Statements like this set off the warning bells:
The traditional view of Lukan authorship is “widely held as the view which most satisfactorily explains all the data.” The list of scholars maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion. But there is no consensus, and the current opinion concerning Lukan authorship has been described as ‘about evenly divided’ on who the author was.Note the appeal to popularity. Not a lot of light shed here.
Then there was the sop to Bart Ehrman on early modifications to Luke:
While probably not original to the text, these verses reflect first-century tradition.When you check the source for this statement you get Bruce M. Metzger, a favorite authority for apologists and evangelicals. In fact nearly a quarter of the sources cite Donald Guthrie whose wrote "New Testament Theology, which some evangelicals believe to be among the more significant books related to the New Testament." Excuse me if I reserve judgment.
The article does contain a smattering of skeptical citations but the whole fails to give any sort of balance or appreciation of the thrust of argumentation. Of course, I will continue to use Wiki for all my Power Rangers background material.