Talk:Codex Basilensis A. N. III. 12/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 17:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll be doing the review shortly (alongside your other articles). It looks pretty good but I expect to raise issues about the prose, particularly the understandability of the "text" section to a layperson (no pun intended). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Image review: Could we have some details of the facsimile edition(s) the scans are taken from? It isn't a copyright issue but it would be helpful to the reader and avoids plagiarism. The bottom photograph is fine. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Prose review: Some issues that need to be addressed:
 * As far as clarity goes, the reader is left confused.
 * What exactly is a "disputed passage"? Whose dispute is it? Was the author unsure?
 * I notice you are a singificant contributor to "Byzantine text-type" but I'm not ocnvinced that page does a good job of explaining what we're talking about. Is it like a translation? A phrasing? If it can be easily explained, so so here.
 * "In Matthew 8:13 it has interpolation – marked by asterisk – και υποστρεψας ο εκατονταρχος εις τον οικον αυτου εν αυτη τη ωρα ευρεν τον παιδα υγιαινοντα (and when the centurion returned to the house in that hour, he found the slave well)." is unclear. Does this codex add those words into Matthew 8:13? If so, make that clearer;
 * I'm all at sea with the "Some textual variants". Would a table not be clearer? Which text is a variant of the other? Also, translations would help.
 * Several areas the English could be improved:
 * "and the harmony" – sorry, I don't know what you mean.
 * "manuscript is cited" => "manuscript has been cited" I think.
 * "The text is written in 1 column per page, 24 lines per page." => perhaps "The text has 1 column per page, and 24 lines per page."
 * Lead review:: does not do a sufficient job – there's nothing wrong with the style, needs to be slightly longer, really.
 * It will be obvious to most readers, but could we call it the 8th century AD or CE on first use just for clarity.
 * "It contains all spurious biblical passages, but they are marked as a doubtful." ~ What do you mean? I assume you mean the one now considered to be fake or false. Also "a doubtful" isn't correct English.

I will complete the review when I get a chance. You should consider applying the same principles to the other articles under review as this will save time. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will try to answer. Some biblical passages included to the printed Bibles are absent in some manuscripts and their authenticity is disputed by scholars. The Byzantine text represents textual tradition from Constantinople, about 80% of manuscripts represent this tradition.
 * Matthew 8,13. Only a few manuscripts contain this addition, and it was never included to the printed Bibles.
 * "textual variants" - the words before the bracket are the readings of the Textus Receptus, the words after the bracket, are the readings of the codex
 * "harmony of the four Gospels; some mediaeval manuscripts contain it.

"manuscript has been cited" - of course.
 * The lead - you are right.
 * "marked as a doubtful" - the scribe considered it to be false. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the bracket notation standard? It's very confusing and perhaps alternative should be considered. Also if you could look again at the texts and see of you could work in the explanations you've given here. Also, what does "A. N. III. 12" refer to? Presumably it's a designation, but it isn't mentioned in the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see it's the Basel reference. Is this the correct disambiguation to use? It might be - if it's used like this in other publications, then mentioning it in the lead is probably helpful. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two ways: "βηθαραβα ] βηθανια" (e.g. (after opening click it)) or " it reads βηθανια for βηθαραβα". Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Would a table be acceptable? I think this would be clearer for the reader. "It reads βηθανια for βηθαραβα" is clearer but may be unclear as to which way round it is. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I tidied a little of the prose. I notice there's now a small repetition and contradiction: "The text is written in one column per page, with 23 or more lines." and "The text is written in 1 column per page, 24 lines per page." Could you examine the source and tidy that please? Also, is "It is written carefully and well" in ref #7? Is that what it says? Is there anything more specific we could say - perhaps "clearly"? Also please press on with the dejargonisation I mentioned above. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have changed the lead (Basel → Basel University Library). I have added more palaeographical details. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are still outstanding points above that have not been addressed after a suitable hold period. I'm therefore going to fail the article at this current moment, but, if the issues are addressed then you may renominate - there is no waiting time for good faith nominations. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have found only two points: "It is written carefully and well" and "dejargonisation". Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and other articles are also written in the same way. Some therms should be used (Eusebian Canons, Ammonian Sections, text-type, etc.). "It is written carefully and well" is more correctly. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)