Wikipedia:Peer review/Biblical criticism/archive1

Biblical criticism

I've listed this article for peer review because it recently received GA status, and since I have continued to work on it, with help, I think it is about as far as I can take it without further input from points of view other than mine. It is an important article in the field of religion and philosophy and even history. Any suggestion, comment or contribution of any kind will be appreciated. Thanks so very much, Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda

Jenhawk777, I admire the undertaking, and will come when I have a few extra minutes. First comments are related to images. I find them well chosen, and well placed in the article, generally. I don't know what the Gutenberg Bible has to do with the historical Jesus, though. For FA standard, you will want to

• offer an alt text to every image, that is decribe what one sees to someone who doesn't see it, such as a blind person
• supply a caption which has the name with a link (for those who only look at pics), and a short description - which some have but not all, + the other way round: even if someone is linked in a caption, link him in the text also, for those who only read
• try to have people look "into" the text, - someone looking to the left should be right
• try - with those left - to not have them immediately below the section header, nor have them displace the following header, - if that's not possible, better right after all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for doing some of this! I will have to learn how to do the 'alt text' thing, so I will get back on that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

alt: in an image, you add another parameter between two separators, say alt= and continue, describe what you see. Hint: look how it's done in other FA articles, - many feature images of people. I let RexxS do mine ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I think these are all done now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I've tweaked some of them a little because a screen reader will read the alt text and then the caption, so there's no point in duplicating information in both of them. Also the alt text should help a visually impaired reader get some of the information that a sighted reader would gain from viewing the image. So any information not obvious from looking at the image should be in the caption – that's then helpful to the sighted reader as well. HTH. --RexxS (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay--so describing the photo as so and so standing by a wall--was that good then?Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

That is probably the weakest, as it doesn't really get across what the wall looks like in the same way that sighted reader can appreciate it. It looks like he's in a museum or library with a high ceiling and huge columns, and the board on the wall looks like some kind of list of names – but that's all too much detail for alt text. It's often not possible to get across all the nuances that we see in an image, so we have to resign ourselves to just do our best: keep the alt text concise and accurate. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Before investing too much thought I'd think about cropping the photo, - the person is overwhelmed by the suroundings. - I could imagine galleries of more people, to less single out individual ones, but see of course, that for an FA, every single one means a lot of work, checking license and writing a good description. - Don't miss my talk today, flowers, music and balloon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Cropping would normally be the first step, Gerda, but where an image is low resolution (Frye's portrait is only 480px x 477px), you run the risk of the cropped image being too small to use without up-scaling, which is rarely satisfactory. The gallery idea is attractive, but you'll find that you then get arguments about who is included and why. Sometimes there are no easy solutions, I'm afraid. --RexxS (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Well botheration! I was trying to do good! There's more subtleties to this than I thought. I will do my best to keep it concise. Do you have other examples I could look at--get a better feel for this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You did well! But remember, even Featured Articles are capable of improvement . I took a look at today's FA, Octopus, and thought the alt text on the images was pretty good. Maybe we need a list somewhere of good examples of alt text? --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Oooohh! That's a really good idea! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

And most of all, thank you for showing up here and doing this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead

I should probably read that last, but a few thoughts. Who says what's first and foremost, and why is the other second. I'd try to first have the second para, about the forms, or even the third, history, which seem easier to grasp. - I may say the opposite after reading further ;)

It's what the sources said, but I have reworded it in a way I hope will meet your approval and still do what Josh asked as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I will look again only after reading all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Understood! No problemo! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Beginnings

" This school was not a place but was a group" - in German, Schule often means teaching rather than a place, so often that to say it's not a place reads a bit strange, compare Düsseldorf school of painting, - I'd say positively "is a group".

Got it. (Should have kept up with my German huh?) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• link Spinoza?

He is linked in Beginnings--the first time he is mentioned: second sentence. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

missed that, sorry --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• normally we don't have DOB and DOD for people with a link, but here - with different periods - it makes sense, - wonder what others think?

I did have them at first because I thought it helped put things in order chronologically which made it less confusing, but there are so many names in this article, it really cluttered everything, so they ended up being removed. Josh said I had to include those dates for everyone or no one consistently, and with all the names here, it was visually overwhelming to include them all. I don't mind going back and doing it if you think it's important. Or perhaps we can come up with an alternative for identifying time frames.

I said it makes sense here, no? Don't change, just collect what others say, and then do what YOU think is best, - for things were there are no fixed formatting rules. IAR, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

will do as you suggest and collect views on this before acting. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, what would you think of a timeline for this page? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Try it I can't tell without seeing one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• "This view drove a wedge between scripture and the Church's claims of religious truth, prompting historical study to support agreement or disagreement." - not sure I understand the second half. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have no trouble just taking that out. -- removed the removed-- :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Another hint: some reviewers want to see few if any templates in a review ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Templates? Uhhh... clueless here... Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Template done, template removed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Still clueless but now also grateful! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Anything in curly brackets, {{done}} + {{removed}} and others --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Understood! No curly brackets! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I am in the middle of a lenghty translation, so will be back later ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The historical Jesus

• "his native city's high school" - which city, and is it a city (many cities of that time would just be towns, like Wolfenbüttel), and what does high school mean in this case (many should be Hochschule, which is a university type of school, or gymnasium (Germany)): best would be a link to the school!

I went and found that then decided it doesn't really add anything specifically to the discussion of biblical criticism, so I took it out. It's interesting as part of his biography, but is unnecessary here.

• Fragmentenstreit - any good?

Gerda, if the German is incorrect here it is because it is copied directly, so if this is not actually the title of the work, could you fix the German?

