Talk:Rahlfs 1219/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Stephen Walch (talk · contribs) 22:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 19:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reading. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the lead is very long and complicated, and could be split (maybe a very short first sentence just stating what it is; a second sentence on alternate names, and a third sentence on the term "septuagint"?)

SW: I've reworded the intro. Also removed the explanation of Septuagint from the lead to the main description - not sure if I need to go into too much detail regarding the Greek Septuagint in this article?

• The article title is "Rahlfs 1219", but the article begins with "Washington Manuscript of the Psalms", and this is also the title of the infobox. Thse all should use the same name. What was the rationale of choosing "Rahlfs 1219" as article title rather than one of the other names? Why is "Washington MS II" not bolded, too?

SW: Rectified

• wikilink facsimile

SW: Rectified

• It employs the use of numerous nomina sacra (special names/words considered sacred in Christianity - usually the first and last letters of the name/word in question are written, followed by an overline; sometimes other letters from within the word are used as well), consistently using the nomen sacrum for ΘΣ (θεος / God), ΚΣ (κυριος / Lord), ΔΑΔ (Δαυιδ / David), and ΧΣ (χριστος / Messiah/Anointed); with other nomina sacra used frequently: ΟΡΟΣ (ουρανος / heaven), ΙΗΛ (Ισραηλ / Israel), ΜΗΡ (μητηρ / mother), ΣΗΡ (σωτηρ / saviour), ΠΡΣ (πατρος / father), ΑΝΟΣ (ανθρωπος / man/human), ΠΝΑ (πνευμα / Spirit), ΥΣ (υιος / son), and ΙΗΛΜ (Ιεροσαλημ / Jerusalem). – This is an extremely long sentence that should be split. The explanation in the bracket is too long, too. I really appreciate such explanations, but consider having this as a separate sentence, or place it in a footnote.

SW: Rectified

• Optional: Consider in-text explanation for some other important terms as well, such as "Hebrew parallelisms" or "stanza division".

SW: Rectified (Oct 24th 2024)

• It would be helpful to the reader to state how many pages this manuscript has.

SW: Did sort of have this mentioned ("107 parchment leaves"), but I've clarified this a bit in a reworded section.

• The article does not say anything about content, so I assume that the content is identical to that in the modern bible? Is this the case?

SW: Rectified

• The manuscript is a codex (precursor to the modern book) – with "book", I assume you mean the bible? Could be specified for clarity.

SW: Rectified. More in relation to the actual modern "book", book, and not just the Bible.

• Ali in Gizah, Cairo, – means that this person is from Cairo (maybe include "from" for extra clarity?)

SW: Rectified

• Please create redirects for the alternate names to this article (for example Washington Manuscript of the Psalms, content should be

#REDIRECT [[Rahlfs 1219]]

SW: Rectified (Oct 24th 2024).

• Looks really good overall. I cannot check the sources as long as the internet archive is down, but I do not see any potentially controversial statements either. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hello @Jens Lallensack?: thanks for the review. I've put notes below the above bullet points with my current changes. Will return to look at the ones I've not yet done. Stephen Walch (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. It is looking very good already. Ping me once you are ready! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Jens Lallensack: Believe I've made all the necessary changes based on your GA review comments now. Let me know if I need to reword/change/add anything else. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Looks all good, thanks! Promoting now, congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.