Talk:Papyrus 45/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jenhawk777 (talk · contribs) 17:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I am planning on reviewing this page. I will begin later today. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay Stephen Walch I have read it through twice now, and while I love this article and think it is brilliant and you are too, I am not going to pass it without some specifically Wiki-necessary changes. I think you and I are alike in that we like to write in our areas of specialization. We know stuff. The trouble is, we think and write like the academics we reference because that's how people in the field of study we are in actually talk. But academics aren't our average reader. Wikipedia articles have to make the difficult accessible to ordinary high school and first and second year undergraduates - at the outside. Using any kind of jargon and expecting the reader to look it up for themselves if they want to understand you just turns readers away. That's counterproductive for you and for Wikipedia. This article makes assumptions about common knowledge that is not going to be common at all. You simply don't explain enough for the average non-expert to know what the heck you are talking about.

The lead

 * Your first sentence: assumes your readers know what the Chester Beatty Papyri are. Most people don't. It doesn't involve a ball or money changing hands and it's just true that the average person is more ignorant of religious topics than any other single subject - even geography. Don't assume people know what you know.


 * Second sentence: Don't use provenance, use simpler words such as 'the origins of', or 'proving where it came from', something that will communicate to someone who does not have a college level vocabulary. And you need to explain what a city in Egypt has to do with anything about this papyri - even if you have to add a paragraph.


 * in five words or less, substitute a definition for the term paleography: 'the study of writing styles and forms (paleography) dates the manuscript to...


 * Nowhere do I see a mention of the significance of the fact that this is the earliest surviving manuscript to contain all four gospels.

Description

 * This assumes knowledge of a codex. It needs an explanation with some detail like this one {{tqq|the manuscript was made up of quires of two leaves (four pages) only, formed by folding a single sheet of papyrus in two, in such a way that the side of the papyrus on which the fibres are horizontal formed the two inside pages, while the other side, where the fibres are vertical, formed the outsides. The succession of fibres in the quire may thus be designated VHHV and this sequence is a vital factor in the reconstruction of the manuscript".
 * {{tqq|All of the pages have lacunae, with very few lines complete}} just say gaps. You can put lacunae in parenthesis if you feel compelled.
 * {{tqq|The leaves of Matthew and John are the smallest}} explain what you mean - that they are the smallest fragments of the original pages which would have been 10 by 8.
 * {{tqq|...this manuscript possibly contained more than one grouping of New Testament texts}} Possibly? You said it did in the lead. This seems like a contradiction. If there is a minority view that says otherwise, then be sure to explain it as such. Otherwise, 'probably' shouldn't be inserted here with no other explanation.
 * {{tqq|This hypothesis is attributed to the use of gatherings of two leaves, a single-quire that few other codices had}} this is a sentence that no average reader will be able to make sense of. Further explanation required.

Textual character

 * move this sentence up to the very first mention of Chester Beatty. Tell where and how in a sentence or two.
 * Further explanation required.
 * Further explanation required.
 * 'singular' is unclear to the average reader, I recommend 'unique', or 'distinctive', or 'evidence of a single scribes particular style' something that explains what you mean by singular. I like the quote and it helps but the intro to the quote still needs to better explain what the quote is asserting.

Text type

 * First I recommend explaining something of what text-types are. If a. reader goes to the trouble to look it up, they will find something like "a text type is a type of written text, such as descriptive , narrative , expository or argumentative" and that really won't help them figure out what you mean here.
 * Further explanation required.
 * There is simply way too much that only an academic in the field would understand in this section. Sophomores. Think sophomores.

Some notable readings
The average reader does not know Greek. This is the English wikipedia, and while I appreciate these, all of them need an English explanation included.

I do like the article, and I do understand how difficult it is NOT to use the precise word and the correct academic term, but all that accomplishes is to make your work inaccessible by the people who actually use wikipedia. Assuming your readers have a familiarity with this topic is a false assumption. Approach everything like you are explaining quantum physics to grade schoolers. I want this article to pass, and to do so, it must meet wiki standards. Ping me when this is done. I'll check back periodically. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

PASS!!
Stephen Walch Wonderful job! I have passed the article for GA. It is a truly excellent article. Thank you for cooperating with such a good attitude! Congratulations! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)