Talk:Codex Mashhad

More points of view, please

A large percentage of the references for the draft in its current state are to works by one person, the editor of the facsimile edition of the codex. Such a concentration is undesirable. Karimi-Nia's insights and commentary are welcome, but this draft needs commentary from scholars who are not connected. A section on "Critical reception" is also welcome, but the section currently summarizes the views of three scholars as they all appear on the website of the facsimile edition. I clicked on one of the three and got the impression that, although sincere, it was solicited. Far better to wait a year or two until reviews of this edition appear in scholarly journals, and to summarize what the reviews say. -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear Horay,

Thank you for taking the time to review the article and provide feedback. I have added citations from reputable sources, including Islamic-Awareness.org, which is run by an independent Islamic Studies scholar based in the UK (references 4 & 5). Additionally, I have supported the quotations in the "Critical Reception" section with citations from news websites (references 16, 17, 18). I have also added a reference to a note by Dr. Éléonore Cellard from her X account.

It is worth noting that the prestige and caliber of the figures who have shared their views via email with the editor of the Codex, as quoted in the "Critical Reception" section of the article, ensure their statements are genuine. Moreover, the Journal of Islamic Manuscripts is a highly esteemed academic publication, where most of the established facts about Codex Mashhad were first published. It serves as a primary and reliable source for this article.

Thanks again for your input. Please let me know if anything else is needed in this regard. QuranicResearch (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear, QuranicResearch, it's only today that I notice your reply. (Tip: when addressing some editor other than on their own talk page, link to their name. Doing so alerts them.) I didn't intend to question the credentials of the editor of the new edition ... but it did seem odd that so much of an article about a codex was devoted to a new, scholarly edition of that codex, and how much of what was written about this new edition was sourced to, or related to, its editor. The article doesn't need summaries of reviews in scholarly journals, but I think it would benefit from these when the reviews are published, which I imagine will be soon. -- Hoary (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Page numbering

A caption: Codex Mashhad, MS 18, Folios 50r, 49v -- rather obviously meaning 50 recto, 49 verso. OK so far (although readers unaccustomed to codices in which text goes from right to left might wonder what recto and verso mean in this context).

But from the text: For ease of reference across the unified codex, pages of manuscript 18 are denoted with an “A” preceding the page number, while manuscript 4116 pages are designated with prefix “B”. Hence, “A12a” indicates page 12a of MS 18, and “B12b” is page 12b of MS 4116. -- with no mention of "r" or "v".

How are "a" and "b" related to recto and verso? -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

(NB my question is about "a" and "b", not about "A" and "B".) QuranicResearch, any idea? -- Hoary (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)