# Talk:Wicked Priest

Hello. You'll be glad to know that this article does not meet any of the "quick fail" criteria. I'll review the article thoroughly and see if it can be promoted to GA status, if it may not be promoted, or if I will need to put it "on hold" if there's any problems. As a preliminary suggestion, please include the ISBN for the books used as references. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 21:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added ISBNs or ASINs where available. Savidan 21:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Some observations: "More recently, some scholars have argued that the sobriquet does not refer to only one individual, most notably the "Groningen Hypothesis" advanced by García Martinez and van der Woude, which argues for a series of six Wicked Priests." This needs a reference, and perhaps needs to be removed, per WP:WEASEL (it includes phrases such as "some say..."). Also, free images should be moved to the Wikimedia Commons. Finally, per WP:CITE#Footnotes_come_after_punctuation, references should go at the end of sentences, after the punctuation marks. --Boricuaeddie 22:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
There are references for this in the appropriate section. There are indeed multiple scholars who say this, and this is a situation where it would be undesirable to simply list their names because the view is held by multiple people, and it isn't so novel that their names would normally be listed individually, as would GM and vdW. When there is an easily identifiable section that the lead is summarizing, there do not need to be references in the lead. I don't have a commons account, nor is this the only article that these images are used in so I don't see how that affects this article. I'll go through and check the location of the references, but I think that the ones that I have no at the end of the sentence are there for a very good reason, i.e. because part of a sentence is cited to one source and another part of it to another source. Jumbling them all together at the end of the sentence would not be an improvement. Savidan 02:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
For example, when a reference is being used to list the examples of the three different types of references (cultic non-observence, violence against TR, and punishment) moving all of those to the end of the sentence would be an obvious disimprovement. Or, when the article says that Cross, Milik, and Vermes advance the this theory, the references after their names are obviously better because its associated with the author rather than having to fish through four references at the end of the sentence to follow up on an individual claim. I think we need to use common sense here. Or to put it in the language of acronyms, WP:IAR. Savidan 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look at it, the policy that you are quoting says, "Some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence." Savidan 02:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. I still think the "some say..." thing should be removed, even if it is true. The only thing left is for me to read the article in detail, and I'll pass/fail it :-) --Boricuaeddie 22:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You're taking objection to all collective adjectives just because they could be used to slip in original research? Do you have any suggestion for how to reword this better? Savidan 22:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Complete review:

It is well written. In this respect:
(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; 
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. 
It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
(a) provides references to sources used; 
(b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles; 
(c) contains no original research. 
It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it: 
(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; 
(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details 
It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. 
It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. 
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:
(a) the images are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; 
 Passed. Please note that this is my first GA nom review, and that I have a belly button. If I have made any mistakes, please yell at me or fix it yourself. Thank you for your contributions, Savidan, and congratulations. --Boricuaeddie 02:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the sense of "The consensus date for the founding of Qumran (150-140 BCE) includes five High Priests...."  Could it mean that if the "consensus date" were right, those five people should be considered in searching for the identity of the Wicked Priest? D021317c 02:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the half-year response time but its fixed now. Savidan 01:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wicked Priest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111108043052/http://www.duke.edu/~goranson/jannaeus.pdf to http://www.duke.edu/~goranson/jannaeus.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)