Talk:Criticism of the Book of Abraham/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 21:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I will try to review this article. It looks like a very promising candidate and, from what I have read of it already, it seems like a very interesting subject. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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:
· · ·

Comments

1. The article is very well written and well-organized. I would recommend using the parameter 20em for the "Footnotes" section since most of the footnotes are shortened citations, but that is a minor issue in my opinion.
2. The article is well-cited and, based on what knowledge I have on the subject, it appears to be accurate. The citations are not misrepresented and the statements in the article appear to adequately agree with the statements in the sources used.
3. The article provides a very extensive and illuminating overview of the subject in question.
4. The article is surprisingly even-handed, despite the controversial nature of the subject in question. This is topic that could have easily been used to write an anti-Mormon polemic, but this article does not do that; instead, it provides a neutral coverage of the issue while still supporting the views of mainstream scholars, like every Wikipedia article should. This article is, in my view, a good example for other articles over Mormonism-related controversies to be modeled after.
5. The article is very stable and the edit history reveals no traces of recent edit-warring or vandalism.
6. The usage of images throughout the article is exemplary; it does a very good job using images of the facsimiles and the actual papyrus fragments. The other images are helpful too.

Overall, I think that this article passes all of the GA criteria easily. If you think I have made a mistake and that this article is not yet ready, please let me know. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Thank you for taking the time to look over this, as well as for the kind things you have said about it! I put a lot of work into it, and I'm glad that you find the quality acceptable! Thanks so much.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)