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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2016 [1].

---

Nominator(s): JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about two subjects known through out not just religious views, but recognized as actual historical figures presented differently through out the world from different eras. I barely edited the article. All the credit goes to PiCo, who overhauled the article from this to it's current version. On a personal note, I have seen PiCo's edits since my registration on Wikipedia, and I'll say this, I have never felt more confident in an editor's skill to edit and overhaul articles such as PiCo. Anyways, this is a very interesting subject studied in different academics, but mainly biblical studies. This is my first nom. for FA, so I hope this process is successful. Thank you and Happy editing! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• '"Magog" might refer to Babylon, by turning BBL ("Babylon" in Hebrew script, which originally had no vowel-signs) into MGG (Magog).' This should probably be explained. Why do we think that BBL could be turned into MGG. By what process?

 Done I clarified that the encryption technique is called atbash ('atbaš), mentioned in inline source (Lust).--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "was enduring exile in Babylon": I'd cut the "enduring", and have simply "was in exile in Babylon"
• The two final paragraphs of the subsection on "Ezekiel and the Old Testament" seem to contradict each other: in the penultimate paragraph, we are told that Gog's allies may have been chosen for their "remoteness and reputation for violence", but in the final paragraph we are told that the names are simply taken from lists of nations elsewhere in the OT.
• In the bibliography, citation formatting needs to be consistent. For example, make sure all the books have their ISBNs. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caeciliusinhorto, I have added all ISBNs and fixed citation formats. Currently I am redirecting links. I will clarify the suggestions you posted when I get time. Thank you & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I modifed the part on MGG->BBL, but it appears to me the other issues brought by Caeciliusinhorto's have already been addressed? Or am I mistaken?--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The instructions at the top say "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." Is PiCo happy to see it here? Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod I'm very aware of the recommendations, but I'm more than confident about nominating this article. If there are any questions or concerns, I'd be happy to answer. Also, I already informed PiCo about the nom. before questioning had begun. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Choice of main image which doesnt feature Gog and Magog. Find some other? features Islamic Yājūj and Mājūj but I doubt people are familiar with Dhul-Qarnayn as nickname for Alexander the Great. For main I think we should use a European version such as one I uploaded (see Talk:Gog and Magog/Archive 2#Alternate images), which is more self-explanatory.

 Done I have replaced the main image with a miniature painting from a French/Belgian manuscript. It shows Gog and Magog people as more or less human-like, which seems to be typical. As for the Persian master painting that depicts them as demons, I added additional commentary and relocated it under the Islamic section. --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Dont know much about "Red Jews". It is namedropped in the lede, but not explained in the body. Gog and Magog conflates Red Jews, says here, but Red Jews says it is conflates Gog and Magog, so which is it, reader may wonder.  DoneTackled by User:JudeccaXIII as per his comments below --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC) * If you read s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Gog half of that article is devoted Gog and Magog statues in London. So someone might think this an omission. This topic is currently covered under Gogmagog (giant) but some bridging prose is probably necessary. * So I actually came with the preconceived notion that Gog and Magog were individual giants, and the current way of organizing information is confusing to me. I think it is better to say Gog or Magog is the name of the individual in the Old Testment, but that John in Revelation used these names for the forces of evil. Then state that in later medieval writings began referring to the people of "Gog and Magog" (as a stock phrase, please use quotation marks) localized to the land of "Gog and Magog" localized to areas of Asia, etc. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC) edited 08:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC) YKind of subtle but Gog and Magog is now used instead of Gog and Magog'. --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoweap, I'll clarify the connection of "Red Jews" in the article as you suggested. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoweap PiCo did explain who the "Red Jews" are: Some time before the 12th century the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel became identified with Gog and Magog.[41] The Franciscan traveller William of Rubric reported that he had seen Alexander's wall in Derwent on the shores of the Caspian Sea in 1254, and that there were other walls holding back Jews that he been unable to visit; William shared his information with Roger Bacon, who urged the study of geography to discover where the Antichrist and Gog and Magog might be found.[42]... but he didn't mention "Red Jews" specifically though that's what he meant. I'll clarify simply by adding Red Jews to the sentence per source already there. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point here rather was that "Red Jews" being a rather obscure term it did not merit mention in the lede. And "Red Jews" (rothe Juden) is described as a strictly German vernacular term for "confined Jews". It wasnt coined til ca. 1270 (Gow, p. 70) Thus not ascribable to William of Rubruck, a Frenchman (or Fleming) who wrote his Itinerarium in Latin, about a visit to the Iron Gate of Alexander in 1254.[2] --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y I tweaked it to show Rubruck does not explicitly mentions "Gog and Magog" or Jews as confined by Alexander's Gate explicitly, and that saying Rubruck's relevance to Gog Magog is largely inference (by Westrem). Also clarified "Red Jews" as being used strictly in Germany, and first used 1270.--Kiyoweap (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• #The names Gog and Magog I have found to be verifiable against cited sources. It relies primarily on encyclopedia entries for Gog and Magog written by Johan Lust, who is a biblical lexicographer.
• However, Chronicles does not state that Gog is a "descendant of Reuben", and even less "son of Reuben". It states Gog is a grandson of Joel (prophet) (See Britannica on Gog) and several generations down this line a person emerged who became the leader of the Reubenites.
• I also don't think Chronicles need be mentioned a second time if the Gog mentioned in it is an irrelevant personage. --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I concluded Britannica online "Gog" to be erroneous in identifying Joel the Reubenite with Joel the Prophet (e.g. Eerdman's Dict David Noel Freedman ed., Joel, p. 719 lists the two Joels as separate). It is pointed out in several sources that it is not clear what familial relationship the Joel--Gog line has with Reuben, so Gog being "son of Reuben" was corrected. I also replaced "descendant of Reuben" with "Reubenite", since latter is looser term (although synonymous in some views).--Kiyoweap (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "One of the most important legends associated with Gog and Magog was that of Alexander’s Gate" according to to the Britannica link, but you have to piece this "important legend" in pieces since the article is organized by sources, sort of chronolgical, and sort of scriptural vs. secular. Since you probably dont want to reorganize this completely, maybe a spinoff article on "Alexander's Gate" is needed.

