User talk:Ellensa4

This is Ellensa4's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: MS Ham. 78.A.5 has been accepted

MS Ham. 78.A.5, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

asilvering (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to MS Ham. 78.A.5, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. asilvering (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like some of this can be resolved by citing the manuscript catalogue, so please do that where applicable. For statements like The Hamilton Psalter is distinct in attesting to the evolving visual traditions of depicting the psalms through its combination of textual (literal), contextual (historical), and Christological representations, it's less clear to me where this is coming from - is it your own assessment? If so, that would be what wikipedia considers "original research", and should be avoided. -- asilvering (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]