Talk:Minuscule 1582

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Minuscule 1582/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Frzzl (talk · contribs) 09:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): Earwig turned up with 2.9%, which is lovely. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): Seems absolutely fine to me, having read some related materials. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: - as another reviewer noted on one of your previous nominations, "If someone tried to edit war on this page, I would have no clue how they'd do it." It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): All images used are Library of Congress, public domain. Captions are relevant and suitable.
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Review

Hello! I've chosen to review this article, hopefully it should go quite smoothly.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  09:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Points

I've read through the article, and it is very good. A couple of points, some of which I've partially WP:BOLDed:

• WTW The article is in places pitched with too complex a vocabulary; while I for one am a darling for the use of "howbeit", the average reader isn't. Please go through and make sure that when a complex sentence can be simplified, it is.
• Some minor inconsistencies in presentation - is "Ephraim" italicised or not? Do we have "gospels" or "Gospels" (this I've changed to lowercase in the lead, but it is your choice)
• The lead should be longer. Copy in its present location, and some more information about its history.
• I think that the image in the "Text" section should be right-aligned per MOS:IMAGELOC. The image should also have an alt= parameter for accessibility.
• Half of the first paragraph of the "Text" section is supported by one megaref of 25 pages. Could you break it up to cupport individual points with a narrower page scope?
• t has further significance in being written by the monk Ephraim - should this be "According to Kim..."? Significance is subjective, and since this was already talking about Kim's work, imo this should be here.

Spotchecks

Have looked at following references (according to rev 1168201036):

• 11 (OK)
• all appearances of 2 (OK), that took a lot of looking up abbreviations haha
• all appearances of 6 (OK)
• several examples of 5 with the help of Google Books

so, am happy with the sourcing and references. Appear to be reliable and verifiable.

Status

Stephen Walch, I'll put the review On Hold for probably the rest of the month as you're not here all the time, which is fine. Ping me when you see this and we can finish it off :D  Frzzl  talk; contribs  13:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Frzzl - thanks very much for the comments. I'll look at implementing your suggestions over the coming days, and let you know when I think I've acquiesced to them successfully. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Frzzl : I believe I've sorted out the article now in accordance with your suggestions. Let me know if I need to amend anything else. Stephen Walch (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Have put together two more paragraphs, but everything else seems just fine to me. Passing, congrats! :D  Frzzl  talk; contribs  22:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Frzzl :) Stephen Walch (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 14:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Minuscule 1582, despite the high number assigned to it, is considered the best leading member of a group of minuscule manuscripts of the New Testament Gospels known as Family 1? Source: Metzger, Bruce Manning; Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 91. ISBN 0-19-516667-1.
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Stephen Walch (talk). Self-nominated at 22:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Minuscule 1582; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• The full review is to follow, but I feel that the hook might be too specialist and may not be easily understood by people who aren't into academic Biblical studies. Is there a way to make the hook more easily understandable, or could another hook be proposed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Hi @User:Narutolovehinata5 (excellent name btw): fair point; it is quite specialist. How about: that minuscule 1582 is a very important Greek manuscript of the New Testament, of which we actually know who copied it: Ephraim the Monk from Constantinople in 948 CE. Was also thinking something akin to the manuscripts text probably reflecting that used by Origen in Caesarea, but wasn't quite sure if this too was a bit specialist. Stephen Walch (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Stephen Walch: As a bit of a Biblical history buff myself (not an expert and admittedly there's still a lot I don't know, but the subject fascinates me), I still think that hook is very specialist and probably doesn't meet the "hooks need to be intriguing to people without special knowledge" criterion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: : how about: that Minuscule 1582, a manuscript of the New Testament, was originally written in Constantinople in the 10th century but ended up at Vatopedi Monastery on Mount Athos, in Greece, and no one knows how? or that Minuscule 1582, a Greek New Testament manuscript, includes portraits of the Evangelists before each Gospel which were inserted into the manuscript several years after it had been written and bound?. Stephen Walch (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I saw this trying to find something to review. I think the original hook isn't bad at all, - how is this wording - without the high number which I agree is for insiders only, and saying sooner what a minuscule is (and I suggest to use the second image, to make that visible):

• ALT0a: ... that the Minuscule 1582 manuscript of the Gospels is considered the best leading member of a group known as Family 1? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that hook works much. It seems very specialist. I actually think the suggestion that was given above, like the "no one knows how" thing, might actually work with the right wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

We will probably disagree forever about what is "interesting". It's interesting and new to me, and will be new for most, so educational for most. Why not teach? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

