Talk:Sixtine Vulgate/GA1

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

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 23:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I will take a look at this article over the next few days. epicgenius (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * Nothing that stands out as egregiously bad.
 * Images are good.
 * Article is relatively stable - recent edits have been minor changes. epicgenius (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Writing and coverage
Lead:
 * This could do with a little more explanation on what the Vulgate is.
 * Fixed. Veverve (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the number of lead paragraphs can be reduced, preferably to four paragraphs. However, the fourth paragraph is a single sentence. I strongly recommend combining that paragraph with another.
 * Fixed. Veverve (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Its official recognition was short-lived; the edition was replaced in 1592 by the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. - is it possible to reword this? We already are told that this was published in 1590 and the first part may not be completely necessary.
 * I do not believe it is necessary to reword. Veverve (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant "Its official recognition was short-lived" may be redundant and can be condensed. Not an issue I'll hold up this nomination upon, though. epicgenius (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I recommend linking Sixtus V.
 * Fixed Veverve (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Twenty years later, work to produce an official edition of the Vulgate begun - Isn't it "began" or "had begun"?
 * Fixed. Veverve (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Considering himself a great editor, he edited himself - I recommend changing one of the two instances of "edit" since it's a bit repetitive.
 * I believe rewording it could make the sentence less precise. Veverve (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, are there any synonyms for "edited" or "editor" that you can use? I tend to give high flexibility to most GA issues, so if this is absolutely necessary, then you can keep it. epicgenius (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

More later. epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Other sections:
 * Still the lead: Three months later, Sixtus V died in August of the same year. - I feel like this is now redundant. "Sixtus died in August, three months later" or "Sixtus died in August of the same year" - unless the year was suddenly shortened, I don't think "three months later" and "the same year" need to be in the same sentence.
 * Fixed. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * that would come in May (or April[4]) 1590 - Is the May date more authoritative than the April date? If not, can this be ordered chronologically?
 * There is disrepancies in the sources, so I put the most authoritative version as the main one. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * See also: Sixto-Clementine Vulgate § Gregory XIV's two pontifical commissions - weird placement of a "see also". Can this be integrated into the prose? This paragraph is only one sentence, and maybe can be condensed.
 * What do you suggest? Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably linking "two other commissions" in the prose to Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Veverve (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * See also: Roman Septuagint same, but I don't see this as much of a problem.
 * The work on this edition - this links to "Roman Septuagint". Should this be mentioned directly in this article?
 * Fixed. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * At one point, Sixtus began to lose patience due to the slow progress of the commission - when? What happened? This particular sentence is pretty short on details.
 * There is no more details in the passage in the refefence used, so I cannot be more precise. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "not presented in a convincing way. It is merely a list of readings without anything to indicate their value ... - who said this?
 * Fixed. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * three volumes[1] in a folio edition;[31] however, it is actually one volume, with the page numbering continuous throughout.[17][31] - so it's three volumes but it's one volume? Can you rephrase this? I think I get what you're saying, but this wording sounds contradictory.
 * This is the way the ref given explain it. It is materially only one single book, with three parts within said book (hence the subtitle tribus tomis here).


 * The Sixtine Vulgate was mostly free of typographical errors - what is the relation to the previous sentences? I see this is mentioned further on in the article, to contradict the claim that the Sixtine Vulgate was recalled due to typographical errors.
 * It simply is an information concerning concerning one of the characteristics of the Sixtine Vulgate. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Two whole verses and the end of one were dropped from the Book of Numbers: - "the end of a third"?
 * a) I wrote in invisible comment: "The source only says "The omission of Numbers 30:11-13", but after checking the scan I added some nuance; I admit it is almost WP:OR" - is it ok?
 * b) as I wrote here: "The end of verse 11 ("cum se voto constrinxerit et juramento") is omitted. Verses 12 and 13 ("12 si audierit vir, et tacuerit, nec contradixerit sponsioni, reddet quodcumque promiserat. 13 Sin autem extemplo contradixerit, non tenebitur promissionis rea : quia maritus contradixit, et Dominus ei propitius erit.") are omitted." Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, this works. epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * ; with Hastings claiming that the text of the Sixtine Vulgate resembled the 1540 edition of Stephanus - this would not be a complete sentence by itself, so the semicolon would not be appropriate unless this is reworded, e.g. "Hastings claimed..."
 * Fixed. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * However, a difference compared to the Stephanus edition was that - this is an awkward wording. How come you didn't go with something like "Unlike the Stephanus edition..."?
 * Fixed. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 40,8 – nunquam ] numquam ... - Notation is a bit confusing. What does the bracket mean? Which version is which? Does "40,8" mean chapter 40, line 8 or chapter 40, paragraph 8?
 * I removed the table because it was useless. It mean chpter 40, verse 8. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 6 of these 31 - usually, numbers below 10 in prose form are spelled out, e.g. "six of these 31"
 * Fixed. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * In the first 30 chapters of the Book of Genesis, the following changes were made - Is it necessary to number these changes? I feel like this might be a bit confusing.
 * No, they are no necessary. I removed it since it was useless. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "However, a slight possibility remains that Sixtus V, ... - says who?
 * Fixed. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that's it for prose. epicgenius (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources/notes
Notes & reference numbers as of This version
 * Note b (Fourth session - Decree concerning the editing and use of the sacred books) - is this supposed to be a full citation? If so, this can be enclosed in regular ref tags. If not, can you give context to why this is linked?
 * Note g (See also Bellarmine's testimony in his autobiography) - if you are using efn, that last portion of the footnote can be enclosed in reference tags.
 * Ref 16 (Swete, H. B. (1914). "Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Additional Notes. CHAPTER VI. PRINTED TEXTS OF THE SEPTUAGINT".) - needs title case.
 * In general - translations of these quotes would be great, but not necessary.

That's it for notes. epicgenius (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

POV
No significant POV detected. The coverage appears to be OK - I had no major questions regarding coverage gaps. 03:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Overall
epicgenius (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

✅ epicgenius (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)