Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

A bit of copyediting is all that's keeping this article from GA status.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * Contents: Philemon is part of the Pauline Epistles, yet the text says the former is excluded though the latter are included. Should be a simple fix.  Notable readings: "it has not word" should probably be "it lacks the word" Scribes and correctors: "Scribe C was canceled." is unclear. Do you mean that later scholars have rejected the idea that this was a seprate person?  Occurs multiple times in this section.
 * The number of scribes was reduced from 3 to 2. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I suspected, but that's not very comfortable English. Who did the reducing?  Did scholars just decide that previous decisions that there had been three separate scribes were mistaken? Jclemens (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Scribe C never existed". I gave some references. Now according all authorities (Aland, Metzger, Comfort, Jonkid, etc.) the scribes were two. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * b (MoS):
 * Needs a thorough copyediting by someone with a good command of English. No offense, but the writing style indicates that a non-native speaker has had a great influence on the text.  Not a showstopper, but a definite need for improvement to meet GA criteria.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Per WP:IBID, Op. Cit. may become problematic, especially if new footnotes are inserted in the text. Consider using rp with the named references to consolidate the footnotes, but that's a stylistic preference of mine, not a GA criterion.
 * 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:
 * Mostly OK, but makes occasional assertions of meaning or importance that could be referenced more directly.
 * 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):
 * Excellent selection and placement.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for up to a week, at which time I will revisit it and re-review. Please feel free to ask questions on this review page, as I will have it watchlisted.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that there's been some work done on this. Are you ready for a full, formal re-review? Jclemens (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On hold for up to a week, at which time I will revisit it and re-review. Please feel free to ask questions on this review page, as I will have it watchlisted.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that there's been some work done on this. Are you ready for a full, formal re-review? Jclemens (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment
The lead doesn't adequately summarize the article and needs to be expanded. I read peacock terms even in the lead, as well as weasel words in the article body ("it has been concluded/found/known") and many rather vague descriptions. Footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark or word, and some references are differently applied from the majority. Hekerui (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Per LEAD, the lead needs to be substantially expanded. Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Extended hold
Per User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_4, the nominator has requested extra time to make the adjustments based on his own holiday schedule. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At what date will the article be ready for a re-review? Right now, I see that some additions have been made to the lead, but it really needs to be expanded by a factor of 2-3x. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think the lead is long enough. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's the point--it's not. Per LEAD, it should be about four paragraphs, and touch on the major content of the article. Jclemens (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Current Status

 * The "Scribes and correctors" section still needs copyediting.
 * The lead is now long enough (barely) but fails to summarize the article. Each major division in the article should have at least a sentence outlining its high points in the lead. Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Failure imminent
It's been almost a month with no progress on these two ongoing critiques. Please fix them (ask me for more guidance if needed) by Sunday, or I will fail the article for lack of progress on Monday. I hate to do that, but "X was cancelled" is downright terrible prose, and "Scribe C never existed" is far too blatant a pronouncement for an historic topic under academic discussion, even if that represents the current consensus. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. Perhaps "was proven not to exist" or "was eliminated". Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I give up. I'm just going to copyedit this thing for prose myself, and refer it to another for a second opinion.  I think the information is all there, but there are just too many small problems (see my recent changes to the article) to pass it yet. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Short second opinion: admittedly haven't read the article, but if even after a copyedit you still are finding many small issues with the article and there haven't been help from the writer, I'd just fail it.  Wizardman  20:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, fail it. If the nominator is not interested in improving the article it would be best not listed. No one is going to die.  It can always be brought back to GAN.. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Per that I'm failng it. The nom can put this through a peer review then re-nom at GAN. Wizardman  19:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)