Template:Did you know nominations/Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 267

No action here in eight days since reviewer BlueMoonset's rejection and thirteen days since nominator Leszek said, "let us close this reviewing." OCNative (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 267

 * ... that on the contrary to other Greek ancient agreements of marriage, Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 267 explains why the marriage was dissolved?
 * Reviewed: Evacuations of children in Germany during World War II.

Created by Leszek Jańczuk (talk). Self nominated at 18:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC).
 * ALT1 ... that Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 267 is an ancient document which relates to the terms of a marriage?
 * ALT2 ... that Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve was involved in acquisition of Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 267 for Johns Hopkins University?


 * Symbol confirmed.svg New and referenced. Suggestion for wording "on the contrary to" > "in contrast to", less verbose. Otherwise good to go. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Initially, I thought the problem here wasn't a matter of verbosity but a matter of being understandable: it appeared that the point here was that of those surviving ancient agreements, this is the only one that explains why the marriage dissolved. The obvious question in my mind was whether this was indeed an agreement of marriage, or just references such an agreement when dealing with its dissolution after the wife elopes.


 * However, when I checked the main source, the Grenfell/Hunt 1898 book, which discusses Papyrus 267 on pages 243 through 247 and includes a rather extensive background along with a full translation of the document, it turns out that the contents are nothing like what is described here or in the article. This agreement is not a standard contract for marriage, but for a trial marriage between Tryphon and Saraeus, including her already-made payments to him and his potential payments to her. There is no evidence that the marriage ever dissolved; the money involved was to be repaid if the marriage succeeded. (It wasn't repaid in six months, as the contract states, but was finally done so in seven years, and the couple were still apparently married after 23 years as evidenced by a later document.) It is also not the man's first marriage, which had apparently ended badly. So, as far as I can tell from the main source, this article has significant inaccuracies, and the hook is completely wrong. Citing FN 7, which refers to the entire dossier (i.e., many separate papyri documents), for this particular papyrus is simply inappropriate, as the first wife's elopement (her name was Demetrous) is not mentioned in this particular papyrus at all. (Oddly, Leszek Jańczuk wrote a Wikipedia article a day earlier on Papyrus 282, which is about the first wife's elopement, and correctly identifies Demetrous as Tryphon's first wife.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably I was overworked. Thanks for your remarks. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Appreciate the feedback BlueMoonset, I had looked at the source but hadn't been so thorough. But the amended hook is now correct. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Under the circumstances, I feel I have to ask: have you checked to be sure that at least 1500 original prose characters—that is to say, not copies or close paraphrases of the public domain source—have been included here? Ordinary paraphrasing is fine, but to count toward DYK page minimums, the material can't be directly from the original source, even though that material is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia.


 * I'm afraid the new hook is boring: DYK hooks are supposed to be interesting. (It's part of the criteria for approval.) I think the article and the new hook are missing an important point that Grenfell/Hunt make: this is not a regular marriage contract, but a document on the terms of a marriage. Their theory is that it was for a trial marriage, so a hook could say that the discoverers of the papyrus believed this to be the case. Adding either the theory, or simply the fact that the document itself says it is "not based upon a regular contract", would make the hook more interesting.


 * I've also been wondering about the final paragraph in general, and the final statement in the article in particular, that Tryphon had "several wives". I'm taking this to mean more than the two we have discussed here, although this is clearly not from FN8 or from Papyrus 288 which is in cited FN9 (unfortunately, I don't have access to more than the first page of the FN9 article), since in 288 our Tryphon is 3 years old (his grandfather Tryphon, however, is 64), and thus it seems not at all germane to 267 as compared to many other available documents, so its specific wikilink in parenthesis is confusing. Can I ask which of the Papyri that Brewster cites has evidence of our Tryphon's third (or more) marriage? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Two sentences are close to the book of Grenfell and Hunt (not the same), but more than 1500 characters are original. I do not have any idea for more interesting hook. If ALT1 or ALT2 are not enough let us close this reviewing. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Neither ALT is adequately interesting, in my view, so closing the review. I'm disappointed that my concerns about the final paragraph were not addressed or even alluded to, but more concerning is that recent information added to the article is inaccurate according to the sources. (For example, the agreement isn't from the Payni 15 in the third year of Claudius, who didn't become emperor until AD 41—that's the date the dowry was finally repaid, years after the contract said it was supposed to be.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)