"any good" was sloppy for: should perhaps the English Wikipedia also have that kind of article, to link to, or could it useful as the link I wrote? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

When I first wrote this I found it on the German Wikipedia and linked it there--but it said it was an error so I took it out. If you have found a link that works--that's awesome. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

If you find the link to German useful (you'd click on the little blue de), copy exactly as it is above. If you want to translate, or write your own, do that, and link. If it's irrelevant, forget the point ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be good to include but I am unsure exactly where to locate it. Suggestions? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Lessing also made contributions of his own work by means of the philosophy of history", - not sure what "also" relates to, and what "philosophy of history" means exactly.

also meant he was responsible for Reimarus being a contribution and he also contributed some of his own original work--but I changed it and took out the also, so I hope it's clearer--more straightforward.

• Biblical criticism reached full flower in the nineteenth century, becoming the "major transforming fact of biblical studies in the modern period." - This quote - as all others - should have at least a reference behind it, better an attribution, saying who said so. The full stop seems not part of the quote?

The reference was at the end of the second sentence since they were both taken from the same place, but I moved it up. That means it's repeated twice one right after the other--is that okay?

A quote needs it right after it, and better with also an attribution, saying in the text by whom. If two sentences are quoted, one such thing is enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

will add the Soules names then, Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Mutiple landmark accomplishments in understanding the Bible and its background were achieved with many modern concepts having their roots here." - multiple (please fix spelling), many, that sentence is so general that it tells me about nothing ;)

OOPs! I removed 'multiple'. I added 'for example' after it. It seems a necessary point, so I hope a couple examples are sufficient for clarity.

• "Higher criticism focused on composition and history, while lower criticism was concerned with a text's meaning for its readers." - not sure I understand the meaning.

I'll have to think on this one for a bit. I don't see right now how to make that clearer.

I tried--don't know if it's better.

• "It was during this time that" (twice) - why not "During this time,"?

Will do.

• I like the specific bit on Schweitzer, - could something similar be said about the achievements of some of the others?

It could, but it will add a paragraph--at least a sentence for each one--I will do some and you decide if we should keep it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay I did that--and I like it--I think. How about you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The twentieth century

• or 20th century?

If it isn't a major concern, I like it written out in a heading. When numbers start a sentence they are supposed to be written out, so it seems appropriate to me in a heading.

I agree in the heading, and in quotations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• the phrase seems repeated too often, kind of redundant under the section header

Removed

• "which can be seen as a rejection of the liberalism of prior historical critics" - not sure I get the meaning

Which part?

Liberalism, in which sense? If it was introduced, I forgot, then sorry ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I will have to think on that one as well. In this use, it isn't Liberalism with a capitol L--yet--it's just that biblical criticism was anti-establishment and therefore qualifies as "liberal". It was the term the source used so I repeated it and I am unsure what would be better and still be accurate. I'll worry at it for awhile! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Need a break. See you later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, thank you so much. I will work on attempting to clarify these or remove them or whatever is necessary to improve them. Thank you, thank you Gerda. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, like what you did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanx! I think I have done all you suggested, I only hope I have done so in a satisfactory manner. I understand needing a break--after the history stuff it gets a little more fun I think--at least maybe a little easier since each section is its own discussion and is not so much a listing of disconnected facts. The history part is beginning to read a little more as narrative though also these days, thanx in part to efforts like yours. It really needed that! Thanx again Gerda. Vielen dank. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS

I'll do a full accessibility review for you when I get a chance (remind me if I forget!).

I've spotted one point that took me a little while to get clear in my head, so perhaps it needs some clarification? There is a diagram called File:Streeter's the Four Document Hypothesis.PNG. It is captioned as such, but the text in that section (Source criticism) discusses the two-source hypothesis and Streeter's four source hypothesis in connection with the synoptic Gospels. The following section discusses a documentary hypothesis of the Pentateuch, and it took me a little while to realise that Streeter's four-source hypothesis and his four-document hypothesis were the same thing, although may be obvious to anyone familiar with the field (which I'm not). Would it be better to stick with a consistent title for the hypothesis? or if sources differ in their terminology to point that out? --RexxS (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The documentary hypothesis and the four source hypothesis are not the same. The documentary hypothesis concerns the Old Testament--specifically the Pentateuch the first five books of the Old T especially Genesis-- and the four-source hypothesis (how it is generally referred to) is about the New Testament--specifically the first three of the four gospels. I will go back and attempt to make that clearer. Thank you! I need input from people who are not already familiar with all of this--what seems clear to us isn't always clear to others. This helps! Clarify and specify--right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Part of the confusion has to come from placement--Old Testament then New then back to Old again--if I move Wellhausen up will that cause a structural problem? I'll give it a try--see if it works! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I will finish the images tonight I hope! Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

RexxS OK! I have gone and rearranged everything in an effort to make it easier for people with no background in this topic not to get totally confused and lost--I may have made everything worse! Gerda is not going to like the look of the images I'm afraid. Well--if it isn't one thing it's another. :-) Take a look see when you get a chance--see if you find it improved any at all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. That seems more consistent and understandable to me now. When you have finished changes, I'll do a full check for accessibility for the article. Just ping me when the article has settled down. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, excellent. I moved those images for Gerda as well--it is better. And I think I finished those Alt-texts. I am so very grateful for all your help. I can now--hopefully--tuck another little piece of Wikipedia know-how under my belt. I really valued your comment--it noted something I was completely blind to, and I think made a definite improvement as a result--but I will most likely never settle down and stop editing this article. I have no life beyond Biblical criticism apparently. I am obsessed and unable to move on to anything else. I so want to get this right! I am hoping that if I can get it to FA I will finally be able to let go of it--meet my family again--go outdoors--see the sun...  :-) Life without editing Biblical criticism--what a concept! I think I may need therapy... Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)