Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Magdalene/archive1
Well documented, well written, a prime example of what Wikipedia is all about. Nick Catalano (Talk) 13:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- Object 1) the lead section is insufficient compared to the length of the article. 2) Biographical information should be the first section after the lead to give the reader a frame of reference for the subject's life (for example, compare this to John D. Rockefeller or Mahatma Gandhi). slambo 13:46, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Insufficient lead. Insufficient exploration of both her traditional and apocryphal rôle - ie. her import and rôle to the Catholic Church, orthodoxies, protestants, etc. The second part of this criticism is to do with insufficient discussion of theories as to her being the wife of Jesus and having written the gospel of John. Even ideas put forth by spurious, populist literature such as Jesus having handed the leadership of his church onto her - this information being later supressed by the phallocracy that was Christianity. --Oldak Quill 18:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC) PS. I think the article is currently too stunted and section, perhaps a better flow between section and a sense of development could be achieved?
- Object. I too feel that the "flow" of this article is poor, it does not read very well as a continuous article. I also feel that too much is made of the conspiracy theories and fictional works centred on her and there is not enough information regarding her place in the Christian faith. Rje 19:40, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Object. While I did some copy editting to this article, I feel one weakness that hasn't been mentioned yet is that the references in this article -- & there are many, which is a commendable strength -- needs to be better organized. There are only 4 cited at the bottom, while the text refers inline to countless more. Fix this, & this article will only be stronger. -- llywrch 21:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)