 Done I now expand on Josephus Syriac Christian legend, the early sources on Alexander's Gate, and made it into a subsection, with a {{More}} tag pointing to the daughter article Gates of Alexander which already existed.--Kiyoweap (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article passes silently from "Alexander's Gate" to "Alexander's wall" and assume readers will immediately realize they are equivalent, but is this okay?
• The fact that Magog is son of Japheth / grandson of Noah according to Genesis 10 isn't stated until way down in the article. And I'm not sure it is all that significant to point out that Book of Jubilees aka "lesser Genesis" should echo the content of Genesis. Whereas it deserves to be pointed out that Josephus's Magog is in fact Magog son of Japheth, the same as the person in Genesis.[3] --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoweap I think its very important that the extra mentioning from biblical works outside the Bible be mentioned. There is no consensus on "who" or "what" Gog and Magog might be. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A minor scriptural source is not automatically important over various secular works. A crude metric for importance to this topic is to use books.google search the keywords: "Gog and Magog" vs. "Alexander the Great" gets 3890 hits, vs. "Josephus" 2130, vs. "Jubilees" 295. So the action i suggest is some combination of 1) notice to Jubilees be condensed, 2) Josephus be expanded 3) Jubilees etc. referred to in a later section as in , even if not chronological. The article isn't chronological anyways. It launches into a mini-lecture on the Jewish messiah-concept based on midrashic etc. writings, dating to much later than Josephus. And stuff about Napoleon. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall parity now between ecclesiastic writings vs. secular/epic writing now, especially with additional material now added that elaborates on which of the Alexander Romance fail to mention Gog/Magog, a topic of some complexity. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am going to support promotion of this FAC at this point. The page has undergone considerable expansions and reorganization, addressing coverage and cohesion issues. Not many reviewers have participated thus far, but I've done more fact-checking on this than is evidenced by multiple reviewers in other FAC reviews and given passing marks.--Kiyoweap (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I was first hesitant to review this, since it is never ideal when a nominator had no hand in writing an article (makes for example checking sources and elaborating on text difficult for them, and they may not be as familiar with the subject and relevant literature), but since the above review seems to have gone well, and because the subject is interesting, I'll go ahead. Any reason why the main writer isn't a co-nominator? FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The intro seems short for an article this length. It should be a summary of the entire article.

• It appears that Gogmagog (giant) has been connected with this subject, and even though this is probably incorrect, there should probably be some explanation here (why they have been connected, and why they are not connected).

FunkMonk The story of the giant or giants in London have nothing to do with the subject of biblical Gog and Magog. Even online academic sources suggest Gogmagog is entirely separate and should not be confused based on the name of the subject. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, which should be very clear form my comment. The fact that they have been historically confused, and that some writers have argued that they are connected, warrants mention, for the sake of comprehensiveness and historical context. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk I think it would be better to explain this information entirely at Gogmagog (giant) rather than trying to create an entire section or sub-section on Gog and Magog as the British folklore really has no affiliation with the biblical Gog and Magog other than the name. There is already a "See also" suggestion on top of the article. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, for context and comprehensiveness (which are FA criteria), it should be mentioned in both, but more briefly here, of course. Doesn't have to be a new section, a mere footnote would be enough. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoweap, FunkMonk I'v added the note as you suggested, though I'm not quite enthusiastic about my edit. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did initially write the same thing as FunkMonk, that some connection should be made to the Gog and Magog (statues) page (which is currently just a Gogmagog (giant)#Guardians of London section).

But having looked into the matter, I now think it's a rather minor point from the Gog and Magog article end of it, and agree with JudeccaXIII that it should mostly be written up in the other page. So maybe just a 1-liner in the etymology section. Done has been added.

