Wikipedia:Peer review/Amon of Judah/archive1

Amon of Judah

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to improve the copyediting, scope, and really any other issues found within this article.

Thanks, Magister Scienta ^talk 15:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Overlinking - no need to link "assassination" Also, generally it's not a good plan to link more than once in an article this short (not including the lead section). You've got two links to Manasseh at least - as well Josiah

Done Magister Scienta ^talk 14:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, not a good idea to link within quotes.

Done Delinked everything within the quotes. Magister Scienta ^talk 14:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOt a fan of saying "Alhough the date is unknown, scripture records that he married Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah..." better to use the full link - like "Alhough the date is unknown, the Hebrew bible records that he married Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah..."

Done Used Hebrew bible instead. Magister Scienta ^talk 14:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the above - what date is unknown?

The date of the marriage. Magister Scienta ^talk 14:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who are Albright and Thiele and why do we care what their opinion is? Are they historians? Biblical scholars? Egyptologists? Give a bit of context.

Done I added a little info to the article about them. Magister Scienta ^talk 14:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once you've established that the dates are BCE - there is no need to keep using BCE after every date - given that it's a biography, it can be assumed that the dates remain all BCE.

Done Removed BCEs from everywhere but the lead and infobox. Magister Scienta ^talk 14:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better make it clear that II Kings is a book in the Bible - same with all the other biblical books.

I'm not totally convinced that's necessary, a) most people know what it is, b) the sentence before clarifies that it's part of the bible c) it's linked, so for those still unsure all they have to do is click and d) I think it would sound pretty choppy to say II Kings, a book of the bible, states... when the phase "the Hebrew bible records" was used just above. Magister Scienta ^talk 14:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also sections do not include links to things that are linked in the article

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)