Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul of Tarsus/archive2

Paul of Tarsus

This is the second peer review request for this article. I believe the issues raised by the previous peer review request have been addressed, and would like to nominate this for featured article status. However, the last peer review was a while ago, so I thought it would be prudent to let others take a look at it one more time before I did so.--MikeJ9919 20:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) Old peer review is archived here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul of Tarsus/archive1

• I strongly advise putting subheadings within the individual sections, to improve readability, and split up those lengthy sections. --Scimitar 21:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Looks pretty good. I can't comment too much on the material, since almost all I know is from catechism class, and going to Mass. A few observations though: 1) You have cited and quoted from the Bible, so it would be good to note what version you are using and add it as a reference. 2) I wouldn't know, but are those citations standard? Do we know that (Rom. 11:1, Phil. 3:5) automatically refer to Paul's letters? Even if that is standard it could be made easier to read by explaining it quickly, and linking to a longer explanation if available. 3) The alternative views section needs reorganizing. Maybe subheadings would work or maybe just make it into prose without the numbered bullets. 4) The citations by title (The Mythmaker) seem strange. Is that common? I'm used to (author, year) or footnotes style, but maybe the way you've done it is fine. In any case the Spong citation is the opposite way, so there should be consistency there. All inline citations (including links to web pages like [1] should be made consistent and ideally listed either in the ==References== section if they are used throughout the article, or in a ==Notes== section if they just support one fact. Pick a system from Wikipedia:Cite_sources and use it for all the inline citations in the article. There is no consensus on which, but consistency is good. External links if used as sources for the article can be listed as references too. 5) Is the Spong work really notable enough to have a whole paragraph on his views? That quote at least doesn't seem to offer any evidence for the claim. - Taxman ^Talk 19:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Since I was the one who originally added the Bible references (& I'm amazed at how much of what I originally wrote is still in the article), I can state that they are the standard abbreviations, per the MLA Handbook. Many revisions back, I tried to spell out the entire title of the reference (e.g. "Rom. 11:1" would become "Romans 11:1"), but it appears that someone changed that.

As for the citations by title, I may have responsible for that, since it was the style I used before I noticed a consensus had finally evolved embracing using footnotes. If it is troublesome, then it should be fixed.

Lastly, I am a bit troubled at the "Alternative views" section, mostly because it does not seem to provide a proper survey of Alternative view, but rather a scatter-shot collection of writers who have a bone to pick with Paul. But since I don't know the literature, I can't offer constructive suggestions. -- llywrch 18:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)