Judecca made a lengthy addition, but it's not really visible when you put it in {{efn}} footnote; I think the lengthy bit you can transfer it to the other article; meanwhile I'll replace it with a short but visible 1-liner out of footnote.--Kiyoweap (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC) The {{efn}} now serves as supplementary reading following the 1-liner.--Kiyoweap (talk)[reply]

Great, I'll continue my review shortly. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The first mention of the two names occurs in the Book of Ezekiel" Make clear this is in the old testament of the bible. All readers may not be familiar with biblical subjects.
• It seems many of the footnotes lack citations. If citations can't be found, they should be removed.
• "; and in Revelation" I don't think an "and" is needed after a semiciolon.
• Everything linked and spelled out in the intro should also be linked and spelled out in the article body, which it isn't now.

• I see six sources that are listed in the bibliography but never cited. Please get User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, find those six, and either (and very strongly preferably) delete them or (an alternative grudgingly offered) put them within a "Further reading" section.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi: I do not see these warnings for 6 citations, and having checked my User:Kiyoweap/common.js I believe I do already have that javascript loaded. --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoweap Just notice you haven't been using the bibliography format, i'll fix it. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added 2 book and 1 web source to the caption to the new image showing "Gog i Magog" land on the Catalan map. Since the books are sources about the Catalan Atlas mostly, and dont write primarily or extensively on Gog and Magog, I dont think it merits listing under Bibliography. The web source does devote a large portion to the topic, but being a website it doesn't belong under Bibliography either.--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoweap I saw, just getting the Google Book links is all. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's done ...I'll do clean-ups tomorrow, adding ISBN#s etc. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out why the Unused CITE errors werent showing. My script was followed by the statement "window.checkLinksToCitations = false;" which was suppressing it. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I eliminated most of the books "not used in article" warning (kept and used Buitenwerf).
The Bibliography is now a lot shorter, making it more user-unfriendly, because I moved books that are not primarily about Gog and Magog and used marginally (cited for 1 passage 1 time etc.) out of Biblio into reflist.

I also categorized the Bibliography, which I think is useful, because it lists 'books primarily about Gog and Mago' first, as important sources. You may disagree and preffer a robotically alphabetized list though, idk.--Kiyoweap (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article needs to be about a particular topic, but the lead says Gog and Magog has several unrelated meanings without immediately choosing one. The article should start out saying that Gog and Magog has an apocalyptic meaning in Ezekiel and Revelation and then limit the article scope there (it looks like the article only addresses that one in depth). You can mention the other meanings while making it clear they are unrelated to the apocalyptic one. Right now the lead says "sometimes" it's eschatalogical, but then you read the article and it's all about the apocalpytic meaning.
• "end time" needs a definite article
• Don't abbreviate OT and NT and they need definite articles
• "The legend also appeared in the Alexander Romance, in some versions, as an encounter with the Unclean Nations that engaged in human cannibalism; Goth and Magoth named among their kings." no independent clause follows the semicolon.
• "These Gog and Magog people" sounds informal and maybe ungrammatical. Maybe "people identified as Gog and Magog"?
• "Medieval cosmological maps or Mappa mundi" if these are the same thing add a comma after maps
• "They appear in the Quran" prob need to specify antecedent of "they"
• "as Yajuj and Majuj (Arabic: يأجوج ومأجوج‎‎ Yaʾjūj wa-Maʾjūj), as" get rid of second "as"
• "The first mention of the two names..." this sentence starts off as if it's about the first mention of the two names, but lists the Revelation mention in addition. I'd split the sentence.
• "by Brutus's crew" if you're going to name Brutus I need to know something about who he is. It's probably sufficient to just say Gogmagog is a giant in British legend.
• "(chapbook version)" unclear on what this means. chapbook version of the legend?
• "6th century BC prophet" adjectival century needs a hyphen
• "chapters 38–39" I expected the link to take me to chapter 38, but it took me to Ezekiel. If you're going to convenience link Bible passages, do it for all of them.
• The footnote for the Ezekiel quote should specify the verse numbers and version. I believe the NRSV is preferred by academics.
• "In all the books of the Old Testament" get rid of "all the books of", unnecessary
• ""Why the prophet's gaze..." attribute quotations in text

--JFH (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography issues

• Note the difference between monograms and monographs.
• Why specify "on-topic", hopefully everything is.
• None of the reference works are "General references", they are specialized.
• There are two categorization schemes: type of work and topic. I've never seen a WP bibliography topically organized, but you need to pick a scheme.
• The "Religious" sources are not religious, they are works of biblical scholarship.
• Some sentence case titles, some title case, and not following the original publication case (e.g. Block's commentary)
• Place of publication is expected for books.

That's all for now.--JFH (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but after six weeks or so I'd expect this to be closer to consensus to promote than it is, so I'm going to archive this and ask the nominator to please work on resolving outstanding issues outside the pressure of the FAC process. Judecca, you're welcome to re-nominate the article after two weeks, per FAC instructions -- in the meantime, as well as dealing with the points raised above, I'd recommend seeking input (including from the above reviewers if they can manage it) at Peer Review, to help get things in the best shape possible before trying again at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.