Talk:Codex Boreelianus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I'm currently working my way though this article. I suspect that it is mostly compliant with WP:WIAGA, so it could well gain GA-status this time round.

It has a few "rough edges", mostly on grammar, the majority of which I may be able to fix myself. I will therefore only post comments below which need clarification from the nominator. As is my usual preference, I will be leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Description -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC) - A minor point. I assume that "Mt 7:6", which appears in the first paragraph is Matthew 7:6? This needs to be clarified, either by fully expanding "Mt", or by defining it at the first occurence such as "Matthew (Mt)".[reply]
"At present,.." (Note: I changed Present to At present) needs clarifying. Three citations are used, dating to 1894, 1900 and undated, so I suspect that "present" refers to 20th century, or perhaps 20th and 21st century.

At present means since 1830. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC) - I'm not sure about reference 5. Its cited as "uFe Codex Boreelianus F^e (09)]: at the Encyclopedia of Textual Criticism", which is a web site. This aught to be fully cited, using (for example) {{cite web}}. However, I can't see any author as such, so is it a WP:reliable source?[reply]

....Stopping for now. Pyrotec (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC) - Hiatus (a gap) is used in the short paragraph: "The codex has a lot of hiatus (e.g. νηστευουσιν in Matthew 9:14, ελεγεν in Matthew 9:21, ειπεν in Matthew 9:22, etc.)[10] and N ephelkystikon.[11] The error of iotacism occurs infrequently." What is the difference between a Hiatus and a lacunae (which is also a "gap")?[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC) - I don't understand: "The text is divided according to the Ammonian Sections, with the usual number of sections, but there are no references to the Eusebian Canons.". The WP:lead to Eusebian Canons states: "Eusebian canons or Eusebian sections, also known as Ammonian Sections,...", which to me suggests that they are the same. Some clarification is needed.[reply]

- Encyclopedia of Textual Criticism, or this, according to R. Elliott "this page probably should not be used as a bibliographic reference". In this article is quoted only one time (reference 5th). If you think this reference should be removed from the article, it is not problem, because the statement of the article is supported by reference 4th. You can remove it. In any case it is the best website of textual criticism.
- Hiatus is an error from the grammar point of view. It has only grammar meaning. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC) - I'm not sure what "singular readings" are. The article does not explain this term, I think it should.[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC) - Also, I'm not clear why Textual variants (against Textus Receptus) is a subsection of the Text section, but the short Against Kr is made a stand-alone section in its own right.[reply]

....Stopping, again, for now. Pyrotec (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singular readings - readings used by only one manuscript; maybe it will better do not use term "singular reading", but some of its reading do not occur in any other manuscript;
unique readings - readings used by several manuscripts

Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC) - Ammonian Sections usually are given with a references to the Eusebian Canons (written below number of sections), but in some manuscripts a references to the Eusebian Canons are absent. Ammonian Sections - small chapters.[reply]
I gave some explanation for Textus Receptus (it was used in the West until to the end of 19th century) and K^r (text still used by Eastern Orthodox church). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC) - Thanks. Yes, I understand Textus Receptus and K^r now. However, I'm not sure why they both can't be subsections of Text. Textus Receptus is a subsection of Text, but K^r is a section on its own. Pyrotec (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lead -

This is intended to both introduce the article and to provide a summary of the main points.

Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC) - The first two sentences, i.e. "Codex Boreelianus, Codex Boreelianus Rheno-Trajectinus (full name), designated by Fe or 09 in the Gregory-Aland numbering and ε 86 in von Soden numbering, is a 9th (or 10th) century uncial manuscript of the four Gospels in Greek. The manuscript, written on parchment, is full of lacunae (or gaps), many of which arose in modern times." includes some material that does not appear in the main body of the article, but I'm prepared to accept most of them as they are. "Modern times" is vague: In the Description section, it states that they were there is 1751, so perhaps the lacunae happened in the last 250 years, during the two centuries, since 1851, etc, - some clarification is needed?[reply]
These two sentences: "The text of the codex represents the majority of the text, but with numerous alien readings. Some of its readings do not occur in any other manuscript (so called singular readings)." needs a bit more work. What is the codex being compared to: the Textus Receptus, modern Greek editions, etc. ? "Alien readings" needs a (summarised) explanation.
Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC) - The lead does not explain why it is called "... Boreelianus", should it?[reply]
Nor mention of it being a (defective) Byzantine text, again, is this important?

Pyrotec (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive review of the Codex Boreelianus.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on adding another "Codex article" to the listing of GAs. Pyrotec (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]