Talk:Methuselah/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 18:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article, but I am working on several others and my time may be more limited than it has been in the past. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Should this article mention works like Methuselah's Children and Back to Methuselah which do not portray Methuselah?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: Here are some concerns I have about this article:

1. The translations given here are all from the King James Version. The KJV has undeniably beautiful prose, but it also sometimes contains mistranslations and errors that are corrected in later translations. It is also more difficult for the ordinary reader to understand. Unfortunately, we tend to be limited in which versions we are allowed to use and in what ways we are allowed to use them due to copyright laws, but, surely, I imagine, we would be allowed to quote seven verses from a more recent translation. The New Revised Standard Version is the one that is generally preferred by most biblical scholars (when they are not relying on their own translations, that is). --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

{ping|Katolophyromai}} Every reference to the KJV in the article has been replaced with a reference to the NRSV.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Looks great! --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

1. The "In comparative mythology," "Symbolic," and "Myth" sections are very underdeveloped. The "In comparative mythology" and "Myth" sections can probably be combined into one section, but there is still a lot more information out there on this subject. Extremely long-lived individuals in the distant past are common throughout ancient Near Eastern mythologies and I am sure scholars have written quite a bit more on this subject than what we currently have in the article. I would strongly suggest expanding these sections. I can probably help with this. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
2. The cultural influence section is kind of a mess. It is currently made up of a bunch of short paragraph fragments that are hardly much better than the usual sort of bullet points we find in "In popular culture" sections. For each of these entries, we need more details about how they portray Methuselah and how they have impacted the popular conception of him. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

That is all I have for now, but I will probably have more criticisms later. Thank you for your patience and I hope these are helpful. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Do you have any other critiques of the article?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: I have looked over the article and I think I am ready to pass it. It could still use some improvement in terms of coverage and organization, but I think all the major aspects are covered here. Methuselah does not exactly get very much coverage in the Bible or in later traditions for that matter and this is a GA review, not an FAC, so the article does not necessarily need to be comprehensive. I think that the article as it stands right now adequately fulfills the GA criteria. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Eve though it's unnecessary for the GA review, I would be interested to hear your critiques, if you don't mind. Thanks so much for your help!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: I was thinking that more could probably be added about Methuselah in pre-modern culture, if such information is available. There is coverage of him in modern culture and in pre-modern religious texts, but not much about him in pre-modern culture. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2018 (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:
· · ·