Talk:Codex Monacensis (X 033)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Codex Monacensis (X 033)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Stephen Walch (talk · contribs) 10:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 21:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am excited to dig in to this review (I love book history). I typically prefer to make small edits myself, and only post here with larger comments, but of course you should feel free to modify any edits I might make to the article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stephen Walch, thanks for your revisions so far! Just pinging because I've finished reviewing everything and came across a few more things it would be good to address. Once everything below is sorted out, we'll be good. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• The "Description" section says though the original order was Matthew, John, Luke and Mark but it's not clear to me if you mean "originally in this manuscript before it was rebound" or "originally in the development of biblical texts". ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a rephrase would help for a patristic commentary (except for Mark) -- this wording confused me into thinking that Mark was a patristic commentary but is missing from this manuscript. What about something more like Three of the four included gospels are accompanied by patristic commentaries? A wikilink to List_of_biblical_commentaries#Patristic_commentaries might also be helpful. Bouncing this to you for rephrasing because I'm not confident I have construed the right meaning. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @LEvalyn: I've reworded these sections (and the one below concerning the manuscript dating) now and hopefully made them more clear. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, that works for me! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the "History" section would read more clearly if it was arranged in chronological order. i.e., first the manuscript was written, then its first recorded owner is Vossius, then it moves around a bit, then it gets studied. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @LEvalyn: due to the mention of the polish article, which has a much fuller section of the manuscript history, I'll look to see what that says and if I can confirm the sources cited match, will re-write and re-arrange the history section so it does the manuscript justice. :)

  I'll also remove the notable reading section unless I find a source which mentions a reading of X specifically. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds great! Just give me a ping whenever you think the article is ready for my eyes again. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @LEvalyn: Think I'm good for you to check this over again. Let me know if there's anything else I need to relook at. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All these changes look good to me! The expansion & images from the Polish article are a nice addition, and I'll defer to the template for the infobox question I raised below. I think we're all set! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems odd that the infobox calls it "Uncial 033" when the article is called "Codex Monacensis (X 033)". In the sources I looked at for my source review, I saw it referred to as "X" twice and "X 033" once. It makes me wonder if "X (Codex Monacensis)" would be justifed as the "true" name here. I'm not sure what the best approach is, really, but I do think the infobox should match. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not much I can do about this I'm afraid, as it's based on a wiki template: Template:Infobox New Testament manuscript. Stephen Walch (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to review a randomly-selected 5 sources for this article. Based on the numbering at this version, I'll look at sources 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8.

• 1. Aland, Kurt; Aland, Barbara (1995). p. 113. Everything checks out here! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 2. Gregory, Caspar René (1900).

• I notice that this source dates it to the 9th or 10thC whereas Aland & Aland dates it just to the 10th. Right now the date is cited to both sources, but is this a case where we should follow the newer source and just say 10thC? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 4. Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose; Edward Miller (1894). There was one citation to this source which didn't seem well-supported, but since that claim was also cited to two other sources, this one seemed redundant and I boldly removed it. Otherwise, everything checks out here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 7. Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (26 ed.) and 8. Tischendorf, 8th edition. These citations "check out" in the sense that they match the cited text, but they drew my attention to other concerns, discussed below. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Images: It looks like the Polish version of the article has some interesting close-up images -- could those be added here? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• OR and focus: I'm concerned that the "notable readings" section doesn't meet the criteria about WP:OR or "focus". It strikes me as classic WP:SYNTH to set two primary sources next to each other and ask the reader to spot the differences; my concern about OR would be addressed if there was a secondary source which also notes these differences and sees them as meaningful. But even then, I think getting into this much detail is more suited to a bibliography or a monograph of textual criticism than an encyclopedia. (It looks like this kind of exhaustive listing is common for the related manuscript articles, but to be frank, it looks unencyclopedic and WP:UNDUE to me there too.) Can you remove this section (if there's no secondary sourcing) or distill it more briefly into prose (if there is)? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]