Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Textual criticism/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:02, 5 June 2008 [1].

[edit] Textual criticism

Self-nom — I have worked on this article since the last nomination, using the comments made there last year to improve it and look forward to feedback to so that it can make it there this time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Comments Some quick notes from a cursory glance:

Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The See also section includes an awfully long list of people. Are there categories that would serve the purpose?
These are scholars that have worked/written on this particular subject. Most of them. if not all, are all in the Category:Textual criticism. Shall we remove them? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there are only four people in Category:Textual criticism, and not many more in its subcat Category:Biblical criticism. When I clicked at random on people from See also, I found that most of them were in Category:Biblical scholars. I couldn't find relevant people cats for non-biblical textual criticism to go with it, but maybe you'll have better luck. Maralia (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the long list of people. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to give this a thorough readthrough soon. Maralia (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I've hidden my resolved issues above, and elaborated on one. As an aside, {{done}} and other graphical templates are discouraged at FAC - in bulk, they make the individual pages and especially the main WP:FAC page unbearably slow. Maralia (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I have removed these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Some short sections, and the one on "The Hebrew Bible" is a list: some expansion required. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Expanded "The Hebrew Bible" section. Would that be enough for this article? That subject requires a full article; I may start such article in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The lack of in-line citations is a problem; there are many sections that are not referenced. There are too many long quotations that would benefit from précis and citation. The article loses direction in the middle becomes un-encyclopedic in tone and more like a treatise. The inclusion of a modern example would have been interesting, such as Joyce's Ulysses. I noticed some over-linking. I feel bad about being negative because I enjoyed reading most of the article, but it would benefit greatly from some bold editing to reduce the verbosity. GrahamColmTalk 09:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Prose/reference issues need addressing before I can consider supporting this:

  • The lead needs expanding to fully summarize the article as per WP:LEAD.
  • Short, stubby paragraphs throughout the Eclecticism section ruin readability/flow.
  • Unnecessary bold text at start of Overview section, see WP:MOS.
  • There's a huge list of verifiable books under 'References', but hardly any have been used as footnotes?
  • The current citations are disorganized, please go through them for consistency.
  • Serious lack of references, including many paragraphs throughout the article which are not referenced at all.
  • Current ref 46 needs publisher/author info - but more importantly, what makes earlychristianwritings.com a verifiable source?
  • Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for addressing prose issues, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Members and Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting for lists of copyeditors who can help you.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Current ref 3 "tanselle 1989" I don't see such an entry in the references
  • I think current ref 5 is missing a 9 at the end of the date?
  • Typo in current ref 8 Harting? Should it be Hartin?
It's ref 14 now, still with a g?
  • What makes http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html a reliable source?
  • Current ref 13 Mulken & van Pieter, do you mean Van Reenen and van Mulken?
  • Is it Rosemann or Roseman? Footnote says Roseman, references says Rosemann.
  • Are the following refs actually used in the footnotes? If they aren't used, they need to go in the further reading section.
    • Gaskell?
    • Hodges
    • Love?
    • Maas?
    • Robinson?
    • sober?
    • Zeller?
  • Actually, I see you're mixing citation styles, you're using parenthetical (Bowers, 1972 p. 86) with footnote. I believe it's supposed to be one or the other.
Links checked out. The sources seem okay, apart from issues noted above. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Refs in footnotes fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • General question

Thanks for the feedback. I can fix most of the smaller issues, re citations, footnotes, etc. But for copyedit I will need to engage other volunteers to come and lend a hand, as that is not my strength. My question is: should I de-list this FAC, or keep it going while fixing these issues? Look forward to your response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment not sure whether to withdraw as yet. I have to work through it. Now let's get started...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, Overview needs renaming. To me, overview means summary, which is what the lead is doing for the article anyway. Paras 1 and 2 of section are history, as is part of para 4. The rest is process and aim I guess.
In the lead - add one or two sentences to describe the three fundamental approaches for starters. I would be although fascinated I am a neophyte in the area.
Try to remove redundancy. See also material which is mentioned explicitly in text, remove. We can use CTRL-F keys these days.
OK. Will work on these next. Thanks for the feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Scanning through it, the prose is good in places, and this is the most difficult piece of the puzzle at FAC, so maybe give it a bit longer and see how it pans out. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A copyeditor, User:Alastair Haines has expressed his interest in working on these aspects. This is great as this editor is knowledgeable on the subject. See User_talk:Jossi#Textual_criticism_2 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - oops. Missed that it was already at FAC. See my comments at Talk:Textual criticism#Comments in passing. Wouldn't support for FA status yet (I don't know enough to know if this is truly comprehensive or not, so it is more a "not sure" on that account), but it did teach me quite a few things. I would like to see more balance away from the Biblical and Shakespearean side of things, though. Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, Only half way through, but first suggestion is maybe a more substantial lead. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  • Please be consistent in references. You've got "# ^ Greg; 1950: 36" and then "# ^ Bowers 1972, p. 86". I recommend using the latter format.

