A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Some minor issues:
Lead "the work of the same name ": Since there are multiple names already listed immediately above, I think it would be both simpler and less confusing just to repeat the name. Especially because the link goes to another name that is not listed above. See
WP:TITULAR.
Content and composition first paragraph "The Modena copy": is this supposed to be the same copy as the subject of the article? If so, don't do that. See
Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation. And "Zonaras's work covers folios 6r to 285": folios 6r to 285 of Mutinensis_gr._122, I assume, but probably this would be clearer spelled out.
Yes, the "Modena copy" is Mutinensis gr. 122 and folios 6r to 285 refer to folios in Mutinensis gr. 122 (presumably different manuscripts have different numbers of pages). I've fixed both issues.
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
14:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)reply
"The forward-facing and distant, motionless appearance of the later emperors, reflects official imperial portraiture": last comma not needed.~
"covering folios 2r to 5r": some explanation of what the r's mean might be helpful for readers like me not familiar with the structure of old manuscripts.
There is an explanation in footnote #3, do you mean that the explanation should be in the text instead or that the footnote explanation is insufficient?
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
15:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)reply
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth": maybe a link to
Genesis 1:1 should go somewhere around here?
Creation "Though no dates are known for certain, around 1425 is assumed on account of the latest portrait drawn by the earlier scribe appearing to be the portrait of Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, who reigned from 1391 to 1425, which depicts the emperor as an old man with a white beard.": far too much concatenation of dependent clauses
"hold iconographic value": not clear what is intended here. Are they accurate portraits? Can they be used as
icons? Are they distinct enough to serve as memorable caricatures, regardless of accuracy?
Changed to "accurate representations" - the portraits are distinguishable from each other and they are accurate in the sense of appearing to have been based on other contemporary sources and potraying known physical characteristics quite well, but they are not drawn in a detailed or naturalistic way, hence the debate.
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
15:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)reply
"only a few physical features": what other kind of feature could they differ in?
Not many given the artistic style employed, but if they were
more detailed they would probably differ in more features than they do. The source did not mention any other features that could have differed.
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
15:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)reply
"the Modena codex" (at least thrice): again, unnecessary elegant variation
Thoroughly footnoted, with clear page numbers. Most sources are offline and I am taking them on good faith rather than carefully checking. They all appear to be scholarly books and articles from reputable publishers, except for one (adequately reliable) university web page.
Coverage matches what is reported of the scholarly coverage of the same subject: heavy on the portraits, light on the text. But as the text is mostly a copy of something else, that seems appropriate.
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Some minor issues:
Lead "the work of the same name ": Since there are multiple names already listed immediately above, I think it would be both simpler and less confusing just to repeat the name. Especially because the link goes to another name that is not listed above. See
WP:TITULAR.
Content and composition first paragraph "The Modena copy": is this supposed to be the same copy as the subject of the article? If so, don't do that. See
Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation. And "Zonaras's work covers folios 6r to 285": folios 6r to 285 of Mutinensis_gr._122, I assume, but probably this would be clearer spelled out.
Yes, the "Modena copy" is Mutinensis gr. 122 and folios 6r to 285 refer to folios in Mutinensis gr. 122 (presumably different manuscripts have different numbers of pages). I've fixed both issues.
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
14:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)reply
"The forward-facing and distant, motionless appearance of the later emperors, reflects official imperial portraiture": last comma not needed.~
"covering folios 2r to 5r": some explanation of what the r's mean might be helpful for readers like me not familiar with the structure of old manuscripts.
There is an explanation in footnote #3, do you mean that the explanation should be in the text instead or that the footnote explanation is insufficient?
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
15:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)reply
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth": maybe a link to
Genesis 1:1 should go somewhere around here?
Creation "Though no dates are known for certain, around 1425 is assumed on account of the latest portrait drawn by the earlier scribe appearing to be the portrait of Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, who reigned from 1391 to 1425, which depicts the emperor as an old man with a white beard.": far too much concatenation of dependent clauses
"hold iconographic value": not clear what is intended here. Are they accurate portraits? Can they be used as
icons? Are they distinct enough to serve as memorable caricatures, regardless of accuracy?
Changed to "accurate representations" - the portraits are distinguishable from each other and they are accurate in the sense of appearing to have been based on other contemporary sources and potraying known physical characteristics quite well, but they are not drawn in a detailed or naturalistic way, hence the debate.
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
15:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)reply
"only a few physical features": what other kind of feature could they differ in?
Not many given the artistic style employed, but if they were
more detailed they would probably differ in more features than they do. The source did not mention any other features that could have differed.
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
15:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)reply
"the Modena codex" (at least thrice): again, unnecessary elegant variation
Thoroughly footnoted, with clear page numbers. Most sources are offline and I am taking them on good faith rather than carefully checking. They all appear to be scholarly books and articles from reputable publishers, except for one (adequately reliable) university web page.
Coverage matches what is reported of the scholarly coverage of the same subject: heavy on the portraits, light on the text. But as the text is mostly a copy of something else, that seems appropriate.