# Talk:Family 1

This review is transcluded from Talk:Family 1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
General:
Not required, but could we list the languages for the sources not in English?
Added Stephen Walch (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
"Family 1" or "family 1" - the article is inconsistent and should settle on one or the other.
Have converted all to "Family 1" Stephen Walch (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Spotchecks:
"Family 1, also known as the Lake Group, is the name given to a group of Greek New Testament minuscule manuscripts of the Gospels, identified by biblical scholar Kirsopp Lake." is sourced to Metzinger 4th ed p. 86 which supports all of the information except "also known as the Lake Group" which needs some sort of source
Actually couldn't find a single source which referred to it as "the Lake Group" bar the encyclopedia of textual criticism; however as no source there, I've just removed this completely. Stephen Walch (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
" (The text-types are groups of different New Testament manuscripts which share specific or generally related readings, which then differ from each other group, and thus the conflicting readings can separate out the groups. These are then used to determine the original text as published; the three main types are as above.)" is sourced to Metzinger 4th ed. pp. 205-230 which near as I can tell does support the information (it's a rather ... convoluted section in the source - heh.)
"Biblical scholar Amy Anderson made a new reconstruction of the family tree in 2004, demonstrating minuscule 1582 was a more exact representation of the text of the archetype than minuscule 1." is sourced to Anderson p. 114 but p. 114 is actually a different conference paper - Anderson's paper runs from p. 119 to p. 161. - this should be fixed.
Fixed Stephen Walch (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
"A similar scholion appears in the minuscules 22, 1192, and 1210:
Note Prior to Mark 16:9-20[5]: 132 " is sourced to Anderson p. 132 which supports the information 

"Biblical scholar Silva Lake (wife of Kirsopp Lake), discovered that Minuscule 652 represents the text of ƒ1 in Mark 4:20-6:24, though this agreement was mainly with minuscules 118, 131, and 209, as opposed to a similar agreement with minuscule 1." is sourced to this source p. 33 which supports the information
"According to the Claremont Profile Method (a specific analysis of textual data), the group profiles of the Lake's Family in Luke 1, 10, and 20 are:
Luke 1: 9, 11, 17, 20, (22), 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, (34), 36, 37, 40, 43, (47), 48, 50, 51, 53.
Luke 10: 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 20, 22, (23), 27, (29), 34, 37, 40, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 62.
Luke 20: 1, 5, 6, (7), 10, 11, 14, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 41, 44, 45, 48, 51, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 75, 76." is sourced to this source p. 106 which supports the information

See also:
Per MOS:SEEALSO "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body" - at least Caesarean text-type should be removed. Also, biblical manuscript and textual criticism should probably be linked in the article text rather than used as a see also links.
Sorted this out too. Stephen Walch (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: I have hopefully sorted out the changes you required. Anything else, please let me know. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is interesting...but it doesn't actually tell me what a miniscule is. The link to miniscule goes to Lists of New Testament minuscules, which also doesn't say what a miniscule is. That in turn links to New Testament minuscule, which in turn requires me to go to Greek minuscule, which also doesn't really answer what makes the fact that something is a biblical miniscule meaningful. I would suggest including a body paragraph which plainly explains what a miniscule manuscript is and why it matters that we have a family of them. It may also be worth considering whether the miniscule link be retargeted, or the targeted page be improved to include a definition of what a miniscule manuscript is and why that matters. I make these suggestions since I see the article was just up for GA, but I think that a rather key element has been left out, which could threaten its GA status. Otherwise, its a good article and I appreciate the hard work. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @CaptainEek - this is a very good question! I've amended the page now to in fact link to the Greek minuscule page (as opposed to the 'list'; that's in the related links at the bottom), as well as a quick blurb as to what a 'minuscule' is. There is in fact no "significance" to these manuscripts being minuscules, as 'minuscule' is just the name given to the Greek handwriting script which replaced the older uncial script (which could be described as an "upper case" only script, whereas minuscule includes the usual lower-case/upper-case mix which we see in most languages these days). That this is a family of only minuscules as opposed to uncials or a mix of the two is inconsequential, as it's the text contained within the manuscripts which are the significant bit; a Greek manuscript being an older uncial doesn't automatically make it more significant than a younger minuscule when it comes to the NT. Hope that helps answer the question. If you feel something more needs to be put on about what a 'minuscule' is, please let me know. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)