Talk:Dura Parchment 24/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: two disambiguations were fixed.diff

Linkrot: no dead links found.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is generally literate, although a little dense in places.

   Generally, it has been regarded as a fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron (Gospel harmony). Needs a little explanation, also cleaning up "Generally, it has been regarded" is not good grammar, also who regards it thus? What is "Gospel harmony"?

   The text was written one column per page, 15 (or more) lines per page, 30–35 letters per line, in uncial letters., please explain "uncial letters"

   In Luke 23:49 it contains a unique reading: "the wives of those who had been his disciples" I'm guessing that "it" refers to the manuscript that is the article subject, but this needs to be made clear.

   In Matthew 27:57, the city Arimathea, normally spelled Αριμαθαια, is spelled Ερινμαθαια (Erinmathea). What is the significance of this?

   Lots of single sentences here, please consolidate into paragraphs.

   The text twice agrees with Codex Vaticanus and Bohairic against everything else... What is "everything else"?

   First syrsin shares with Codex Bezae... What is "syrsin"?

   The text-type of this manuscript is no longer classifiable, because of the Diatessaric character of text (likewise Papyrus 25). Even so, Aland placed it in Category III. Context is needed for this.

   Who is this Kraeling? Context is needed.

   History of the manuscript I think that this section would be better placed before Description to aid understanding.

   A little bit of information about the Hopkins', Kareling, Bradford Welles is needed. Most readers will never had heard of them.

   In March 5th, 1933, during the excavations conducted by Clark Hopkins amongst the ruins of a Roman border-town, Dura-Europos, on the lower Euphrates, a little more geographic information is needed. e.g. in wahat is now known as Syria. An a location near a modern town or city.

   It was re-edited, with a minor corrections... "a minor corrections"?

   was a copy of Tatian's Diatessaron. Context, who or what is "Tatian's Diatessaron"?

   different from Diatessaron "different to"?

   Jan Joosten criticised the methods employed by Taylor, Goodacre, and Parker, according to him, these methods would have eliminated many other Tatianic witnesses because of diversity and variability in these witnesses Who are all of these people and why is their opinion important?

   Dura Parchment does not constitute evidence of non-Diatessaronic composition. "The Dura parchment"? And why not?

   The surviving leaf of the scroll or codex described here, was found in 1933, during excavations among the ruins of Dura-Europos," Wea were told this at the beginning of the last section.

   The time between Tatian's original composition and the production of this copy could not have been longer than 80 years Why not?

   "Diatessaron" needs explaing when first introduced. I know that there is a wikilink earlier, but that really is not sufficient.

   The fragment does not help in the discussion of a Greek or Syriac origin of the Diatesaron. Why not?

   "Burkitt" Who is he? Why is opinion important.

   Likewise "Baumstark"?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The references appear reliable, online sources check out.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The main problem here is a lack of context. Many terms are introduced, some with wikilinks but without explanation. Please remember that Wikipedia is aimed at the general reader who may not be familiar with some of the terms used here. Wikilinking alone is not enough, sufficient context and explanation needs to be provided, without going into too much detail. There is no explanation of why this fragment is important to Biblical scholarship.

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Two images used, correctly licensed and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article is not currently ready for good article status, so I will not be listing it at this time. Please consider the points raised above and after working on it, take it to WP:Peer review and then please renominate at WP:GAN. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)