Talk:Minuscule 1689/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 21:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello! I'm Pbritti and I'll be handling this Good Article review for Minuscule 1689. While I hope to complete this review within three to four days, please allow for up to a week. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

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):

   Minor issues resolved ("correction"→"collection"; "World War 1"→"World War I"). Lead is an insufficient introduction to the material covered by the article per MOS:INTRO. My recommendation is the adding that it is part of Family 13 and that it was lost during World War I.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Passed Earwig with flying colors (3.8% similarity is cartoonishly small), formatting for references/templates are fine, but sometimes the citation gives a page number that clashes with the inline page number. I suggest removing the page number from the citations (or giving the full range used) and providing the specific page numbers only inline. Sources themselves are all reliable. Unfortunately, I see two instances where we might have original research: the first is the paragraph starting "Though no official transcription..." and the second is the paragraph "Textual critic Caspar René Gregory...". The latter sees the two dates from the article given in the source, but neither Caspar and Lake's viewings of the codex are mentioned on page 58 of the book cited (with the acknowledgement of Lake being the author here).

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Here, my only ding is again the failure to address Family 13 earlier in the article. Considering that Minuscule 1689's relationship with Family 13 forms the foundation for most of the literature, we should see that explicitly stated more clearly. Without establishing this relationship–how 1689 has influenced reflection on Family 13, its association with similar codices, etc.–the only major reason I see that we should consider this codex notable is its status as missing from World War I until 2006. Also, adding details on the photographic plate taken by Lake might be a nice touch.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Very nice job here. The superlatives about the "beautiful" are within quotations.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   If someone tried to edit war on this page, I would have no clue how they'd do it.

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):

   Since images of both the Lake and Aland duos are within the public domain, considering a multiple-image box for at least the Alands might be worthwhile to further color the article. Perhaps that or an image from one of the locations where 1689 has resided.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• @Stephen Walch: I want to first commend you for a well-done article. Even if this article were to somehow not eventually achieve GA status, it is a thoughtful and worthwhile addition to Wikipedia. With regards to my review, I have very few concerns regarding the article's current state as it relates to the GA standards. None of these issues are all that difficult to remedy and I anticipate that, with consideration of my comments and a quick review of whatever alterations you make, we can almost certainly see this article passed in the next few days! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Pbritti: for your very kind words. I used my GA articles for Minuscule 700 and Lectionary 184 as a template for this one, and as they are somewhat different manuscipts I fully take on board your current comments regarding improvements for the article as it is, and will rectify this in the next few days. You are correct in there is some possibly original research (owing from the fact there's little extra been said on 1689 since its rediscovery), but nothing which couldn't be moved to the External links section. Your comments here also apply to minuscule 983, so I'll amend that article as well. I'll sort this out shortly, and thanks again for your honest review and kind words. Stephen Walch (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

My pleasure. I think the External links section is perfect; I'll be around regularly the next few days for further support. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I've resolved the problems with the article outlined in the GA review. I'll look at sourcing the extra images suggested and adding them as soon as I have them. Edit: Found an image for the Timios Prodromos monastery already on Wikipedia; have used that as part of the History section. Stephen Walch (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Stephen Walch: Swell! I'll be looking more in-depth in a hour or so, but my first breeze through the article since you made those changes makes me very, very optimistic. More to follow, thanks for your swift cooperation! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, @Stephen Walch: Lets break down what has been changed between my initial comments and now:

• Partially implemented We have a partial fix to the OR, with the page numeration in the second passage providing the necessary context (sorry for missing it when I read the book; I should have fixed that myself). However, I would move the phrase "Readings from its Gospel of Mark portion have appeared in the ECM of Mark" with associate citation to the History section under the sentence about the text going missing and being found. I would then move La Famille 13 dans l’évangile de Marc to the External links section and rename the section to Further reading. Sorry about being a stickler on this; this sort of thing can cause a problem if this comes back on review.
•  Implemented Citations no longer have conflicting page numeration, well done.
•  Implemented Lead substantially improved to a comprehensive overview of the topic. You did a great job here. I will note that the topic era where you do most of your editing will likely prevent you from being required to add citations within a lead per MOS:LEADCITE, but there is no rule against having them in the lead.
•  Implemented Greatly appreciate the addition of the image of the monastery; surprised there isn't an article on it–perhaps a project for me sometime soon?
•  Resolved My concerns raised in 3a are addressed through your Lead edits, though an FA reviewer might disagree on my judgement regarding the breadth of coverage. I will follow this topic to ensure any updates are integrated should you pursue improved classification down the road.

Excellent job! Now, time for me to do something I was holding off on: cross-referencing the article's Greek text with the sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Over the course of reviewing the Greek script, something clicked and I realized I had been primed to read the sources wrong–"Sofia", in the context of where this codex was supposedly taken during the war, refers to not to the Greek locale but rather the major Bulgarian city. This has been remedied. Your Greek script is accurate (thank goodness; I wouldn't know what to do if it weren't). I made minor tweaks as to more closely paraphrase to the thesis. With every citation reviewed, the only thing left is for you to comment on my suggestion of a modification to a Further reading section. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: * Partially implemented However, I would move the phrase "Readings from its Gospel of Mark... move La Famille 13 dans l’évangile de Marc to the External links section... : hopefully I've got this last bit rectified now. I also think having it as a Good Article is fine; getting it the higher classifications is far too much work, and unnecessary really for any of the GNT manuscripts IMHO anyway. :) Thanks very much for all your suggested improvements! Stephen Walch (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 Passed This has been a very pleasant and edifying experience. I am glad to say that you have successfully composed a Good Article and I will being making the relevant edits necessary for its listing as such. Congratulations! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)