This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This is not an encyclopedia article neutrally summarizing and attributing the consensus scholarly opinion and any alternative minority opinions on what the subject of the article did and wrote. Instead, it appears to be a long, discursive, and argumentative essay largely following the opinion of one source, speculating about what the subject might have known and what his lost writings might have said, in an attempt to explain an attack piece from someone else of that time. It is heavily based on one source, Cohen, which is equally argumentative, but Cohen at least acknowledges the existence of alternative scholarly views (e.g. Laqueur), if only to summarily dismiss them. This article, not so much. It may well be that Cohen's opinion actually is the scholarly consensus, but I don't get a clear view of that from this article, which attempts to persuade readers of the correctness of that opinion rather than to report neutrally on what the consensus is and why scholars believe it.
Organizationally, it would have been much more helpful to clearly outline what Josephus said about Justus, separated from any description of whether current scholarship believes Josephus and why. As it is, I am overwhelmed with arguments about why Josephus must have been wrong, without any clear statement of what he said that was wrong. Moreover the writing is often far from idiomatic English: the third sentence, "Josephus is moreover the alone to mention this writing, but without ever citing the slightest extract", is typical. "The alone"? It could well be (maybe is) a bad machine translation from French (there are some footnotes still in untranslated French), for which the correct English phrase "only one" and the incorrect word "alone" are both represented by the same French word "seul". The lead is not in any way a summary of the body. The use of pronouns that do not refer to the immediately preceding noun is frequent and confusing. There are several sentence fragments without verbs.
I think this is very far from meeting WP:GACR #1a (clear, concise, and understandable prose, with correct grammar), #1b (lead), #3b (most of the article consists of details of interpretations of events that the subject might possibly have written about, rather than about what we know of the subject himself), and #4 (the writing does not convey the appearance of neutral impartiality). One could also argue that the heavy use of rhetorical questions invokes WP:SYN (GACR #2c). And although the references in general appear to be reliable, there are many broken Harvard citation links (#2a). Because it is far from the criteria, I think it is a quick WP:GAFAIL.
