Talk:L. D. Reynolds/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 08:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy to review this.

Lead section

 * Is there a suitable link for transmission? (here and in the main text)
 * The same problem came up with R. A. B. Mynors; I again resorted to a footnote, Modussiccandi (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * still served - ‘still serves’?


 * Delete Oxfordshire from the infobox (no other counties are included).


 * No image for Reynolds is currently available on WikiCommons, but one can be obtained (from Winterbottom) if you wish.
 * I have been in touch with Brasenose, who might own the image found in Winterbottom. I'll wait to see whether they provide us with an image. If not, I'll use the one from Winterbottom with a fair use rationale, Modussiccandi (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Link manuscripts.


 * Dup link - Fellow of the British Academy.

1 Early life and education

 * Link national health insurance.


 * Caerphilly grammar school - ‘Caerphilly’s grammar school’ or ‘Caerphilly Grammar School’ looks better.


 * He left the Air Force – is a year available?
 * ✅ in a roundabout way, Modussiccandi (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Consider replacing miner with ‘coal miner’ (linked to Coal mining).

2 Career at Oxford

 * The Classical Review is in italics.


 * The pair's – ‘Their’?


 * Not necessarily GA, but Reynolds needs to be named in each paragraph, here and elsewhere (it’s a Wikipedia thing).
 * No full stop in the caption, as it’s a fragment.

3 Retirement and death

 * Consider unlinking cancer, as it’s not linked in the lead section and is imo a common word.


 * Writes – ‘wrote’.


 * I would amend at Churchill Hospital to ‘at Churchill Hospital, Oxford’.


 * Replace was handed down (MOS:IDIOM).

4.1 Seneca's Letters

 * Dup link - The Classical Review


 * Reynolds published an edition of Seneca the Younger's Letters. This image shows the beginning of Letter 1 in a manuscript illuminated by Robert Boyvin in around 1500. I would write this as ‘The beginning of Letter 1 from of Seneca the Younger's Letters in a manuscript illuminated by Robert Boyvin (c. 1500).’


 * I've added to the talk page, so that you can correct traveled without being reverted by someone.


 * Continental is redundant if you’re not British.


 * He set out – a Wikipedia thing, but paragraphs need his surname and not a pronuoun.


 * (p, α, γ) stopped me short – a note or an intext explanation may be needed here.


 * (Not GA) - The article Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium doesn’t mention Reynolds, and indeed says less about the analysis of the medieval manuscripts than the Reynolds’ article. I would consider adding a 'Further information' hatnote to the top of the subsection, and perhaps shift some of the text there, whilst condensing down the current text. Thoughts?
 * I have consciously included a good amount of detail regarding the Letters. They are Reynolds' biggest achievement and I felt that they should play a big role in his article. So I'm reluctant to remove material from this section, especially because I'm planning to present the article at FAC. (Of course, this does not prevent me from improving the Epistulae Morales article with content I wrote for LDR.) Modussiccandi (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems fair enough to me. AM

4.2 Further critical editions

 * Codex Ambrosianus in italics?


 * Amend of younger manuscript to ‘of the earlier manuscript’.
 * I believe younger works better: earlier would mean 'older' where the opposite is meant. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. AM


 * Corruption – is this a technical term (that could be explain in brackets)?
 * ✅ I opted foe a note


 * Replace In the eyes of with ‘To’ (idioms are avoided in Wikipedia).


 * Shackleton Bailey further stated – surnames only after a person is first mentioned.
 * His whole name D. R. Shackleton Bailey.
 * His parents missed a trick there, thanks for the correction. AM


 * the historian Sallust - ‘the Roman historian Sallust’ might be more helpful to readers.


 * younger manuscript again – ‘earlier manuscript’?
 * see above.

4.3 Scribes and Scholars

 * Dup link - Nigel Guy Wilson (amend to Wilson).


 * They were tasked with this endeavour after Oxford University Press had been made aware of the need for such a book by a schoolmaster. Is imo excessively detailed.
 * ✅ I've left out the schoolmaster bit.


 * Link scribe in the infobox.

5 Legacy

 * Even though his scholarship on Seneca was at the time considered by some commentators to be difficult to surpass is a bit of a mouthful. at the time is vague, and I would perhaps amend difficult to surpass to 'insurpassable'.

6 Notes

 * The Harvard link to Hörman doesn’t work.
 * kindly ✅ by Gerda

7 Bibliography

 * Hörman requires a subscription.

On hold
Good stuff, mostly of a very high standard. I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 3 August to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for this. Please have a look at my comments above. I realise that the 'Contributions to scholarship' section can at times be at the upper limits of WP's toleration of technicality. Textual criticism is part of my PhD research and I sometime loses sight of what is accessible to the generally educated reader; so do feel free to alert me if more needs to be done on this front. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Passing
One of the quickest, easiest and smoothest reviews I've ever taken part in. Passing the article, great work! Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)