If the intention is to teach, that's what reading the article is for, not the hook. Encourage readers to read the article, where they would learn the same information anyway. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You and I know how many read the Main page - the hook - and how many (or few) actually go to the article. Why not teach the many also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not the spirit of how DYK works. Hooks are called, well, hooks, because they are intended to hook people into reading the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong in doing both, hook a bit and inform a bit? In this case, just the article name would hook me, make me curious to find out. No idea what Family 1 means, also ready to find out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That wouldn't rule out a hook about the "no one knows" angle. That could also "inform" readers. Or really, any hook could, so that idea doesn't necessarily mean we need to go with the original hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Since I forgot to give this a full review, I have to note that it was promoted to GA status on time and I did not find any close paraphrasing. The hook is cited inline and I am assuming good faith for the sourcing as the source is a book. The nom has only one other nomination so a QPQ is not required. Again, my concern is that the original hook is somewhat specialist and requires at least some familiarity with Biblical studies. Maybe a rewording might make it catchier or more layperson-friendly, but as is, none of the hook options proposed so far are suitable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Hey, I GAR'd this article and saw this review from Gerda's page. Since I've been mildly involved with it, I'd like to see it get its place on the front page, so may I suggest some alternatives? To avoid any concerns about comprehensibility to the layperson, I would propose something along the lines of ...that Minuscule 1582 is actually 290 leaves long?. It perhaps is a little lighthearted as a quick and dirty pun, but something needs to happen to pick this up again!  Frzzl  talk; contribs  00:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

    That might work given it may "hook" people in by being just vague enough, but my worry is that it might be too vague. Vague hooks are somewhat of a mixed bag in that sometimes they encourage readership and other times they backfire, so it's somewhat of a balance. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

    I was pinged , so some thoughts.

    1. Alternative hooks are a good idea (we once went up to 19), but I suggest to format them ready for the promoter to pick up, and with a number to refer to.
    2. The most important person for new hook suggestions is the author who knows the article best. I - as a reviewer - would not approve a hook that the author hates.
    3. What I - if I was the reviewer but aware that I am not - would say in this specific case is, that new hook is vague, and so is the original. Why not use the original then, which has something specific to offer for those who know a bit. Or find some combination. To leave only vagueness and quirkyness, with only those in mind who know nothing yet, deprives the Main page of more specific valuable information.

    In short: if the author likes the new hook, I'd approve it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

    The new hook is fine if it gets it over the line and has this appear on the main page. I do believe it is a little vague (my initial thought would be "why's that significant?"), so I've thought of another one: "...that Minuscule 1582 (a Greek manuscript of the New Testament Gospels) has been rebound at least twice, the latest of which was in the 19th century?" Or this one: "...that Minuscule 1582 (a Greek manuscript of the New Testament Gospels) has an ancient note before Mark 16:9-20 which casts doubt on the authenticity of these verses?" Or this one: "...that Minuscule 1582 (a Greek manuscript of the New Testament Gospels) places John 7:52-8:11 (the woman caught in adultery story) at the end of the Gospel of John?" Some of these may be a bit more snazzy and catch a readers attention. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

    I think these all look quite good, but I'd add something like "over the last millenium" or something similar to the first. Naruto, are you willing to accept any of these?  Frzzl  talk; contribs  21:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

    Among the new options I like the "doubt on the authenticity of these verses" option the most since I think even a non-Christian or a non-Biblical scholar would understand it. However, per WP:DYKG, the parts inside parentheses should be modified since parenthetical notes aren't allowed in hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

    • How about therefore: "...that Minuscule 1582, a Greek manuscript of the New Testament Gospels, has an ancient note before Mark 16:9-20 which casts doubt on the authenticity of these verses?" Someone else can format it according to the correct did-you-know guidelines. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  • ALT1 ... that Minuscule 1582, a Greek manuscript of the New Testament Gospels, has an ancient note before Mark 16:9-20 which casts doubt on the authenticity of these verses?

  Like this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I offered a link to the chapter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I like the above, if all are agreed? Stephen Walch (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Looks good to me, should someone stick a DYKtick here?  Frzzl  talk; contribs  22:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  Silly me, looks like all others are happy, so I'll just be BOLD and put a tick here myself. Sorry for missing the updates here and delaying this further!  Frzzl  talk; contribs  14:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• Frzzl can't approve hook because they did the GA review. Also see Special:Diff/1178264719 RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• @Vaticidalprophet @Stephen Walch @Frzzl, RoySmith asked I don't see the connection between the hook fact and the article. I see where the article discusses Mark 16:9 starting at "After Mark 16:8 is a colophon..." but I can't work out how that "casts doubt on the authenticity of these verses?" Maybe it's obvious to a biblical scholar, but I'm not seeing it. Would it be possible to explain in the article (with a reference) why the colophon casts doubt on the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20? TSventon (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  @TSventon @RoySmith - I've added a quick blurb plus reference for what you've suggested. Hopefully this gives context to the DYK hook. Don't really want to engage in a long convo in an article on Min. 1582 about the ending of Mark's Gospel, else that will take away from the main focus on min. 1582 itself. Stephen Walch (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. To me, somebody who knows nothing about the subject, that helps put things in context. RoySmith (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Stephen Walch, Narutolovehinata5, I can approve Alt1a. I am happy to assume good faith in the offline reference provided and an online search found this, which also supports the hook. TSventon (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)