Gary King (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Changed format of all inline citations to Author year, p.# (e.g. Bowers 1972, p.86) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks a lot better now. However, add a space after p. so it is "Ehrman 2005, p. 46". Also, merge references that are the same, such as "Bowers 1964, p.226" (it is used multiple times), using WP:REFNAME. Gary King (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Added space after p. ; will work on consolidating all dup refs soon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article has the potential to be quite fascinating, as it seems to map out mistranslations and misunderstandings in common knowledge. In short, the article is an example of what Wikipedia does (should do) in light speed. It's an abstract concept that should be illustrated concretely, and I found I was unable to follow some of it because I don't believe it is well-written. Of the things I wish I could read are:
  • A cause and effect relationship in the lead that ties errors of translation to misunderstandings, with perhaps a concrete example.
  • A brief explanation of the terms "eclecticism, stemmatics, and copy-text editing" in the lead.
  • Before the history is discussed, I believe the reason for criticizing text it should be addressed.
  • The Objective section should be written in paragraph form.
  • There is so much jargon in the article that I am unable to follow it, particularly the Objective section. It won't do to obfuscate an already difficult topic deliberately. For each blue link, italicized, or "quoted term" that is a concept in Textual criticism, provide a brief explanation.
  • The section on Eclecticism is choppy, and I'm not sure what it is explaining. I think you need several topic sentences to put your reader in a frame of mind of what to expect, why these areas of study are important, and what they mean for interpretation of concepts.
  • Concrete examples of what scholars have found to be misprintings, omissions, misunderstandings, and mistranslations should be given frequently, and they should be well-cited.
  • Citations are few and far between, particularly in the Stemmatics and Cladistics section. For such a topic as this, these claims need to be cited. I hope the fact tag in Internal evidence was put there by an FAC reviewer, and it didn't come to FAC that way.
  • In the Application of textual criticism to biblical criticism there is a list of works that have gone through textual criticism, but nothing is compared. What are the differences between languages or translations, copies? What is the use of listing works that have had textual criticism applied without giving examples of what scholars have found?
  • There is a list of findings, but is there an explanation of their importance? For instance, I read that Mary, mother of Jesus, is described in Hebrew text using a word that means both "virgin" and "young girl". Can you imagine what the impact of the translation of "young girl" would have been for women throughout history? At the very least, Madonna would be dancing on a street corner without that ammunition.
  • These issues are prevalant throughout the article. I think if you work on it some more by providing cited concrete examples for these ideas, and rewriting some sections to flow better, you will have the basis for an FA. I wish you luck. --Moni3 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for you thorough review. The challenge is that this is an extraordinarily complex subject, and treating it in detail will require probably 6 or 7 articles. My intention was to provide an overview of the subject, and I can see that some of your suggestions could be applied to that effect. I guess, it will need the involvement of many editors, copy-editors, experts on the subject, as well as wikignomes to make this article reach the coveted FA status. I am concerned that some articles on pop-culture subjects are reaching FA status, while articles such as this one often get neglected... That is a challenge: to get articles on subjects such as this to attract enough eyeballs and attention to give it the treatment it deserves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You're not just whistlin' Dixie there. Of the stunningly small percentage of editors who escort an article to FA, an even smaller percentage escort a classical topic such as yours. I have to admit that I am guilty of putting forth such a pop culture article as my last FA, but it was unavoidable. Obsession made me do it. As for the preparation of this one, you may have to split it apart, but I didn't really think the article required a substantial amount of content; not doubling it by any means. However, I think it needs almost basic This is the Term. This is a definition of the term. This is an example of the term. This is a nonexample of the term - type illustration. Just written a lot better than what I just did. You can always ask the FA Team for assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Moni3 for your feedback. I will give it some thoughts and see if I can rally a few editors to help in this effort. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.