GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Family 1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Added Stephen Walch (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have converted all to "Family 1" Stephen Walch (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually couldn't find a single source which referred to it as "the Lake Group" bar the encyclopedia of textual criticism; however as no source there, I've just removed this completely. Stephen Walch (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Stephen Walch (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note Prior to Mark 16:9-20[5]: 132 " is sourced to Anderson p. 132 which supports the information

Luke 1: 9, 11, 17, 20, (22), 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, (34), 36, 37, 40, 43, (47), 48, 50, 51, 53. Luke 10: 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 20, 22, (23), 27, (29), 34, 37, 40, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 62. Luke 20: 1, 5, 6, (7), 10, 11, 14, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 41, 44, 45, 48, 51, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 75, 76." is sourced to this source p. 106 which supports the information

Sorted this out too. Stephen Walch (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: I have hopefully sorted out the changes you required. Anything else, please let me know. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 03:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by Stephen Walch (talk). Self-nominated at 16:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Family 1; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • ALT1 ... that Family 1, a closely related group of Greek New Testament manuscripts, place the story of the woman caught in adultery at the end of the Gospel of John as a separate story? Source: Comfort, Philip Wesley (2017). A Commentary on Textual Additions to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregal Publications, pp. 83-84
  • That should be 175 characters. :)
  • Or even:
Let's go with the one that is 175 characters. Full review still needed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This can proceed. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 21:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure what a miniscule is

[edit]

This article is interesting...but it doesn't actually tell me what a miniscule is. The link to miniscule goes to Lists of New Testament minuscules, which also doesn't say what a miniscule is. That in turn links to New Testament minuscule, which in turn requires me to go to Greek minuscule, which also doesn't really answer what makes the fact that something is a biblical miniscule meaningful. I would suggest including a body paragraph which plainly explains what a miniscule manuscript is and why it matters that we have a family of them. It may also be worth considering whether the miniscule link be retargeted, or the targeted page be improved to include a definition of what a miniscule manuscript is and why that matters. I make these suggestions since I see the article was just up for GA, but I think that a rather key element has been left out, which could threaten its GA status. Otherwise, its a good article and I appreciate the hard work. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CaptainEek - this is a very good question! I've amended the page now to in fact link to the Greek minuscule page (as opposed to the 'list'; that's in the related links at the bottom), as well as a quick blurb as to what a 'minuscule' is. There is in fact no "significance" to these manuscripts being minuscules, as 'minuscule' is just the name given to the Greek handwriting script which replaced the older uncial script (which could be described as an "upper case" only script, whereas minuscule includes the usual lower-case/upper-case mix which we see in most languages these days). That this is a family of only minuscules as opposed to uncials or a mix of the two is inconsequential, as it's the text contained within the manuscripts which are the significant bit; a Greek manuscript being an older uncial doesn't automatically make it more significant than a younger minuscule when it comes to the NT. Hope that helps answer the question. If you feel something more needs to be put on about what a 'minuscule' is, please let me know. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]