Isaac edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
This 2007 Good Article has some sourcing problems (unsourced statements, possibly questionable sources) and an unclear citation style. Additionally, there may be some prose problems, such as MOS:PUFFERY. Spinixster (chat!) 09:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- My first observation is that the infobox is a disaster zone. There also appears to be far too much purely religious primary source material, while much of the other sourcing is exceptionally dated. The burial place section references a single mid-19th century work, which the etymology section is from the first decade of the 20th century. I could go on. As mentioned by the nominator, not an impressive sourcing picture. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with @Iskandar323 but would add that there are a few Citation Needed tags or Citations missing completely. The content also fails the criterion to be "broad", as it does not even mention the dispute if Isaac or Ismael was supposed to be sacrificed in Islamic tradition. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delist lacking citations, and there should be more use of reliable, independent, secondary sources. I can't comment on whether it fails the broardness criterion. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.