Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bereishit (parsha)/archive1
Bereishit (parsha) edit
I put this up for a peer review, which has attracted exactly 0 comments. I can only assume therefore, that the article is of a high enough standard that it does not require any further work. So the next step is FA. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 13:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There are no inline citations. Rlevse 15:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- There wouldn't be. All references are included as part of the text. The closest you come to inline citations are the direct links to the relevant parts of Genesis in the summary. I don't think this can be corrected, unless I can find the works of Maimonides online to quote where he says there is one mitzvot. I'll see what I can find. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- I looked and found a list of Maimonides' count of the commandments but felt that the direct link to a copy of the Bible where it can be checked for one's self is sufficent. So basically, this article has no inline citations because it one of the few that doesn't actually need any. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Object. While 'Summary' may not require citations other then those to primary sources, other sections do, particulalry 'In Rabbinic interpretation'.
Also, there is information in lead which is not repeated in main body: remember lead is supposed to be summary, and should not contain unique information.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- In Rabbinic Interpretation is referenced. That's what "(Genesis Rabba 1:4.)" and "(Mishnah Avot 5:1.)" are. The other sections are similar. I have rewritten the stuff in the lead you referred to and [laced it in the main article. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 18:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- The lead is better now, but I am still not happy with the article being referenced solely on primary sources. As it is, the article may or may not be in violation of Wikipedia:No original research - I don't know enough about this subject to be certain. See particularly the Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources. I would suggest that this article should be expanded with secondary sources (like those articles or books) before it is comprehensive enough for a FA.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC}
- I don't think Genesis Rabba and Mishnah Avot are primary sources - they're rabbinical commentaries interpreting and, well, commenting on the parsha. You can see a copy of the Rabba here. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 08:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am not a specialist here, but I still think that the article is based on two few sources with evident POV. It needs to be expanded with academic sources I indicated above.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 02:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think Genesis Rabba and Mishnah Avot are primary sources - they're rabbinical commentaries interpreting and, well, commenting on the parsha. You can see a copy of the Rabba here. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 08:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- The lead is better now, but I am still not happy with the article being referenced solely on primary sources. As it is, the article may or may not be in violation of Wikipedia:No original research - I don't know enough about this subject to be certain. See particularly the Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources. I would suggest that this article should be expanded with secondary sources (like those articles or books) before it is comprehensive enough for a FA.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC}
- Object - Unfortunately, zero peer review comments only means that peer review does not attract enough attention.
- This article is almost entirely a summary of the text. An encyclopedia article should go beyond a mere rehashing of the plot.
The "Commandments" section is a mere sentence.Section merged.- The article needs to be made more accessible to the lay person. Sentences like "The haftarah for the parsha is: for Ashkenazi Jews: Isaiah 42:5–43:10..." mean nothing unless one already has an understanding of these words.
The "References in classical sources" section is not very useful. There is no discussion of what is listed.Renamed to Further reading.In accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), do not include links in headings.
- Pagrashtak 18:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Surely a summary of the parsha is quite important? The article is on a section of the torah, is not the most vital thing to explain what it is. I'm not sure what exactly I can add to the commandments section: there's only one after all and "be fruitful and multiply" is fairly self-explanatory. I've explained what a haftarah is, is that clear enough for the casual reader? I've removed the creation link from the heading. What do you want in the References in Classical Sources section? I thought it didn't really need anything, as a bibliography. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 18:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you should remove the summary. I'm saying that if you were to remove it, there would be a stub left, and that's a problem. If the commandments section cannot expand beyond what it is, it should not be its own section. If it can, it should be expanded. If you're intending the "References in classical sources" section to serve as a bibliography, it's not clear. Perhaps "Further reading" would be a more appropriate heading? Pagrashtak 01:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I've renamed it Further Reading. What I've done to the commandments is I've merged it with in rabbinical interpretation, because Mainmonides was a rabbi. I know it's inadequate as a paragraph, but trying to work it in with the previous two just doesn't seem to fit. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 08:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've struck two comments, the rest still need work. Pagrashtak 20:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have removed all links in headers, and tried to explain further what unfamiliar words mean without breaking the flow. I'm not sure more more I can expand the article with: it is, after all, an article on a piece of text; naturally a summary would take up a large amount of space. It only has one commandment, which I've expanded, and I've written an overview prior to the summary itself. What else can I add? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Since there is little information other than the summary of the plot, I suspect that it is not comprehensive. However, since I am largely unfamiliar with the subject, I can't specifically say what needs to be added. If Raul feels that this invalidates my point, then so be it. Pagrashtak 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, what I'll do is drop a message off at the Jewish Wikiprojects, and see if they think it can be expanded or not. In the meantime, I notice that you have not crossed out "terms for the layman" what else do you feel needs explaining? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 23:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Since there is little information other than the summary of the plot, I suspect that it is not comprehensive. However, since I am largely unfamiliar with the subject, I can't specifically say what needs to be added. If Raul feels that this invalidates my point, then so be it. Pagrashtak 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have removed all links in headers, and tried to explain further what unfamiliar words mean without breaking the flow. I'm not sure more more I can expand the article with: it is, after all, an article on a piece of text; naturally a summary would take up a large amount of space. It only has one commandment, which I've expanded, and I've written an overview prior to the summary itself. What else can I add? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've struck two comments, the rest still need work. Pagrashtak 20:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I've renamed it Further Reading. What I've done to the commandments is I've merged it with in rabbinical interpretation, because Mainmonides was a rabbi. I know it's inadequate as a paragraph, but trying to work it in with the previous two just doesn't seem to fit. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 08:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you should remove the summary. I'm saying that if you were to remove it, there would be a stub left, and that's a problem. If the commandments section cannot expand beyond what it is, it should not be its own section. If it can, it should be expanded. If you're intending the "References in classical sources" section to serve as a bibliography, it's not clear. Perhaps "Further reading" would be a more appropriate heading? Pagrashtak 01:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Surely a summary of the parsha is quite important? The article is on a section of the torah, is not the most vital thing to explain what it is. I'm not sure what exactly I can add to the commandments section: there's only one after all and "be fruitful and multiply" is fairly self-explanatory. I've explained what a haftarah is, is that clear enough for the casual reader? I've removed the creation link from the heading. What do you want in the References in Classical Sources section? I thought it didn't really need anything, as a bibliography. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 18:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This is indeed, just a summary of Genesis. There needs to be a lot more on the specifically Jewish stuff that differentiates it from the Genesis story in the Christian Bible or in the Koran, more about Hebrew, more about Judaism, more categories (at the moment, it is only categorised in Weekly Torah readings). More on the history of it being read out, and why it is read out. Also, the pictures might be specifically illustrating Christian themes (not sure). Can you find specifically Jewish images drawn by Jewish people? Carcharoth 08:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)