Talk:Homelessness of Jesus

Judahite

Consensus seems to be that Jesus was a Galilean, not a Judahite. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Homelessness of Jesus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingoflettuce (talk · contribs) 15:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing... Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lede is awkwardly worded. There is no mention of what "this passage" refers to (simply say Jesus was homeless according to Matthew and Luke?). You write that "theologians" have linked this story to kenosis, but the body only talks about one theologian who gives such an opinion. The most glaring issue for me is that the lede sets up the notion that Jesus was homeless but the rest of the article suggests that this is debatable, i.e. his homelessness is not a hard fact.

   Elsewhere, there's wonky grammar, e.g. "since his legal father, Joseph, whom married to his mother, Mary, was a carpenter." (Something like "to whom his mother was married" instead? This sentence isn't very helpful to begin with.)

   Likewise the tense of "and wandered Israel by charity—mostly came from women" is not correct (should be something like "which mostly came" or "mostly coming", instead of just "mostly came".)

   "Writing that these teach to not use resources for oneself but for others also" is another example of awkward phrasing.

   "came to him speaking of his desires to be his followers"? Why is "followers" in the plural and what's the point of this sentence in the first place? What's so important/contentious about this statement of a sofer wanting to follow Christ that you need two separate citations spanning several pages?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I'm taking most of the sources in good faith at the moment, since I am not able to access them but in any case the referencing is puzzling. Some queries:

   "The Baptist pastor John Gill paralleled it with the Jews' expectations of the messiah." I'm really not sure what this is supposed to mean, or even what part of the source you're looking at.

   Which parts of the Alexander article are you referencing? (I'm unable to access it but surely that one sentence can't be relying on all of the article...)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I see you have written several GAs/FAs, so you should already have the intuition that articles of this length very rarely meet the GA criteria. Take away the quotes and the superfluous info about who Jesus was and you barely have an article that meets the DYK criteria, much less GA. For instance I'm sceptical that Schmalz's sculpture is the sole instance of Jesus' homelessness being depicted in popular culture. It doesn't need to be exhaustive but surely one sentence isn't comprehensive enough.

   The "Interpretation" section doesn't do justice to the full debate on Jesus' homelessness. The idea that it could be a metaphor/allegory for Jesus' "growing estrangement from first-century Judaism" (per Myles) is one that needs mentioning. There's a whole lot more but I don't think it's my job to expound on that. You presumably have read Myles' book and it's devoted to Jesus' homelessness! So citing just 3 out of 235 pages doesn't cut it.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: (Nomination was withdrawn)

I clicked on this hoping to learn more about Jesus' homelessness but this article is found wanting. Honestly leaning towards a quick fail, though this is my very first review so I could be missing something! Plus you have written many GAs and FAs so I wouldn't be jumping the gun on this. Have sought a second opinion Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

To editor Nicholas Michael Halim: Responding to @Kingoflettuce:'s concerns, I note that your most germane reference is a book of 200+ pages but you only cite four of those 200+. In your single edit to the article you removed seemingly relevant references like Denaux and Stanton. Further, you haven't cited sources like Keenan and Trainor. This literature isn't my field but I'm concerned that this article isn't comprehensive if you haven't used applicable books like these. Could you please explain your philosophy regarding what you kept in this article versus what you deleted and added? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The GA requirement of broad coverage is not a particularly onerous bar, unlike comprehensiveness at FAC, but I still am doubtful that it's being met here given that the article is quite skimpy and there are more sources to cite. (t · c) buidhe 17:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Please give me at least two weeks, or just one if that's too long, to fix all issues. This is my first article on Jesus, the most influential (and controversial) figure ever, so please don't fail it. The article is too short, I admit, because Jesus' homelessness is not a famous aspect of his life. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Regarding Myles' book, I have no idea what it talks about. I don't have read the book entirely but what I noticed that the writer seems to talk mostly about the relation between Jesus' homelessness and political ideology. Please give me some weeks! —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the article is too short because Jesus' homelessness isn't a famous aspect of his life, but I won't press the point... Please take your time---just ping me when you think you're done. Two weeks sounds more than reasonable Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to quick fail it, though others have convinced me that it would be within reason to do so. Your film articles are great but you should really have known better than to nominate this half-baked article before it was ready. I hope this thread won't become too bloated! Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I have read Myles' book but it does not have any relevant thing to be added to the article. The book is full of quotes but none of them have theological relevance. It is more political than theological. Not forcing but I would like if you read the book too ([1])

I have searched on Google Books for more theological analysis of Jesus' homelessness, but theologians seems to have not put an interest on it, unlike John 3:16. Thus, it is reasonable for me, if the article is short. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce: Ok, I understand now. This article has too much issues. Please just fail it now. I will remove all my contributions to the article and revert it to the 13 March 2022 version. Writing about this field is not as easy as I expected. Sorry, please quick fail this nomination now. Sorry for wasting your time. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries, sorry to hear that. I intend to work on this myself when I have the time. Best wishes, Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)