Talk:Moses/GA1
I am placing this Good Article candidate on hold. While, by and large, this article seems quite good, I have some issues with some of it which I think make this article too close to a GA to call. The first problem I see is this:
- "Currently unverified to Wikipedia, it is possible that Moses has been identified with Osarseph, a figure from Josephus' Against Apion.[citation needed] Josephus may have attributed the identification to Manetho but may have vigorously denied it himself.[citation needed] Osarseph may have been identified with Joseph in Thomas Mann's Joseph and His Brothers, and others might have suggested that historical Osarseph is the nucleus of both the story of Joseph and of Moses.[citation needed]"
Firstly, self-references are pretty much never ok. The wording almost makes it look like there was some sort of dispute about this that made someone self-reference it as some sort of comprimised, and while this may of been well-intentioned, it almost strikes of some hidden POV agenda, as if it was to say "Although Wikipedia can't confirm it, this and that and so on and so forth.....", which strikes me as introduction of views which are so undue weight, there are no reliable references for any of it. I recommend this all just be deleted, it sticks out like a sore thumb, and honestly, is some obscure association with a character in a work of Josephus really helpful to readers for learning about Moses? Nextly, i'd like to call into question the extremely long quotation of Tacitus and Strabo, are their views really important enough in an article like this to warrent such long quotations? It also seems like you could use summary style, except of course, there doesn't appear to be an article to move it to. Why not just summarize the most important parts of what their saying? Think of it this way, with an article this large, a reader likely should be getting the most important aspects and impressions of Moses, and I think quoting those two people at such length seems like just going way off track of a general look at Moses :/. (Plus, its almost like its giving undue weight to historian type figures from the distant past.)
- Nextly, the Horn section at the bottom doesn't appear referenced at first glance, and seems to be making assertions which have not really been proven reference-wise by the article. Right after that, the Popular media section looks like unreferenced trivia to me, and i'm concerned some of this falls under 3b of the GA criteria, "it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia). " The three reference needed tags in the Exodus section also could use some taking care of, but I don't think those alone make the whole article not well-referenced as a whole.
- Lastly, the introduction probably needs to be expanded. Think of this as sort of like a bopgraphical article, mention family, the most notable sorts of things Moses did, (probably the plauges and the parting of the red sea are the most well known) and most of this should probably come from the Moses in the Bible section, since that's by and large where most of the main stuff about Moses comes from.
- I might notice a few other things afterwards, but the thing is, I think this would be sort of on the fence as GA's go :/. Homestarmy 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I expanded the lead, removed the uncited paragraph. I think the Cultural Depictions is ok. Wiki-newbie 15:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I just can't bring myself to pass this article, all that attention with history to only two or three people, no matter how famous they are as ancient historians, just seems very limited. And when the topic is Moses, i'm afraid I just can't see justification for appearance in south park episodes to be notable, or alot of that pointless stuff. Plus, i've recieved advice about the lead, its still too short, it needs to summarize at least most of the article, that's all the topics in the various sections. Homestarmy 14:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)