Open RachelEdney opened 2 weeks ago
Thanks @RachelEdney -- yes, we should clarify this. Though I may want to look more closely with @davidamichelson at this record to see if we do want f. 59 to be a separate manuscript part or if that was a mistake.
@RachelEdney Thanks for this, Will and I will make the edits on this issue, please proofread the rest of the document and commit changes.
In the note below, should the term "msPart" be changed to clarify the location of the entry for fol. 59?
https://github.com/srophe/britishLibrary-data/blob/7ed9d834c099761265cdcb643468a8d01e06be53/data/tei/342.xml#L310
Cf. https://archive.org/details/catalogueofsyria02brituoft/page/744/mode/2up