Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New Testament uncials/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:54, 12 February 2010 [1].

List of New Testament uncials edit

Nominator(s): Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete, referrenced, and based on all important editions of the lists of the New Testament manuscripts... Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Comments from KV5

There are a lot of style issues with this list that need to be corrected before it's of featured quality. I've included some of the more glaring issues below, and this is without even a full review.

  • No links in the bold text of the lead.
  • Large amounts of unexplained abbreviations and pipelinked last names without first names throughout the entire article. Abbreviations should be explained at first prose mention or, if they are only in the table, keyed. This is a very large issue and is currently epidemic throughout the entire list.
  • All ranges of dates and verses joined with hyphens should be changed to en-dashes (see WP:DASH).
  • Throughout the "Classification of uncials" section, em-dashes are used inappropriately. There are also some sentence fragments and comma splices throughout this section that are created by the incorrect usage.
  • Blank cells in the table should be filled with em-dashes, footnotes explaining why they are blank, or both.
  • Daggers in the table should be superscripted, and I don't see any indicator as to what those actually mean.
  • "074, 084, 090, 0110, 0112, 0113, 0117, 0119, 0123, 0124, 0125, 0137, 0138, 0139, 0149, 0179, 0180, 0190, 0191, 0193, 0194, 0195, 0202, 0215, 0224, 0235, 0285, 0293" - is this giant list of numbers really needed in prose? Would be better indicated in the table using an asterisk and color or some other method like a footnote.
  • "So, the number 318 is merely nominal, the actual figure should be somewhat lower." - this is unencyclopedic, informal tone.

All in all, the entire article needs a good copyedit, and likely should have been peer-reviewed before its nomination. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Almost everything is done. "So, the number 318 is merely nominal, the actual figure should be somewhat lower." - in this language are written books which I use. In fact I use this style in every language. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that's a direct quote from one of those sources, then it should be quoted. If not, it should still be changed because the language is much too informal. As to everything else, I see evidence that some things have been completed, but other comments appear to have been overlooked (the incorrect usage of dashes, unexplained abbreviations, daggers). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aland wrote (in 1989): "Insgesamt 299 (...) Majuskeln sind heute bekannt, und zwar nominell, in Wirklichkeit wird ihre Zahl infolge der im Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung fortschreitenden Arbeiten zur Identifikation bisher getrennter Fragmente ständig niedriger..." Erroll F. Rhodes translation (1995): "(...), this is only a nominal figure. The actual figure should be much lower as a result of the Institute fo New Testament Textual Research's success in identifying fragments separated from their manuscripts." - (p. 104 - book is quoted in the article and it was the basis for the article + Aland's Kurzgefasste + weblinks of INTF). Since October 2009 - 320 manuscripts (source - weblink of INTF).
          • The Rhodes translation is much better formally, so I think that you should simply replace the paraphrasing, which sounds informal, with a direct quote of his material. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm also going to oppose, if there wasn't enough evidence above, the "Other uncials" table looks vastly incomplete and there is no indication as to why information is missing which is why I'm going to oppose. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 21:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The List is complete, but I agreed there is some work to do. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question - Just 2 quick questions. Why are some of the rows completely filled with blanks? eg 0179, 0180. also "0136=0137" is linked but "0149 = 0187" isn't why aren't they linked? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 03:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few comments:
    • "Vatican City-state" is not the name of a country.
    • Why use Munchen when there's a perfectly viable English name?
    • Why say and link Athos when you mean Mount Athos?
    • Why are there random blacklinks in the city column of the second table?
    • No explanation is given as to why 0190-0194 are blank.
    • You have some "c. ###" in the year column, implying circa; but the rest lack that "c.", but are all rounded to the nearest 50. Should you simply say the column is all "circa"? --Golbez (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • All is done. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Vatican" is not the name of a country either. The name of the country is Vatican City.
        • Still several Athos remaining.
        • I'm reading through the prose and I'm also not seeing any explanation for the equals signs; are these uncials identical to the numbers they're equal to?
        • "Now 320 sigla for uncial codices have been catalogued by the (INTF) in Münster." This is a bad sentence, for one thing because of the parentheses, but I just don't understand what it means or why it's in its own paragraph. One table says there are 45 sigla, this says 320?
        • In the text, you say the years are given to the nearest 50, which matches what the table used to say; however, the table now only gives centuries, and no x50 years. So either the old years should be put back, or the note about rounding to the nearest 50 should be removed. If you keep the current system, some mention, perhaps a footnote of the Date column, should point out that these are xth century AD. --Golbez (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the table, both United Kingdom and UK are used. Please be consistent and use the full name.—Chris!c/t 01:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_New_Testament_uncials/archive1&oldid=1141921357"