GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Epicgenius ( talk · contribs) 23:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@
Veverve: I will take a look at this article over the next few days.
epicgenius (
talk)
23:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Lead:
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.
Twenty years later, work to produce an official edition of the Vulgate begun- Isn't it "began" or "had begun"?
Considering himself a great editor, he edited himself- I recommend changing one of the two instances of "edit" since it's a bit repetitive.
More later. epicgenius ( talk) 23:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Other sections:
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.
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?
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.
See also: Roman Septuagintsame, 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?
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.
"not presented in a convincing way. It is merely a list of readings without anything to indicate their value ...- who said this?
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.
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.
Two whole verses and the end of one were dropped from the Book of Numbers:- "the end of a third"?
; 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..."
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..."?
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?
6 of these 31- usually, numbers below 10 in prose form are spelled out, e.g. "six of these 31"
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.
"However, a slight possibility remains that Sixtus V, ...- says who?
I think that's it for prose. epicgenius ( talk) 03:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Notes & reference numbers as of This version
That's it for notes. epicgenius ( talk) 03:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
No significant POV detected. The coverage appears to be OK - I had no major questions regarding coverage gaps. 03:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
On hold
epicgenius (
talk)
03:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
✓ Pass epicgenius ( talk) 00:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Epicgenius ( talk · contribs) 23:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@
Veverve: I will take a look at this article over the next few days.
epicgenius (
talk)
23:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Lead:
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.
Twenty years later, work to produce an official edition of the Vulgate begun- Isn't it "began" or "had begun"?
Considering himself a great editor, he edited himself- I recommend changing one of the two instances of "edit" since it's a bit repetitive.
More later. epicgenius ( talk) 23:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Other sections:
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.
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?
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.
See also: Roman Septuagintsame, 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?
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.
"not presented in a convincing way. It is merely a list of readings without anything to indicate their value ...- who said this?
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.
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.
Two whole verses and the end of one were dropped from the Book of Numbers:- "the end of a third"?
; 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..."
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..."?
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?
6 of these 31- usually, numbers below 10 in prose form are spelled out, e.g. "six of these 31"
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.
"However, a slight possibility remains that Sixtus V, ...- says who?
I think that's it for prose. epicgenius ( talk) 03:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Notes & reference numbers as of This version
That's it for notes. epicgenius ( talk) 03:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
No significant POV detected. The coverage appears to be OK - I had no major questions regarding coverage gaps. 03:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
On hold
epicgenius (
talk)
03:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
✓ Pass epicgenius ( talk) 00:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)