Talk:Gospel of John/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 20:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jujutsuan: Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cerebellum: Thank you! I'll be happy to help or answer any questions I can. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, here are my comments:

1. Authorship section - feel free to disagree with me, but I think the claim "it is meaningless to speak of a single author" is too strong. The lead of Authorship of the Johannine works says "there may have been a single author", and in Talk:Gospel of John#Author/date/origins, @TomHennell refers to sources that seem to assume a single author.
2. the same title (dominus et deus) claimed by Roman Emperor Domitian. Should this be "the Roman Emperor Domitian"?
3. There is a "citation needed" template in the "Gnostic elements" section.
4. Could you explain the term "Johannine Thunderbolt"?
5. Reference #35, to Theissen & Merz 1998, seems to be broken - when I click on it, it doesn't take me to bibliography. The same is true of #12 (Harris 1985), #13 (Edwards 2007), #14 (Baukham 2007), #15 (Whitherington 2015), and also #19, #27, #28, #33, #34, and #36.
6. On the sentence and who promised to return to take them to a heavenly dwelling<refJohn 14:2-3 the formatting is messed up, I'm not sure what it should look like.
7. John does not contain any parables.[60] Rather it contains metaphoric stories or allegories, such as those of the Good Shepherd and of the True Vine, in which each individual element corresponds to a specific group or thing. Some scholars also find parables in the Fourth Gospel as the short story of the childbearing woman (16:21) or the dying grain (12:24).[61] I think the phrasing here is a little off, since the first sentence says there are no parables it is strange to bring them up in the third sentence.
8. Could you briefly explain "realized eschatology"?
9. In the Differences with synoptics section, I don't think the table with the Routledge information adds that much; the same information is presented in the bulleted list. If you disagree though feel free to keep it!
10. In the Representations section, you either need a reference for the claim that Steve Warner's is the most notable setting of the Gospel to music, or you should remove the claim.
11. There are a few dead links - [2], [3], and [4]. Also, take a look at the external links section and decide if it should be trimmed or if it is ok and that template can be removed.

Overall, the article looks good! Considering how much material is out there on this gospel, I'm impressed that @PiCo managed to condense the article from 100kb to 50kb. It's very readable now and it still covers all the bases. I'm putting this on hold for now, but if you can address the above issues I don't see any problem with it reaching GA status. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Cerebellum & Jujutsuan There currently two discussions about possible deletion of Chapters of John templates on this article. I would recommend wait on officially nominating this article for GA status until those discussions are over. In the meantime, the suggestions by Cerebellum should be clarified and/or fixed etc. There are also quite a few isbn#s missing from those bibliography links. I also noticed a "article name needed" tag at the very bottom of the page, but that's all the issues i'v noticed so far. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cerebellum: Thanks for the review! I agree with several of your concerns.

1. This claim turns out to be unsourced. I've removed it.
2. I think that's a primarily stylistic concern. I tend to prefer leaving the "the" it out, but if you feel strongly I don't object to adding it.
3. I'm not terribly familiar with Gnosticism, but I'll see if I can find a source.
4. "Johannine Thunderbolt" is a term to refer to the Q-Logion in Mt 11:25-27 and Lk 10:21-22. The phrase was coined by Karl von Hase in an 1823-24 lecture series: “wie ein Aerolith aus dem johanneischen Himmel gefallen”, “a meteorite fallen from the Johannine sky” I'll add this reference to the article.
5. I'll take a look at those and fix them.
6. Ditto.
7. I'll clarify that.
8. According to the definition at Realized eschatology, it's "a Christian eschatological theory popularized by C. H. Dodd (1884–1973) that holds that the eschatological passages in the New Testament do not refer to the future, but instead refer to the ministry of Jesus and his lasting legacy. I'll add that explanation and reference, too.
9. I'll merge the table into the list, with appropriate referencing.
10. Would changing it to "notably" or "including" suffice? I frankly don't think it's possible to substantiate that claim; it would be nothing but opinion even if a source said so.
11. I'll check out the dead and external links.
12. (From Judecca's comment) I've fixed the "article name needed" tag.
13. (From Judecca's comment) I'll look for the ISBNs.

I'll get on these issues and comment again when I'm done. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing back from you. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

References

@Cerebellum and JudeccaXIII: I believe I've fixed each problem you guys brought up (besides the TfD still being active until 2 AM UTC tomorrow, and the "Roman Emperor"/"the Roman Emperor" switch—do you feel strongly either way on that, Cerebellum?). Please let me know if you find the issues to have been resolved satisfactorily. Thanks! Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 00:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Cerebellum. No rush, just want to make sure you saw. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 21:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jujutsuan: Thanks for the quick and thorough edits! Everything looks good now; I'm not too worried about the Roman Emperor thing, it's fine how it is. @JudeccaXIII, I think it is ok to review the article even though the template discussion is underway. If the templates are deleted, the "Gospel of John" template at the bottom of the article retains much of the same information so the quality of the article will not be affected. Let me know if think the templates will cause any other problems we need to address. Other than that, I am happy to pass this article and promote it to GA status.

After reading Talk:Gospel of John#Authorship and historical reliability, I am a little concerned that the conservative viewpoint on John is underrepresented in this article, so I'm going to add a few of @Jonathankempus2's sentences back into the article. However, I don't want to use this GA review to push a POV, so I am promoting the article as-is and any additions I make are unrelated to the review. Feel free to revert or change them. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cerebellum! I've nominated this article for DYK now that it's been promoted to GA. For my part, I have no issue with restoring some representation of the conservative viewpoint. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 19:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)