering things
None of these I view as reasons to hold up the nomination (I consider my concerns satisfactorily addressed), but just placing them here given that I've collapsed the above:
Input from other reviewers on these things would be helpful, as Jenhawk and I have already discussed them and gotten as far as we can by ourselves above. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Resolved comments
|
---|
More later. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
MOS:QUOTE allows for non-noted typographical changes, but other types of changes should be indicated. Check throughout. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
|
Pass on source review and spotchecks. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Resolved issues
|
---|
Starting a section for my comments. Jen, I will make minor copyedits as I go through the article; if you disagree with any of them, feel free to revert them. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC) I've skipped the lead, since I think it's worth reading that last, to judge if it's a good summary of the article, and am starting with the "Definition" section.
I'm going to stop there for the moment, since I suspect if I understand this paragraph fully I'll have a lot easier time reading the rest of the article. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
|
Resolved issues
|
---|
That's it for tonight; I'll pick this up in the morning if I have time, otherwise it'll probably be tomorrow night. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 03:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
|
Resolved issues
|
---|
Starting a new section for this. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
More later. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
That's it for the methods section. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC) |
Resolved issues
|
---|
That's all I can spot in this section. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC) |
I waited to read the lead until I'd read the whole article. Some comments:
Biblical criticism was the practice of critical analysis of the Bible that began in the eighteenth century and ended in the twentieth.This surprised me. I don't see anything in the body of the article about biblical criticism having ended, and in fact in the last paragraph of the lead you discuss biblical criticism as a continuing enterprise, albeit in new sub-disciplines.
Resolved issues
|
---|
That's it for the lead. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
|
I'm leaning towards a weak support here. Support, because the material is all here, and I think the structure is right, and the prose is professional. Weak, because I think the article could be made to flow better. There's a lot of reliance on quotes, and on naming individual scholars. In places this is fine -- in the historical section, for example, one expects the story to be dominated by the names of the important scholars. Even there, though, I think the reader would benefit from hearing a single voice narrating the story, with the quotes used to illuminate the tale, rather than to construct it. This is not a fatal flaw, which is why I expect to support once the points above are addressed, but it's an area where I think real improvement is possible. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Support. The last issue I had was addressed. This is a fine article. One minor point which doesn't affect my support: "criteria" is used in a couple of places where I think "criterion" might be better, but I didn't want to fiddle with it myself since I'm not familiar with the material. The only really jarring use is criteria of neutral judgment has been changed
which has a single verb with the plural form, but there are a couple of other places I thought a change might be worth looking at.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library) 23:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
A contravorsal topic if I'd say so. I'm more a MOS type guy thus my comments wouldn't involve that much of grammer. Since it's big and I don't really have that much time to review it in one straight row, I will review it in a couple of parts. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 13:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Lead
Definition
Can you tell me where it is? How do I go about finding overlinks for myself? It's such an easy mistake to make. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 22:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
That's it for now; will come back soon. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 17:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Eighteenth century
That seems redundant to me and perhaps irrelevant to the context. It seems to me that if someone doesn't know what the Jordan is, they won't care either, and it doesn't matter to the sentence or the concept. But if you feel strongly about it I will do it. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Nineteenth century
Will continue later on. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 19:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Twentieth century
The rest will follow soon. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Textual criticism
That's anything from my Sunday. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 17:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
All right I'm back but I'll be doing this much slower than expected. I hope I finish the sections' part (before I can move to the next phases like sources, images, infobox, grammar and issues in general) in the coming week. But I won't promise anything!
Problems of textual criticism
Source criticism
Source criticism of the Old Testament: Wellhausen's hypothesis
Critique of Wellhausen
That's anything for now. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 15:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Source criticism of the New Testament: the synoptic problem
That's anything for now. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 12:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I am archiving this nomination. It has been open for nine weeks and there is little sign of a consensus to promote. The discussion above suggests that its nomination may have been premature. It also suggests that there is a promotable FAC there, with some further, off-FAC, work, and I look forward to seeing it back here in the future; subject to the usual two week wait. Gog the Mild ( talk) 13:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)