Talk:Codex Basilensis A. N. IV. 2/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 17:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll be completing the rest of the review shortly, but I also foresee problems about the understandability of the prose here too, from a non-expert perspective. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Same comments as to the lead as at Talk:Codex Basilensis A. N. III. 12/GA1. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarity:
 * "According to Kurt and Barbara Aland it agrees with the Byzantine standard text 119 times, and 80 times with the Byzantine when it has the same reading as the original text, it agrees 60 times with the original text against the Byzantine, it has 69 independent or distinctive readings in the Gospels." ~ really needs splitting into more than one sentence;
 * "Alands"? Should this be "Aland" or "the Alands"?
 * Possibly mention what a "text-type" is if this can be done succinctly.
 * "Matthew 1-10; Matthew 22 – Mark 14; Luke 4-23; John 1-13; 18 there are in this codex 2243 variants from the Textus Receptus." Sorry, what does this mean? I get the first half of the sentence but am now completely at sea.
 * Translate "Ιησουν τον Βαραββαν" and indicate what it is a variant of (i.e. what the more common variant is);
 * What's a "full point"?
 * Quality of English:
 * "Bengel made a few extracts from the codex" "took" or "used" rather than "made" I think; if in doubt perhaps WP:RD/L can help.
 * "Wettstein dated codex to the 10th century." "the Codex" rather than "codex", I think.
 * Full names on first use, or initials if that's what they went by.
 * "are similar" => "were similar". Even if they haven't changed, this sounds far more natural.
 * "All this group was examined by Kirsopp Lake" "All of", at least, not sure about was/were. Probably either.
 * "portrait" => "portraits". If the two named portraits are the only pictures, then it's probably easier to remove the brackets and delete "pictures". If they are among the pictures, insert "including" before "portraits".
 * Placing the article on hold accordingly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No further action, failing. Consider renominating when the above points have been addressed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made some improvements, but not all. "are similar" textually - the same text-family. "portrait" - one portrait, whit John and Prochorus. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've copyedited the article. All the best,  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 14:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"According to Kurt and Barbara Aland it agrees with the Byzantine standard text 119 times, and 80 times with the Byzantine when it has the same reading as the original text, it agrees 60 times with the original text against the Byzantine, it has 69 independent or distinctive readings in the Gospels." ~

I did not see this "original text" wording in a quick check of Aland, and even if was there, it would not make sense here. This problem is on many pages. Alternatives that might make sense are the Critical Text, or the Alexandrian text. I'll wait a while for a response, if none I will recheck Aland and see what wording might be the best. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you will take book of Aland,s you can find - 1191, 802, 601/2, 69s. This is Aland's profile. The explanation of Aland's profile you can find on other pages of this book as well as an explanation of his categorisation of the New Testament manuscripts. It is not the Alexandrian text as you think, but close to it. According to Aland and other textual critics it is original text. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)