Talk:Codex Alexandrinus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Initial Comments
A very reasonable article. I will not be Quick Failing this WP:GAN.

It looks to be of the right standard to pass GA but that decision be taken later on, after I've gone through the article in some depth.Pyrotec (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just noticed a problems that need to be addressed and may have been overlooked - the first two images in "In Britain" create sandwiching of text, which goes against the MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It appears to have been fixed.Pyrotec (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sumary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I found it interesting to read; and I'm awarding it GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

GA?
There are only 3-4 single sentences on the textual value of the codex concerning the Old Testament. This is not enough for a "good article" imho. --Shmuel haBalshan (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added more sentences. Leszek Jańczuk (talk)