Talk:Lectionary 183/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 00:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * This is very badly written. Needs a thorough copy edit to render it into good plain English. Some examples:
 * Westcott and Hort labelled it by 38e, Scrivener by 257e. "by"? please use a more appropriate word.
 * Paleographically usually it has been assigned to the 10th century. Rewrite in oplain English
 * Textually it often agrees with old uncial manuscript of the New Testament Do you mean "manuscripts">
 * It has numerous errors, but unequally distributed in the codex. Rewrite in plain English
 * "It was examined by several palaeographers.'' Who?
 * The codex contains all the Church lessons from Easter to Pentecost, for every Saturday and Sunday for the rest of the year. "and for every Saturday and Sunday"?
 * The leaf with text of John 20:19–30 is on paper,  Missing definite article''
 * Various stray sentences, lead does not conform to WP:LEAD.
 * The text is written in Greek uncial letters, in two columns per page, 22 lines per page. Please at least attempt to use English grammar.
 * The first page is in red and gold, the rest pages in black ink, much faded in parts. missing preposition.
 * This is nowhere near "reasonably good prose". If you get it copy-edited, then it can be assessed.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * ref #1 appears to be the index or footnote section of a book. How does it support the cited statements?
 * The codex contains all the Church lessons from Easter to Pentecost, for every Saturday and Sunday for the rest of the year. Appears to be a close paraphrase of the cited source.
 * I am concerned that much of the article appears to be close paraphrases of sources that I can access, please rewrite in your own words.
 * Please read WP:CITE/ES to see how to cite sources properly. You don't need to repeat bibliographical detail in the cites, if you have provided a bibliography.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Appears to cover the subject, but as it is so poorly written, it is hard to judge.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable
 * 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):
 * Two images used, but captions do not explain anything.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article is very poorly written, apparently by editors with no command of good plain English. It should not have been nominated in this poor state. Get it copy-edited, read and aptly the good article criteria, take to peer review before renominating. WP:GAN is not the place to learn how to reach those criteria, it is where articles are checked against them. Not listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)