The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

Ebionites[edit]

Self-nominantion. I nominate this well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article (which has been peer-reviewed and received good article status) on a subject related to the origins of Christianity that deserves more attention in light of the pseudo-history, promoted by books like the The Da Vinci Code, that is quite popular these days. --Loremaster 20:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article seems to be semi-protected. Do you know why?-- Zleitzen^(talk) 21:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was being subjected to periodic vandalism by anonymous IPs. Ovadyah 23:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article will probably be subjected to intense vandalism by religious bigots from a variety of perspective if and when it becomes a Featured Article. --Loremaster 18:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Primary sources section is non-encyclopaedic and far too long. Batmanand | Talk 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC) x[reply]

I don't think that's an actionable objection. The article is not excessively long, and the alternative "summary style" would be to put that excellent collection of historical source quotes into a separate article, which would be a small and pointless subdivision. 204.186.14.201 23:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is actionable. We have Wikisource for primary sources, or at the very least I am opposing suggesting that the sources section should be shortened. How is that not actionable? Batmanand | Talk 21:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the primary sources section. --Loremaster 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now Support. Batmanand | Talk 17:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is the most comprehensive encyclopedic article on the Ebionites that I have seen. It is far more NPOV than most sources, which typically have a religious axe to grind. Ovadyah 20:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I want to support this... but I just can't. The lead is too short and some of the sentences are written on a PhD level---thus aren't easily accessible to the average reader. For example that first sentence goes on forever.Balloonman 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on the lead and dumbed down some sentences in it and in the rest of the article. --Loremaster 19:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I found the prose concise and to flow smoothly and well (unlike this sentence). cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please complete your footnotes so we can see what kinds of sources you're using. All sources should include publisher, author and date when avaialable, and websources should include last access date. For example, your last source is ^ Messianic Seal. Who's the publisher, when was it accessed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different types of sources have different types of citations. That being said, I've removed the last source since it was redundant. --Loremaster 02:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I like the flow and Wow nice amount of sources! Max 07:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.