Talk:Codex Cyprius/GA2

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Description:
 * "in one single column per page" "one single" is redundant - pick either "one column" or "a single column"
 * link and/or description of "interpunction mark" please?
 * link and/or description of "stichos" please?
 * "The nomina sacra (special names/words considered sacred in Christianity - usually the first and last letters of the name/word in question are written, followed by an overline; sometimes other letters from within the word are used as well) are employed throughout." this is an incredibly convoluted sentence - the long parenthetical digression makes it difficult to keep on the subject of the sentence - this needs rewording to make it comprehensible
 * "Matthew has 359 sections, Mark 241, Luke 342, and John 232" - suggest linking the specific gospels here
 * "The numbers of the κεφαλαια" link or description please?
 * Discovery:
 * "who used readings from the codex in his edition of Novum Testamentum Graecum (an edition of the Greek New Testament)" can we have a date for Mills' Novum Testamentum?
 * When did Montfaucon publish the first facsimile?
 * When did Wettstein work?
 * Date for Schrivener, Omont, and Hatch?
 * Date for when Bianchini saw it?
 * "and Gregory, who saw the codex in 1883" is this the same Gregory who is linked in the second paragraph of the Dating section? If so, the link should be here with his full name.
 * All in all, much improved since I reviewed this article over 12 years ago (I didn't even remember I'd done it until I looked at the previous GANs after taking this version on to review!)
 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * Spotchecks:
 * "The Greek text of this codex is considered a representative of the Byzantine text-type." is sourced to this source p. 77 which supports the information
 * "from which this manuscript may have been copied." is sourced to this source p. 137 which supports the information
 * "William Hatch argued the letters Β, Δ, Κ, Λ, Μ, Ξ, Π, Υ, Φ, Χ, Ψ, and Ω have forms which are characteristic of the late 10th or the early 11th century CE." is sourced to this source which supports the information
 * I did some copyediting, please make sure I did not inadvertently change the meaning or introduce errors.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments in the GA review @Ealdgyth! I'll look at implementing the suggested improvements ASAP. Stephen Walch (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Here we go, @Ealdgyth. Comments on the suggested improvements:
 * Description:
 * "in one single column per page" - rephrased
 * "interpunction mark" - linked
 * "stichos" - changed to English word as opposed to transliteration
 * "The nomina sacra" - rephrased
 * "Matthew has 359 sections" - links added
 * "κεφαλαια" - rephrased
 * Discovery:
 * "date for Mills' Novum Testamentum?" - added
 * "Montfaucon" - added
 * "Wettstein" - added
 * "Schrivener, Omont, and Hatch" - added
 * "Bianchini" - added
 * "Gregory" - I have added the link here as suggested. Only comment on this is Gregory has already been named and linked further up under Textual Character, hence why I didn't repeat it here initially. Is the repetition okay, or should the one under Textual Character be removed?
 * Thanks for the review! Stephen Walch (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * These all look good (I didn't see the Textual character link so I've removed the dating one... that one's on me!) Passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thanks, @Ealdgyth :D Stephen Walch (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Wettstein" - added
 * "Schrivener, Omont, and Hatch" - added
 * "Bianchini" - added
 * "Gregory" - I have added the link here as suggested. Only comment on this is Gregory has already been named and linked further up under Textual Character, hence why I didn't repeat it here initially. Is the repetition okay, or should the one under Textual Character be removed?
 * Thanks for the review! Stephen Walch (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * These all look good (I didn't see the Textual character link so I've removed the dating one... that one's on me!) Passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thanks, @Ealdgyth :D Stephen Walch (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)