Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Bible
Bible is the book of pan-Christianity. It tells you the history in the past, from the creation of the world, to the predictions of the future. I nominate this article for featured article status because it is structurally complete. Please feel free to leave comments. --Cheung1303 11:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Object - no inline citations. —Whouk (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Object - The section "Widely Quoted Facts About the Bible" is pure banal trivia, some of which is of extremely questionable relevance. (The fact that no verse in the English version of the Bible contains every letter of the alphabet is unencyclopedic, as are many other entries in that section.) Get rid of the trivia, add some inline citations, shorten the lead, and widen the scope of the article. All this article does is describe the Bible - how and when it was written/collected, what it's about, different versions. What about interpretations (eg. literal vs metaphorical), influences in literature, etc. I realize there's an extensive "see also" list at the bottom; is there any way to incorporate any of those topics, even very briefly, into the text? This is one article that should be longer than average, if only to mention all of the many topics to which it relates. The Disco King 19:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Object - Per above. Plus some other problems: 1) "For Jews, the term refers only to the Hebrew Bible, also called the Torah". The Torah does not (normally) refer to the entirity of the Hebrew Bible, but to the Pentateuch. 2) "the Apocrypha and Deuterocanonical books" implies that we are dealing with two separate sets of books — also note that these books are of importance in more than just Roman Catholicism. 3) Virtually nothing on the Septuagint per se — this is a glaring omission as the Septuagint basically set the tone of the Christian Bible until about the early 18th century (yes, Jerome favored translations from Hebrew texts — not, however, the Masoretic text, as the article seems to claim — it didn't exist — but he still included the Deutrocanonical material). 4) Nothing at all on pseudopigraphia or the non-Deutrocanonical New Testament apocrypha. Well, I think that's enough for here: in short, it needs work to be FA material — may not hurt to get a peer review first. iggytalk 23:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose: impressive article, but not enough citation, no inline refs. Remove the trivia section. -- Alfakim -- talk 22:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
