This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion
A large percentage of the references for the draft in its current state are to works by one person, the editor of the facsimile edition of the codex. Such a concentration is undesirable. Karimi-Nia's insights and commentary are welcome, but this draft needs commentary from scholars who are not connected. A section on "Critical reception" is also welcome, but the section currently summarizes the views of three scholars as they all appear on the website of the facsimile edition. I clicked on one of the three and got the impression that, although sincere, it was solicited. Far better to wait a year or two until reviews of this edition appear in scholarly journals, and to summarize what the reviews say. -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Dear Horay,
Thank you for taking the time to review the article and provide feedback. I have added citations from reputable sources, including Islamic-Awareness.org, which is run by an independent Islamic Studies scholar based in the UK (references 4 & 5). Additionally, I have supported the quotations in the "Critical Reception" section with citations from news websites (references 16, 17, 18). I have also added a reference to a note by Dr. Éléonore Cellard from her X account.
It is worth noting that the prestige and caliber of the figures who have shared their views via email with the editor of the Codex, as quoted in the "Critical Reception" section of the article, ensure their statements are genuine. Moreover, the Journal of Islamic Manuscripts is a highly esteemed academic publication, where most of the established facts about Codex Mashhad were first published. It serves as a primary and reliable source for this article.
Oh dear, QuranicResearch, it's only today that I notice your reply. (Tip: when addressing some editor other than on their own talk page, link to their name. Doing so alerts them.) I didn't intend to question the credentials of the editor of the new edition ... but it did seem odd that so much of an article about a codex was devoted to a new, scholarly edition of that codex, and how much of what was written about this new edition was sourced to, or related to, its editor. The article doesn't need summaries of reviews in scholarly journals, but I think it would benefit from these when the reviews are published, which I imagine will be soon. -- Hoary (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
