Talk:Mutinensis gr. 122/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 05:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

First reading

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Some minor issues:

   • Lead "the work of the same name ": Since there are multiple names already listed immediately above, I think it would be both simpler and less confusing just to repeat the name. Especially because the link goes to another name that is not listed above. See WP:TITULAR.

     Reads a bit repetitive to me but I've done the change. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

   • Content and composition first paragraph "The Modena copy": is this supposed to be the same copy as the subject of the article? If so, don't do that. See Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation. And "Zonaras's work covers folios 6r to 285": folios 6r to 285 of Mutinensis_gr._122, I assume, but probably this would be clearer spelled out.

     Yes, the "Modena copy" is Mutinensis gr. 122 and folios 6r to 285 refer to folios in Mutinensis gr. 122 (presumably different manuscripts have different numbers of pages). I've fixed both issues. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

   • "The forward-facing and distant, motionless appearance of the later emperors, reflects official imperial portraiture": last comma not needed.~

     Removed the comma. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

   • "covering folios 2r to 5r": some explanation of what the r's mean might be helpful for readers like me not familiar with the structure of old manuscripts.

     There is an explanation in footnote #3, do you mean that the explanation should be in the text instead or that the footnote explanation is insufficient? Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

   • "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth": maybe a link to Genesis 1:1 should go somewhere around here?

     Added a link both to the Genesis narrative and Genesis 1:1 specifically. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

   • Creation "Though no dates are known for certain, around 1425 is assumed on account of the latest portrait drawn by the earlier scribe appearing to be the portrait of Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, who reigned from 1391 to 1425, which depicts the emperor as an old man with a white beard.": far too much concatenation of dependent clauses

     Tried to improve the sentence. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

   • "itsm argins"

     Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

   • Analysis of the portraits "often drawn very similar": should be similarly; "for a sake of variety" should be "the sake"

     Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

   • "hold iconographic value": not clear what is intended here. Are they accurate portraits? Can they be used as icons? Are they distinct enough to serve as memorable caricatures, regardless of accuracy?

     Changed to "accurate representations" - the portraits are distinguishable from each other and they are accurate in the sense of appearing to have been based on other contemporary sources and potraying known physical characteristics quite well, but they are not drawn in a detailed or naturalistic way, hence the debate. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

   • "only a few physical features": what other kind of feature could they differ in?

     Not many given the artistic style employed, but if they were more detailed they would probably differ in more features than they do. The source did not mention any other features that could have differed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

   • "the Modena codex" (at least thrice): again, unnecessary elegant variation

     Fixed. The reason for all the elegant variation is probably that these different terms were used in the different sources I used. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

   • "There are several independently created portraits ..., the portraits in the codex accord well": comma splice

     Restructured and rephrased. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead properly summarizes main article. No issues found.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References are consistently formatted.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Thoroughly footnoted, with clear page numbers. Most sources are offline and I am taking them on good faith rather than carefully checking. They all appear to be scholarly books and articles from reputable publishers, except for one (adequately reliable) university web page.

   C. It contains no original research:

   I did not find any unsourced claims.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig found nothing resembling inappropriate copying.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Coverage matches what is reported of the scholarly coverage of the same subject: heavy on the portraits, light on the text. But as the text is mostly a copy of something else, that seems appropriate.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   There's a lot of detail about some specific portraits, but I think not so much as to throw the overall article out of balance.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No issues found.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   A recent burst of significant change, but it's from the nominator, who is creator of and the main contributor to the article. No significant disputes.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Lots of images, all appropriately marked as PD on commons.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The images are all relevant, there is an appropriate balance of images to text, and the image captions are good.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I think with some light copyediting as described above for 1a this should be a quick pass.

—David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

All issues addressed, except for the pleonasm "physical features" (is it possible for a feature to be non-physical)? And that's too minor to hold up the review. Passing for GA. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)