Wikipedia:Peer review/Korban Olah/archive1

Korban Olah

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… it needs fixing. The subject of the article is the burnt offering in the case of Noah, Ancient Israel, mentioned under the term "burnt offering" in English language Bibles, English language Talmud, and academic works.

(1) it was created as a fork from holocaust (sacrifice) on Dec 7 2010, from which the deleted/moved material was then restored, creating duplication. Inevitably that means there's a clean up issue back there as well.
(2) the forked article was created using a WP:TITLE contrary to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE and with other POV problems. Same sort of oddness and circular POV problems created by entitling/creating e.g. fork of History of Roman Catholicism in Japan as Kirishitan, for example. The original Hebrew term is [olah], the term korban olah (WP:CAPS) is rarely used in English language texts.
(3) lack of any scholarly sources relevant to the actual historical period - added a WikiProject Ancient Near East banner.

Thanks, In ictu oculi (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a merge to pull back the forked duplication.. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comment: It appears to me that what you're really looking for is a dispute resolution rather than a peer review, which is meant for "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." Partly because of the unresolved dispute, the article in question has no immediate prospects of promotion to GA or higher. I see on the Korban Olah talk page that the idea of pursuing an RfC has come up. That's one of several possibilities mentioned at WP:DISPUTE. Whatever you decide, I'd suggest closing the PR. This is not the right venue for mediation. Finetooth (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Finetooth, if that's what you advise then so be it. I'd simply prefer to attract new editors to fix the article's problems, really do not want to get into dispute process, life is too short. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]