Talk:Rahlfs 1219

Rahlfs 1219 has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 24, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Rahlfs 1219 was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 7, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rahlfs 1219/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Stephen Walch (talk · contribs) 18:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 01:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this soon! IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead doesn't need citations if it is just a summary of the body. I suggest rewriting the lead to align more with Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There is several unreferenced pieces of text. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	per above. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	see comment below IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm going to have to fail this due to the number of unsourced text. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is another source copying from this article but [1] is showing that there is some copyvio. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @IntentionallyDense - thanks very much for the review comments. I've provided refs for the requested citations, and reworded the summary. Regarding the apparent copy violations - not sure how good your Polish is, but that's an English-Polish online dictionary which appears to have taken sentences from internet sources which reference "vinedresser", as a quick search of some of the sentence examples are also from other wikipedia pages. Hence this is just an AI generated online dictionary. :) Not sure that as you've failed the review you can re-do it now after my changes? Tyvm! Stephen Walch (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure about the copyvio thing and thats not why I failed it, I failed the article due to the unsourced sections which would qualify as quick fail criteria 3. Unfortunately you will need to renominate the article for it to be reassed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:Rahlfs 1219/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Stephen Walch (talk · contribs) 22:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 19:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the lead is very long and complicated, and could be split (maybe a very short first sentence just stating what it is; a second sentence on alternate names, and a third sentence on the term "septuagint"?)

SW: I've reworded the intro. Also removed the explanation of Septuagint from the lead to the main description - not sure if I need to go into too much detail regarding the Greek Septuagint in this article?

The article title is "Rahlfs 1219", but the article begins with "Washington Manuscript of the Psalms", and this is also the title of the infobox. Thse all should use the same name. What was the rationale of choosing "Rahlfs 1219" as article title rather than one of the other names? Why is "Washington MS II" not bolded, too?

SW: Rectified

wikilink facsimile

SW: Rectified

It employs the use of numerous nomina sacra (special names/words considered sacred in Christianity - usually the first and last letters of the name/word in question are written, followed by an overline; sometimes other letters from within the word are used as well), consistently using the nomen sacrum for ΘΣ (θεος / God), ΚΣ (κυριος / Lord), ΔΑΔ (Δαυιδ / David), and ΧΣ (χριστος / Messiah/Anointed); with other nomina sacra used frequently: ΟΡΟΣ (ουρανος / heaven), ΙΗΛ (Ισραηλ / Israel), ΜΗΡ (μητηρ / mother), ΣΗΡ (σωτηρ / saviour), ΠΡΣ (πατρος / father), ΑΝΟΣ (ανθρωπος / man/human), ΠΝΑ (πνευμα / Spirit), ΥΣ (υιος / son), and ΙΗΛΜ (Ιεροσαλημ / Jerusalem). – This is an extremely long sentence that should be split. The explanation in the bracket is too long, too. I really appreciate such explanations, but consider having this as a separate sentence, or place it in a footnote.

SW: Rectified

Optional: Consider in-text explanation for some other important terms as well, such as "Hebrew parallelisms" or "stanza division".

SW: Rectified (Oct 24th 2024)

It would be helpful to the reader to state how many pages this manuscript has.

SW: Did sort of have this mentioned ("107 parchment leaves"), but I've clarified this a bit in a reworded section.

The article does not say anything about content, so I assume that the content is identical to that in the modern bible? Is this the case?

SW: Rectified

The manuscript is a codex (precursor to the modern book) – with "book", I assume you mean the bible? Could be specified for clarity.

SW: Rectified. More in relation to the actual modern "book", book, and not just the Bible.

Ali in Gizah, Cairo, – means that this person is from Cairo (maybe include "from" for extra clarity?)

SW: Rectified

Please create redirects for the alternate names to this article (for example Washington Manuscript of the Psalms, content should be

#REDIRECT [[Rahlfs 1219]]

SW: Rectified (Oct 24th 2024).

Looks really good overall. I cannot check the sources as long as the internet archive is down, but I do not see any potentially controversial statements either. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Jens Lallensack?: thanks for the review. I've put notes below the above bullet points with my current changes. Will return to look at the ones I've not yet done. Stephen Walch (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It is looking very good already. Ping me once you are ready! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack: Believe I've made all the necessary changes based on your GA review comments now. Let me know if I need to reword/change/add anything else. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks all good, thanks! Promoting now, congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.