# Talk:Acts of Peter and the Twelve

The full title of this text is "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.27.53 (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Acts of Peter and the Twelve/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jenhawk777 (talk · contribs) 15:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

 
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Hello  TriplePowered,  I am Jenhawk777. I was asked to review this article by Mike Christie, so I am going to begin. Looking forward to working with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 


### Prose
Okay, I've done my first read through, and I am uncomfortable with the lead. It is a common problem when writing of something commonly known in a field of study that is not commonly known outside that field. There are technical terms that the average sophomore - for whom we write - will not understand. I see that tractate is explained but Codex, and the Nag Hammadi are not, and neither are explained later in the body either. So I would like to see that added to make it more accessible to that broad audience. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Ok, the generic 'codex' has been replaced with more context-friendly 'sheepskin-bound papyrus codex' and the meaning of 'Nag Hammadi library' is more explicitly stated in the opening. TriplePowered (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanx for getting back to me so quickly. Imo, adding sheepskin doesn't clarify anything. However, now that you've changed it, it looks like there is no good way to include explanations that don't make it worse rather than better. You have all jargon-terms linked, the explanations are available, so shorten those two sentences, and that will be good enough.
How about this:  "It is the first [tractate] in [Codex] VI of the [Nag Hammadi] texts, taking up pages 1–12 of the codex's 78 pages."
Sorry to be fussy about that, but stats indicate most people never read beyond the lead, so it needs to be clear.
Moving on down through the rest of the article.
Remove the link to lodging. I'm guessing someone else came along and did that for you. Overuse of links that add nothing substantive, but are a distraction, is an ongoing problem on WP. If someone doesn't know what 'lodging' is, I'm guessing they won't be reading this article. There are a few other similar unnecessary links through the remaining paragraphs as well. Use your best judgement and remove them.
Do that and I can pass this first requirement with a yes, it is well written. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I have edited. TriplePowered (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I will be going through the citations now. That always takes a little longer than just checking prose and punctuation. Everything looks good so far. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 


### Sources
Just for future reference, unless something is controversial, which imo this article is not, each sentence only needs one citation. You are absolutely right about checking more than one source for verification, but every source you look at can't be cited. These sources all look reliable, so any of them will do.
12 is good; however 13 seems misplaced as the source says only "first half of the fourth century" on that page. Could those refs be reversed? It looks like 2 has that earlier date. (I like the description in this one - focus on commission and fairy tale with symbols, and Molinari calling it an allegory. Perhaps consider adding some of it? Your decision, it won't impact this process. It could easily fit in the lead and just broadens it a bit.) 7 also has the earlier date.
I cannot access 20. Could you get it for me? I really like that you included the word for word in the citation. I am amazed it didn't come up as a copyright violation - quotes always seem to for me! Since you used the one translation throughout - which is perfectly fine - I am just wondering if there might be any significant differences in any other translations.  Do you happen to know?
4 is good
Made it through to 71 and have to quit for today. Almost done! But it's my birthday today and I keep getting interrupted!! As far as I am concerned this is great, and will be finished tomorrow. Good work! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with ref 13. On p. 414 Schenke says, "There is also scarcely any serviceable indication in the text for answering the question of the date of composition, i.e. how long before the first half of the 4th century, the terminus post quem non, the ActPt was composed. We are practically entirely reduced to estimates. Thus scholars speak in quite general terms of the 2nd and/or 3rd century."
You can use the search feature on archive.org to access the limited pages, like so: [1]https://i.ibb.co/r37nN7H/archive.png. Essentially the same translation is also at [2]http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/actp.html. There are a few other English translations, but the only one I can find for free is in Molinari's dissertation, which is almost identical to Parrott/Wilson, with a few suggested rewordings mixed in.
I'm glad that citing the quotes passed, because I think that summaries are especially vulnerable to editors' inserting misinterpretations, personal views, or minor errors, whereas citing the exact quotes makes it easy to see whether each sentence of the summary accurately represents what the original author wrote.
Thanks for spending your birthday reviewing Acts of Peter and the Twelve. TriplePowered (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I see the problem with 13 - all I get is p.415 not 414, but I accept your statement about it as accurate. This is the first article I've done where I checked every reference - I found it all so interesting I couldn't help myself! (Don't give me more credit than I deserve.  I didn't spend much of my birthday here on WP. Which is why you've had to wait till Monday for your results. So I will say thank you for your patience.)
I too am glad the quotes passed - I love to use quotes for exactly the reasons you say - and I get dunned for it all the time, so I glad to have another "quoter" on board. :-)
This is a brilliant little article, perfect for WP, and I am passing it for GA. Congratulations! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, great work reviewing. TriplePowered (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
It's still a nominee... TriplePowered (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)

I know this article has been declared good, but the plot section is a WP:PARAPHRASE of the text. I realize it may seem odd to complain about copious cites, but in this case, virtually the entire story is reproduced piecemeal in the footnote section, a clear case of WP:CITEKILL. A single cite at the end of the plot section w/ no reproduction of original text would be far more encyclopedic and would be supported under WP:REPCITE. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Evidently you need to hear this: no, you should not mass delete the citations from a Good Article that you just discovered after it was featured on the main page. The citations prevent misinterpretations and original research from getting into the summary. TriplePowered (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
What does it matter where I found it? Being featured on the main page doesn't exempt an article from editing, nor does being declared Good, and to say it does is pure gatekeeping. I helped make Wicked (Maguire novel) into a GA and that has been edited several times since.
I'm aware of why plot summaries are given citations (though per MOS:PLOT it's by no means necessary). My question is more about the sheer abundance of them, as well as the amount of detail involved. At this point, what you have is not a summary, but a WP:PARAPHRASE of the text.
Per policy, "If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill." You've not only cited each individual consecutive sentence, you've gone phrase by phrase and included quotes for each cite, which means that you can pretty much read the whole original text verbatim just by looking through the footnotes. All the footnotes come from the same source, so why not just cite it once at the end? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Xenogears (Good Article), Chrono Trigger (Featured Article), and Chrono Cross (Featured Article) are examples that use the same quoting style. They do not just say "Source: Square" at the end. Stop trying to justify vandalizing the article. If you would like to do something actually helpful like adding more analysis to the article, go ahead. TriplePowered (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Those articles' plot summaries are way too long and full of fancruft. That aside, they still don't show nearly the same level of citation overkill that this one does. There's a cite or two for each paragraph, where you have two or three for every single sentence, all pointing to the same source. That's w/o even addressing the WP:PARAPHRASE issue. Finally, crying "vandalism" when I haven't even made an edit suggests that you're overly attached to this article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
A general comment: I suggested once that WP:RSPSCRIPTURE should say something like "a MOS:PLOTSOURCE approach can work well regarding some scriptural stories." It caused a bit of discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#Scriptural_texts_(WP:RSPSCRIPTURE). Perhaps you'll find the arguments interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)