Talk:Codex Campianus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Bible (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religious texts (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing this article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Not clear[edit]

The mu1 version of the text of the Pericope is mentioned but it is not clear what exactly this mu1 is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.5.41 (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It is variation of this pericope. Yes, it is unclear. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit notes[edit]

WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by Despayre, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on April 9, 2012. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

As requested at the WP:GOCE requests page, I have started doing a copyedit of your article. I will leave my notes here, and I will go section by section, so if you see something I've done wrong, or you just don't feel is an improvement, feel free to revert me, I won't be offended, honest. --Despayre (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead:

- Broke up the first sentence into two, re-worded it to make more sense to the average reader who is probably unfamiliar with what those 2 things are
- bolded first reference to M, 021 and "E 72", as per MOS lead sentence guidelines
- removed unecessary link of "manuscript" as per MOS and wp:overlink, I think we can assume ppl reading this know what a manuscript is, and the MOS says to try and avoid serial wikilinks, they all look like the same link until you click them, not helpful
- added brief description of "liturgical" not "Average reader" level
- grammatical fix to the "high esteem" sentence
- Grammatical fix making it one sentence, and changing the opinion, the way it was made it sound like the 19th century scholars changed their own opinion in the 20th century (I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intent)

Description:

- minor prose fix for readability
- with "breathings and accents"? what does that mean? How to read it aloud? {{elucidate}} tag added
- gave an indication who Tischendorf is
- removed "(clark 39)" from sentence, I thought it was a reference, but there are no books cited with that author ??
- "The text of the Gospels is divided according to the Ammonian Sections, whose numbers are given at the margin, with references to the Eusebian Canons (written below Ammonian Section numbers" is confusing or contradictory, according to our article here, the two things (Ammonian and Eusebian) are the same thing, this sentence needs fixing to corrected meaning
- added the word "written" after "Harmony of the gospels"
- removed "beautiful", seems like a POV issue there, could be altered to something like "It is intricately illustrated" or "bound" or whatever
- replaced "Arabic scrawl" with "Arabic text", certainly removing a negative POV connotation there...
- the last sentence of this section "Some notes are written in very small letters" seems to just hang out there by itself, without reference to anything, little bit like an unwanted orphan. Might be a good idea either to remove it, or incorporate it into the rest of the text somehow

Text:

- This section seems repetitive, and then goes off into ancient greek, well beyond the level of general knowledge, unless the greek parts are translated, I would leave them out. I have left in the one line that was translated aleady
- minor prose fixes, "Basis" not "bases"
- removed Claremont phrase, as our own article seems to indicate that he only managed to assess 3 books of the bible, sounds very w:fringe to me
- removed extraneous ancient greek text, moderate prose changes to accomodate text remaining
- it would probably be good to mention what additional text was found in Matthew 1:11
- removed "μ1" from the text, since it doesn't mean anything to me, and it's never mentioned in the Pericope Adulterae article either
- removed "In John 6:58 it reads το μαννα οι πατερες υμων for οι πατερες;[1]" since it means nothing, there is no translation, and we don't have an article on John 6:58 either. No information in here for the average reader
- added common words of John 8:11 for reference
- tricky to move the ancient greek in a way that makes for better readabilty, normally I wouldn't indent as a quote *and* add italics, if it's a quote, it would just be indented, however the MOS says to italize phrases in other languages, so I think this qualifies. I think it makes it easier on the eyes to read this way too

History:

- removed Montfaucon's wikilink, already done above, as per wp:overlink
- expanded INTF, not common enough to assume the reader will know what INTF is
- removed birth-death of de Camps, it's in his article, this isn't about him
- minor grammar fixes
- removed " (as Paris 2)", I don't know what it is supposed to be referencing...
- you have 2 different people collating the text..."The text was collated by S. P. Tregelles...<SNIP!>..., and by Giuseppe Bianchini, who collated its text" THIS NEEDS FIXING!!
- added frame of reference for "Wettstein"
- kept 021 reference the same as the preceding M reference, from a wiki-markup view
- more minor prose fixes for readability
- "Russell Champlin compared the codex to textual Famly E".... aaaand?? results? conclusions?
- removed "(Gr. 48) from end of "currently the codex is..." sentence
- fixed final sentence so that those terms have meaning to the average reader

I think we're done! :) --Despayre (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).