Talk:Canonical criticism

Canonical criticism was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 5, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed

Bible: Criticism Mid‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the biblical criticism work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This was marked as a candidate for speedy deletion as I was creating it. It seems this was because a page with this title existed previously. StAnselm (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

For my reasons for the CSD see my talk page. Nezzadar (speak) 04:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Canonical criticism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I'm failing this article under Wikipedia:QUOTEFARM. The huge number of quotations make the prose almost impossible to read, it's not a coherent narrative/acount, but instead a series of quotations that are strung together, without anything tying it all together. When you string so many quotes together, it makes the prose flow choppy and difficult to read.
Another concern is that doesn't cover all the context of the subject. According to this source, the concept is not just defined by Childs, but by Sanders also. HOwever, that's not brought out in the current article. And it appears that the two scholars use the term in different meanings, which also isn't brought out in the current article.
There also appear to be a number of sources that haven't been consulted for this - see this google scholar search.
I recognize that this article has been waiting a LONG time for a review, but quite frankly, it's incoherent and doesn't explicate what the subject is to this non-biblical scholar. Perhaps a biblical scholar would be able to fill in the gaps of knowledge, but we're not writing just for specialists, we need to write for non-specialists also, which this article fails to do. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add topic