Template:Did you know nominations/Harmony of the Gospels
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron talk 03:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Harmony of the Gospels
... that though Augustine of Hippo is known for proposing the Augustinian hypothesis in his Harmony of the Gospels, later in the same work he claimed another view was "more probable"? Source: "That view is now sometimes called the "traditional Augustinian hypothesis," but that is not what Augustine himself claimed as his own, more probable, view of the interrelations of the Gospels." pp.84-86 (quote from bottom of 86)- ALT1: ... that Augustine of Hippo's Harmony of the Gospels is technically not a Gospel harmony? Source: "For the most part, this work is not a Gospel harmony in the sense of a continuous retelling of the Gospel story in the words of Scripture, but rather a detailed discussion of apparent points of inconsistency in the Gospels" p.15
- Reviewed: First DYK nom, no QPQ needed.
- Comment: The full quote from the first hook source is quite long, so I was reluctant to put the whole thing. (It's all in the article, though it's sourced to different sources.) Let me know if I need to clarify. Alternate hooks welcome.
5x expanded by Smdjcl (talk). Self-nominated at 02:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Harmony of the Gospels; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- y #1, #2 AGF because I can't view the specific page but the wording is echoes in the source for #1 - Interesting:
- Other problems: - Hook 2 interesting, hook 1 a bit vague to follow - might be improved by changing "another view" to "a two-gospel hypothesis"
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
Zeromonk (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review, Zeromonk! While I like the idea of the original hook, I agree with you that it's a bit hard to follow. Unfortunately, I don't think your suggestion is enough to save it, and I can't really think of a better way. So, if you think ALT1 is okay, I'd say let's just go with that.
- As for the source for the second hook, I know you AGFed it, but I also just found it on archive.org here, if that's easier for you to check (same edition and everything). I'll switch that in for the Google Books link in the article right now. Smdjcl (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Zeromonk "thanked" me for my previous comment, which I'm interpreting as agreement regarding ALT1, so I have struck through the original hook in favour of ALT1. Zeromonk, if all of your concerns have been addressed, can you please mark this nomination as ready? (Or if not, can you please mention your other concerns so that I can address them?) Thank you! Smdjcl (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
ALT1 hook is fine and even AGF source replaced - think this one's good to go now!
