Template:Did you know nominations/Minuscule 852 (Gregory-Aland)

====Minuscule 852 (Gregory-Aland), Minuscule 994 (Gregory-Aland), Minuscule 1073 (Gregory-Aland), Minuscule 1074 (Gregory-Aland), Minuscule 1080 (Gregory-Aland), Minuscule 1093 (Gregory-Aland), Minuscule 1216 (Gregory-Aland), Minuscule 873 (Gregory-Aland), Minuscule 905 (Gregory-Aland)====


 * ... that the New Testament codices 852, 994, 1073, 1074, 1080, 1093, and 1216 do not contain the spurious text of Matthew 16:2b–3, whereas codices 873 and 905 do contain it, although marked as doubtful with an obelus?
 * Reviewed: Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn, 10th Baronet

Created by Leszek Jańczuk (talk). Self nom at 09:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps these could be reviewed one by one? I've had a look at the first - was just unsure about the meaning of "no complex contents": does this mean there are no thorny theological problems in the text it includes, or is this a technical term relating to MSS? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It means "it has not survived in complete condition". Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It means "it has not survived in complete condition". Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Review of all 9 articles:
 * 852 : date OK; length OK (1655 bytes); refs. OK; no obvious plagariasm or close-paraphrasing.
 * 873 : date OK; length OK (1944 bytes); refs. OK; no obvious plagariasm or close-paraphrasing.
 * 905 : date OK; length OK (1920 bytes); refs. OK; no obvious plagariasm or close-paraphrasing.
 * Question: What does "In Luke 10 no profile was made" mean? Please rephrase to make sense.
 * I've rephrased it as I understand it. BabelStone (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 994 : date OK; length OK (1532 bytes); refs. OK; no obvious plagariasm or close-paraphrasing.
 * Question: What does the dagger (†) after "Gospels" mean in the infobox? Please remove or link to an explanation of its meaning.
 * I've removed the dagger as it is not applied to other incomplete mss, and it is not obvious to the reader what it is intended to convey. BabelStone (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1073 : date OK; length short (1396 bytes); refs. OK; no obvious plagariasm or close-paraphrasing.
 * Please expand beyond 1500 characters prose.
 * Length OK now (1573 bytes). BabelStone (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1074 : date OK; length short (1409 bytes); refs. OK; no obvious plagariasm or close-paraphrasing.
 * Please expand beyond 1500 characters prose.
 * Length OK now (1572 bytes). BabelStone (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1080 : date OK; length OK (1679 bytes); refs. OK; no obvious plagariasm or close-paraphrasing.
 * 1093 : date OK; length short (1473 bytes); refs. OK; no obvious plagariasm or close-paraphrasing.
 * Please expand beyond 1500 characters prose.
 * Length OK now (1510 bytes). BabelStone (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1216 : date OK; length OK (1932 bytes); refs. OK; no obvious plagariasm or close-paraphrasing.
 * Hook : Hook length OK (188 characters), and hook fact is appropriately cited in each article. It is a rather uninteresting hook, but probably the best you could hope for given the rather unremarkable nature of these nine codices.  I have copy-edited the hook a little, which is now 210 characters in length (within limits for a multi-article hook).
 * QPQ : One review for a nine-article nomination seems a little unbalanced.
 * Symbol question.svg Need to increase length of three articles, and address two questions above. BabelStone (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I almost forget about these articles. Three articles were expanded; † means the manuscript is not complete (see here). Almost every source used in these articles are available online (some of them in German), plagiarism is even impossible because sources are written with numerous abbreviations - Amm (the manuscript is divided according to the Ammonian Sectins), Kan (it has references to the Eusebian Canons), Lect (it has liturgical notes at the margin, etc. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you for addressing these issues. It is good to go now. BabelStone (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)