Wikipedia:Peer review/Codex Sinaiticus/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Generally it seems over-reliant on older sources. In particular David C. Parker's 2010 book on the Codex is only used once, for a fairly minor point.
- For FA I'd strongly recommend not repeating all the book titles in the notes/refs. Work out a consistent style for short citations, which are in one section (I use "Notes" as its name), then just give the full title once in a section below ("References"), which lists all the sources used (except maybe one-off web sources) and only those. "Further reading" should be only for books that are not used.
- The style in which books are listed must be consistent.
- The article generally seems rather short. Which institutions have which pages? Many other issues are dealt with rather too briskly. The views of squads of scholars (mostly long dead) are cited as to the origin of the book, but little of their reasoning. What can be said about the context of the book anyway, wherever it was written? Is it certainly monastic? How was it used?
- The English will need a thorough copyedit.
- Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings is worth a link somehow, if only in a note.
- Generally I think a fair amount of work is still needed. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Book of Parker was written for a popular reader (no references, not too much about textual affinities, scribal habits etc.), but I can use it more often (history of the codex). The same thing with: Schneider, Ulrich Johannes (ed.) (2007). Codex Sinaiticus. Geschichte und Erschließung der "Sinai-Bibel". Leipzig: Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig. ISBN 978-3-934178-72-4. Published by Leipzig University but book is of the same popular type like book of Parker. I used in the article - Jongkind, Dirk (2007). Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus, Gorgias Press LLC. This is really very important. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Which institutions have which pages? " There is a section Codex Sinaiticus#Present location. Is it not enough? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think so, it just gives the numbers of pages, not which sections. Parker may be popular, but it is by a specialist and should be used to reference the modern consensus, or lack of it, on issues. I suspect it may contain exactly the sort of contextual material that the article is currently lacking. The same is probably true of Schneider. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)