Talk:Codex Basilensis A. N. IV. 2/GA2

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

Reviewer: Maclean25 (talk · contribs) 20:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good article review (see What is a good article? for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See below comments.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * See below request for a specific citation.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Three images used, all Commons-hosted: File:Codex Basiliensis A.N.IV.2 Luke 1,1-2.JPG tagged as public domain; File:Old University Basel.jpg tagged with attribution (compatible with GFDL); and File:Codex Basiliensis A.N.IV.2.PNG tagged as public domain.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Questions/Comments
 * The lead could provide more general detail. For example, how long is it (297 pages), how is it divided up, etc.
 * "It was originally accompanied by miniatures..." - is this refering to Miniature (illuminated manuscript)? If so, a wikilink would be useful.
 * "without separation in "elegant and minute" minuscule..." - this quote seems out of place. The section is being neutrally descriptive except here where an opinion is just thrown in. The writing can be improved by providing more context, like "what text critic Mr.x calls 'elegant and minute' minuscule". Also, please directly cite the quote.
 * "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, ..." - I got lost here. Do both these "it"s refer to this Codex Basilensis? what is the difference between the last two comparisons (80 times and 60 times?, they both seem to be comparing the codex to the the Byz and the original text?)
 * "Griesbach was the first..." and "According to Hort, its text..." and "Wettstein, Tischendorf, Scrivener and Gregory" and "Hug supported..." - don't assume the reader already has such historical familiarity with the topic; the target audience is the general reader. On the first instance of using names of people in the article, provide their first and last names and an indication of who they are (why they are being used) or their relationships to one another. Many seem to be textual critic but studying hundreds of years apart.
 * " It was borrowed by Reuchlin and used by Desiderius Erasmus in the first edition of his Novum Testamentum (1516); as a result, some of its readings are found in the Textus Receptus." - I don't follow why Reuchlin is being included in the same sentence as Erasmus and Textus Receptus. What is the connection? Again, use the full name on the first instance (like you did with Desiderius Erasmus).
 * "Its later story is the same as that of Codex Basilensis and minuscule 2 (GA)." - don't just end the paragraph there! Give us at least a summary of what happened.
 * The lead has more details. Marginalia - text's division. "Aland's profile" - I know, that it is difficult to understand for usual reader. "Original text" it means text according to the Aland's reconstruction (27th edition of Nestle-Aland). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still not clear here: "80 times with the Byzantine...original text" and "60 times with the original text against the Byzantine"? One is according Aland and the other something else? maclean (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One word was missing - it agrees with the Byzantine standard text against the "original" 119 time. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That didn't help. I read the reference and I get the "119 times with the Byzantine standard text" and the "60 with the original text", but I'm lost as to what "agreements with the Byzantine text where it has the same reading as the original text" means. Can you explain this to me, in plain language, here on the review page? maclean (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Aland's profile:
 * 1) agreements with the Byzantine text
 * 2) agreements with the Byzantine text where it has the same reading as the original text
 * 3) agreements with the original text
 * 4) independent or distinctive readings (i.e., special readings) Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) agreements with the Byzantine text
 * 2) agreements with the Byzantine text where it has the same reading as the original text
 * 3) agreements with the original text
 * 4) independent or distinctive readings (i.e., special readings) Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That is what the reference says but does not answer the question I asked above. I asked if you could explain it (not repeat it). I can understand if you want to include that specific definition as part of the 'profile' but do so as an accessory (as an image, table, list, or infobox) because that does not make good prose. In Wikipedia terms, it violates MOS:JARGON: some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them accessible to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon, or at least explain it;...Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader, when more common alternatives will do." The Text of the New Testament is written for a more academic audience already familar with the subject, Wikipedia is not. There are several examples in this article of unnecessay jargon, but this example is the worst. Other examples include:

--maclean (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "(systematically cited in UBS3,[21] UBS4,[22] NA26[23] and NA27); in NA27, it is cited as a witness of the first order." - abbreviations hides the meaning so that only people familiar with the jargon get it.
 * "αναγνωσεις (lessons)...in Matthew – 116 αναγνωσεις...Lectionary markings and αναγνωσεις..." - this is exactly what the "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader, when more common alternatives will do." from WP:JARGON is referring to. If αναγνωσεις means 'lessons', then say 'lessons' and put it the specialized term in brackets.
 * "It is dated by the INTF..." - again an unnecessary abbreviation is turning an organization's name into industry jargon.
 * "(collates 1 with 118, 131, and 209)." - no explanation about what these numbers are referring to.


 * Textual profile. This is a technical article and in the same way are written other articles: Codex Zacynthius, Codex Coislinianus, Minuscule 543 (Gregory-Aland), Codex Boreelianus, Codex Ephraemi and several other articles. It is acceptable on other wikis. Do you want to delete this section?
 * Lectionary markings and αναγνωσεις - there are two kinds of liturgical notes.
 * INTF; perhaps full name - Institute for New Testament Textual Research.
 * I gave links to the codices 118, 131, and 209. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your edits to the article indicate you are willing to make clarifications on some points but your responses on this review page demonstrate an unwillingness to clarify others. Technical articles still should meet the technical article guidelines. There are several areas in the current version of this article that are not consistent with those guidelines (examples noted above). As such, I am asking you flat out: are you willing to make clarifications or not? If you would like further guidance as to what is unclear, that is fine. But some of your responses on this review page thus far have demonstrated resistance. maclean (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, but how to do that with textual profiles - Aland's Profile, Claremont Profile Method (here did not used, but used in 1000 other manuscripts)? Perhaps only deletion. The article should be complete. Aland compared the text of the codex with the Byzantine text-type and "original text" (according to Aland's reconstruction) - it is all. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. How does this sound:
 * In Aland's Profile, Kurt and Barbara Aland placed the codex's Gospels in Category III with the profile of 1191, 802, 601/2, 69s. This means the text of the codex agrees with the Byzantine standard text 119 times, with the original text against the Byzantine 80 times, and with both the Byzantine and original text 60 times. There are 69 independent or distinctive readings in the Gospels. While the Gospels are a representative of the Caesarean text-type, the remainder of the books of the New Testament in this codex is a representative of the Byzantine text-type and falls into Category V Aland's Profile.
 * Does being in Category III (opposed to Category V) mean anything special that can be mentioned here? maclean (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * III Category - the text has historical importance; 5 Category is the lowest, manuscripts with 5 Category usually are not cited in critical editions. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you didn't object I edited the page accordingly  maclean (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What is UBS3? What is its proper name? maclean (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Third edition of the Greek New Testament edited by United Bible Societies. These abbreviations are explained here: Novum Testamentum Graece. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is Prolegomena capitalized? maclean (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Conclusion
 * I have re-read the article. The only sticking point to date has been the quality of writing being presented. I find the writing is more clear now; perhaps because I've read it several times, but all the specific violations of WP:Jargon and unclear phrases that I can identify have been addressed. It can be difficult to communicate basic concepts when you are already overly familiar with a topic, as the language devolves into assumptions of familiarity (like use of acronyms). Regardless, I think this can now qualify as a GA. —maclean (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)