Talk:Sixto-Clementine Vulgate/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 17:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures[edit]

  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
  • It contains copyright infringements -
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links[edit]

Prose[edit]

Lede[edit]

  • WP:LEAD says the lede should have 4 paragraphs maximum. Looking at this one, I think it would be quite easy to merge this into 3. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the lede sentence could do with being expanded a little. Imagine not knowing this was a christianity topic - could you tell what this article was about? I'd that "The Sixto-Clementine Vulgate is a Latin translation of the bible from 1592." or similar. Then you can go into details about what the Vulgate is, and the Sixtine version. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could potentially link Sixtus V Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Words like "promulgated" should be avoided. I realise we aren't the simple english wiki, but I had to look the word up. we could use "popularlised" in it's place. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an FYI - we generally don't need to use citation in the lede. The information cited should be in the body of the article and as such doesn't need to be cited twice. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oxford Vulgate New Testament seems to redirect to Vulgate. I'd remove the link, rather than duplicate. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing my GAN! I have fixed most things. However:
"promulgated" cannot be replace by "popularised". Promulgation (canon law) is "To put into effect as a regulation." ([1]). It is a from Latin calque.
Oxford Vulgate New Testament: the redirect now says it is "a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section of a page on the subject."
Veverve (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Vulgate New Testament now redirects to the article Oxford Vulgate, because I wanted to reduce the amount of text in the Vulgate article since a while. Veverve (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General[edit]

  • I'm not sure you need two see alsos in the first section. Especially as it's the same article. I'd just use the first one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a number of external links in the text. We can't use them like this. For instance The Sixtine Vulgate prepared under Pope Sixtus V was published in 1590;[1] it was "accompanied by a Bull" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC) - you can however use a Bull, if suitable, for example. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually think the above doesn't particularly help at all, could just say when it was created, like "The Sixtine Vulgate was prepared under Pope Sixtus V was published in 1590;[7] Sixtus V declared it was to be considered the authentic edition recommended by the Council of Trent, that it should be taken as the standard of all future reprints, and that all copies should be corrected by it. - as I'm assuming that wasn't a quote? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a quick FYI - references live after punctuation generally. "of its sales[7][8] and," for example. No reason not to move to the end of the sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theres a few paragraph issues - should merge a few of these together. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why - Bartholomew Miranda, Andrea Salvener, Antonius Agellius, Robert Bellarmine, Bartholomew Valverde, Lelio Landi, Petrus Morinus, and A. Rocca - A. Rocca doesn't use the full name? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to do a few things to cut down the usage of quotes in the article. We have copyviolation issues with just quoting everything. Revert anything that no longer makes sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an instance of WP:REFBOMB we should avoid - [1][47][26][24][44]. Three maximum for sourcing like this. Hunt: just take the best ones. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as it might be good to have a table of changes, I don't think it's suitable in this case. It's a non-definitive list, and is just a few minor word changes. Might be better to have some examples in prose instead. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: I checked your whole lists.
"Theres a few paragraph issues - should merge a few of these together."
Where?
I do not understand what you are trying to say when you write:
I actually think the above doesn't particularly help at all, could just say when it was created, like "The Sixtine Vulgate was prepared under Pope Sixtus V was published in 1590;[7] Sixtus V declared it was to be considered the authentic edition recommended by the Council of Trent, that it should be taken as the standard of all future reprints, and that all copies should be corrected by it. - as I'm assuming that wasn't a quote?"
So, is the following a quote from someone, or not? It's currently in speech marks, but doesn't really say who said it: "It may be added that the first edition to contain the names of both the Popes [Sixtus V and Clement VIII] upon the title page is that of 1604. The title runs: 'Sixti V. Pont. Max. iussu recognita et Clementis VIII. auctoritate edita.'"
It is indeed a quote. I changed the paragraph so that it is clearer. Veverve (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"As much as it might be good to have a table of changes, I don't think it's suitable in this case."
I am in favor of keeping it.
Veverve (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a non-defining list. I just don't see what we gain from it being in a table format, rather than just written in text. It is just a series of examples, after all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it is clearer inside a table since it is a pretty long list. Moreover, this list exists since the very first version of the page and I think people are used to it since then.
Also, you have not explained what your sentence ("I actually think the above [...] wasn't a quote?") meant. Veverve (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, something having previously been on a page isn't a reason to keep it. If it were a full list of things that had been changed, I'd be more inclined to keep the table in the article. As it is, it's just a cruft table for wording differences that is only a series of examples. I don't really see what we gain by it's inclusion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How would you present the changes if not in a table? Veverve (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would just use some of them in text. For example:

The Clementine edition of the Vulgate differs from the Sistine edition in about 3,000 places according to Carlo Vercellone,[2] James Hastings,[3] Eberhard Nestle,[4] Kenyon,[5] and Bruce M. Metzger;[6] 4,900 according to Michael Hetzenauer;[7] and about 5,000 according to Kurt and Barbara Aland.[8] Some examples of text changes include in Exodus 11 where "constituit te" (11:14), "venerant" (11:16), "et eripuit" (11:22), and "liberavit" (11:25) is replaced by "te constituit", "liberavit", "eripuit", and "cognovit" respectively.[9]

That's how I'd do it, if it was important to show differences. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did it the way you suggested. I also added back the Nova Vulgata section to put the info in a more logical place within the article. Veverve (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

  • Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definitely not mandatory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)
    • I'm going to do some edits to the article, to see if I can limit some of the issues I've seen outside of those I've commented on. Please see some constructive criticism above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, cool. Thanks for putting up with my complete lack of knowledge on the subject. It's not perfect, but I think the article now meets the GA Criteria. Well done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Metzger (1977), p. 348.
  2. ^ Scrivener (1894), p. 65.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference :3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference nestle2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Kenyon, F. G. (1903). Our Bible and the ancient manuscripts; being a history of the text and its translations (4th ed.). London, New York [etc.]: Eyre and Spottiswoode. p. 188. Retrieved 2011-01-23.
  6. ^ Metzger (1977), p. 349.
  7. ^ Steinmeuller, John E. (December 1938). "The History of the Latin Vulgate". Homiletic & Pastoral Review. Joseph F. Wagner, Inc.: 252–257. Retrieved 18 September 2019 – via CatholicCulture.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  8. ^ Aland, Kurt; Aland, Barbara (1995). "The Latin versions". The Text of the New Testament. Translated by F. Rhodes, Erroll. [Der Text Des Neuen Testaments] (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 190. ISBN 978-0-8028-4098-1. [...] neither the edition of 1590 nor that of 1592 (which introduced roughly five thousand changes in the text despite the fact that changes in the 1590 text were expressly forbidden on pain of excommunication) succeeded in representing either Jerome's original text (see below) or its Greek base with any accuracy.
  9. ^ Quentin (1922), p. 195, Chapitre septième - Les éditions Sixtine et Clémentine (1590-1592) [Chapter seven - The Sixtine and Clementine editions (1590-1592)].
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sixto-Clementine_Vulgate/GA1&oldid=945117588"