Talk:Lectionary 183

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lectionary 183/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 00:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   This is very badly written. Needs a thorough copy edit to render it into good plain English. Some examples:

   Westcott and Hort labelled it by 38e, Scrivener by 257e. "by"? please use a more appropriate word.

   Paleographically usually it has been assigned to the 10th century. Rewrite in oplain English

   Textually it often agrees with old uncial manuscript of the New Testament Do you mean "manuscripts">

   It has numerous errors, but unequally distributed in the codex. Rewrite in plain English

   "It was examined by several palaeographers. Who?

   The codex contains all the Church lessons from Easter to Pentecost, for every Saturday and Sunday for the rest of the year. "and for every Saturday and Sunday"?

   The leaf with text of John 20:19–30 is on paper, Missing definite article

   Various stray sentences, lead does not conform to WP:LEAD.

   The text is written in Greek uncial letters, in two columns per page, 22 lines per page. Please at least attempt to use English grammar.

   The first page is in red and gold, the rest pages in black ink, much faded in parts. missing preposition.

   This is nowhere near "reasonably good prose". If you get it copy-edited, then it can be assessed.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   ref #1[1] appears to be the index or footnote section of a book. How does it support the cited statements?

   The codex contains all the Church lessons from Easter to Pentecost, for every Saturday and Sunday for the rest of the year. Appears to be a close paraphrase of the cited source.[2]

   I am concerned that much of the article appears to be close paraphrases of sources that I can access, please rewrite in your own words.

   Please read WP:CITE/ES to see how to cite sources properly. You don't need to repeat bibliographical detail in the cites, if you have provided a bibliography.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Appears to cover the subject, but as it is so poorly written, it is hard to judge.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Two images used, but captions do not explain anything.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article is very poorly written, apparently by editors with no command of good plain English. It should not have been nominated in this poor state. Get it copy-edited, read and aptly the good article criteria, take to peer review before renominating. WP:GAN is not the place to learn how to reach those criteria, it is where articles are checked against them. Not listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Language

The article states: The text is written in old Slavic language. It is a mixture of Slavic Cyrillic and Greek where few letters are borrowed from Persian, Hebrew, and Latin. This type of language/letter was used by Serbians and Bulgarians. I often deal with manuscripts using the Old Slavic Language but I here can see no Cyrillic letter such as ѣ, ь, ъ, ш, щ, ц, б, ж, ѧ, or ѫ, and also no slavic word. Instead, the codex is writen in Greek. An Old Slavic manuscript would look like the Ostromir Gospels. Kormuh (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)