This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is related to the British Library. Please copy assessments of the article from the most relevant WikiProject template to this one as needed.British LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/British LibraryTemplate:WikiProject British LibraryBritish Library-related articles
A fact from Oriental MS 424 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 May 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the logotype of the manuscript Bible passage Oriental MS 424 quoted names of the scribes and dates of two of its ancestor manuscripts?
This article is severely gear-headed in its writing for a Wikipedia article. I started to tag it with Template:Cleanup-jargon but, since it is up for DYK, I didn't want to make it look bad.
Specific concerns:
Lots of terminology that is not understood by the average reader (i.e. unnecessary use of jargon where more recognizable terms could be used). E.g. siglum instead of "scribal abbreviations", diglot instead of "written in two languages", lucunose instead of "contains gaps, or missing phrases, in the writing".
Assuming reader understands many scholarly concepts. E.g. "A. Mart.", "
There is really no clear indication of why this manuscript is noteworthy (i.e. there are thousands of miscellaneous ancient manuscripts lying on shelves in libraries, museums, and universities; what makes this one unique or special enough to merit a WP article?).
