Wikipedia:Peer review/Isaac/archive1

Isaac

I would like to raise the quality of this article up to the FA quality. I would appreciate any feedback, in particular those concerning the sections that need expansion and the missing information from the article. Thank you very much. --Aminz 10:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit

This is a good start. I am no Biblical scholar, but I am familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures. Here are my suggestions:

I noticed that most of your sources are other encyclopedias. Because encyclopedias summarize and omit information, these are not the best sources from which to construct an article. You want to read as much about the topic as possible and then decide yourself how to summarize the material. Simply imitating other encyclopedic entries is not, I believe, what wikipedia is trying to do. WP:ATT
The "Etymology and meaning" section would be hard to understand for someone not already familiar with the Biblical story. Spell out what you mean in more detail.
The "Hebrew Bible" section in which you retell the story surrounding Isaac could be revised. The writing is choppy and needs more detail.
The writing throughout the article is choppy. Paragraphs do not cohere and there are few transitions between paragraphs.
You need to carefully reread each section. You have some sentence fragments and incorrect pronoun referents. You might consider sending this to the League of Copyeditors.
In the "Academic view" section, you need to identify the academics. Who are these scholars (essentially, why should we listen to them)? Also, that section needs to be expanded.
The "Testament" section should also be expanded - more details!
What about including a section on Isaac in art and culture? Paintings, plays, etc.? Awadewit 06:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review and your good suggestions.

1. Regarding the sources, that's true. Most of them are encyclopedias, but I tried to read various Encyclopedias and Dictionaries of the Bible for a good coverage. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the relevant literature.

Could you go to a library and read some books? Awadewit 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. I have revised the "Etymology and meaning" section. I hope it is more understandable now.

I would say, no.

The Hebrew term Yiṣḥāq literally means "may God smile." - This is the first sentence. If the reader doesn't know Hebrew, it is not clear that the word you are referring to is the Hebrew word for "Isaac."
The term conforms to a well-known Northwest Semitic type - type of what?
- The source didn't give further details about the linguistic type the term conforms with. I'll try to find more details or otherwise would remove this sentence. --Aminz 08:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Ugaritic texts from thirteenth century BCE refer to the benovolent smile of the Canaanite god El." - where is this quotation from? you should have the inline citation right next to it - also, why are we suddenly talking about a smiling God?
According to the canonical collections of sacred writings of Judaism (Bible), however, the laugher is ascribed to Isaac's mother(Sarah), who was amazed to learn by God that she would have a child despite her age. - ("laughter") - what laughter? unless the reader knows the story ahead of time, these sentences are going to be very confusing
(Sarah was ninety years old, and Abraham (Isaac's father) was hundred years old[4])[3] Abraham had also covertly laughed upon hearing the promise from God. - poor use of parantheses - very confusing for a reader unfamiliar with the story
The section needs to make explicit the connection between God's smile and the Biblical story (that's where you need a source - scholars will have theories on these things). Right now, the sentences are not really connected together and assume too much knowledge on the reader's part.Awadewit 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for making that clear. I have made some changes. I hope it is more understandable now. --Aminz 08:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. I am not a native speaker unfortunately. I asked help from the League of Copyeditors.

That's what they are for.Awadewit 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. I have found who these scholars are. Sorry, that it took a long time (I couldn't get anything by just googling for their name). --Aminz 20:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. I started the section. --Aminz 07:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:IvoShandor

At a glance:

Inline citations aren't really needed in the intro unless you are making some extraordinary claims. As the intro should usually provide a good summary of the topic, most of the information and citations should appear somewhere else in the article.
The section titles seemed a bit vague to me, I keep looking for a 'Life', or 'Early years' section and I got nothing.
Could use some peer reviewed, scholarly sources, as well as the prominent views of theologians.
The templates in the genealogy section are distracting, perhaps include them as footers.
The external links in the body of the article are undesirable and unnecessary.
Along the same lines, it is probably not necessary to list every reference to Isaac in holy literature.
The last half of the article doesn't have very many Wikilinks, though it is hard to tell with all of the external linking in the text.

Hope that helps some. IvoShandor 10:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much.

1. I fixed these.

2. It is a good suggestion. Unfortunately I am not familiar with the works of Christian or Jewish theologians. Will add one once I found.

3. I moved the template down.

4. I removed some of the inline links and will remove several others.

5. I removed the list to every reference to Isaac in holy literature.

6. Done. --Aminz 07:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]