Talk:Third Epistle of John/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 23:48, 13 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) 23:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, I look forward to your comments. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks like an excellent piece of work: very well written, well sourced, and covering all obvious major aspects of the epistle. Again, thanks for your hard work on this. I'll compare it to a few other sources to verify comprehensiveness in a minute.

The lead appears to need a little more to properly summarize the article (details below). Two other suggestions, neither of which is relevant to attaining GA status, so feel free to take or leave them:

• You might combine the single-sentence paragraphs of the "date and location" section to avoid choppiness.
• Usually the model for a Wikipedia article on a work would be to lead off with the work's content; I don't think the section order you have is especially problematic, though, and I'm not familiar with how our Bible articles are generally structured.

I also made some minor tweaks for linking and style as I went. Please feel free to revert any you disagree with. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, I've put the content section at the beginning of the article and added another paragraph to the lead. I agree that the dates section is choppy but it seems non-trivial to fix so I'm leaving it as is for now. Let me know if there is anything else I should do. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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 excellent. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead needs a small bit of expansion--it doesn't appear to summarize the sections on the date and location, canonicity, and manuscripts.
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.	I'm not an expert, but comparing to a Google Books sources such as Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, the article appears to cover major aspects.
	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.	Added US PD tag at Wikicommons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass