- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
- Result: Delist per uncontested consensus below that the article does not meet the GA criteria at this time. Geometry guy 18:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a mess and leaves a lot to be desired. I don't think there's any way it would pass a GA review today. Many of the sections have been split into sub-articles. What's left isn't in summary style but in choppy prose that doesn't seem to have any overall cohesion or purpose. Huge sections consist of dozens of two-sentence paragraphs. There's a whole lot of unsourced statements and original research. The article uses the abhorrent "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" notation. There's a lot of unlinked religious jargon ("Scholars commonly surmise that Jesus' eschatology was apocalyptic, like John's."). The images are all listed as public domain but no sources are provided for any of them, and many have nothing to do with the sections they appear in ("Other early views" describes the Ebionites and Gnostics but is illustrated by El Greco, a sixteenth century Catholic).
I'm listing this for community reassessment as it may be conscientious. —Noisalt (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. The article is listed as "A" class. Under current guidelines can it be double-rated as both A and GA, or should it be automatically GA de-listed if it is an A? Majoreditor (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be both. A-class is a rating given by individual WikiProjects, while GA is an encyclopedia-wide designation. As the two processes are separate, neither has an effect on the other. —Noisalt (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is completely correct. Geometry guy 22:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article was never actually reviewed, someone just slapped a tag on there after it failed FAC. —Noisalt (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of the information pointed out by Noisalt (talk · contribs), I'd say this should be a delist. Cirt (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is slightly inaccurate, as a look at article history will show: the article was originally designated as a GA here in December 2005. At that time it was not common for reviewers to leave a written review. However, the reviewer was tagging multiple articles as GAs at the time, so it is doubtful that he reviewed the article in detail. In any case, standards have changed, and the main issue is whether the article currently meets the criteria or not, not what happened nearly 4 years ago. Geometry guy 22:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I lost count of the number of stubby sections. Reading this article is like riding shotgun with a novice driver who hasn't yet figured out how to correctly apply the brakes; every few seconds it's full stop, change topic, and accelerate again. I lean toward de-listing the article unless it can be re-written to make it readable. Majoreditor (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Too much sectioning giving poor stubby sections. Summary style is used extensively, but needs improvement: Some sections are one paragraph but summarise 3 or 4 sub articles (eg Ministry section), while single sub-articles are summarised in 4 big paragraphs (eg early life). As an overwiew of such a large topic, i feel this gets into undue weight territory. Also some (reasonable) citation needed tags and wholly uncited sections. This goes to show why no-one respects project A classes - this is not even GA qualityYobMod 12:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]