Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Codex Basilensis A. N. III. 12/1

Codex Basilensis A. N. III. 12

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Codex_Basilensis_A._N._III._12/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delist I have carefully examined this article and it contains a number of elementary grammatical mistakes, weasel words, unclear statements and a lack of citations for key points. The lead does not fully summarize the article. No action has been undertaken to remedy these faults.  The article may be renominated at WP:GAN when these issues are addressed. I am an uninvolved editor as per note 1 above. (Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators, unless the closure involves withdrawing the nomination; reviewers are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment) Jezhotwells (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This article was recently passed by. The review was later deleted by an admin per WP:Deny as He to Hecuba was discovered to be a sock. It was decided to conduct individual reassessments on the articles passed by Hecuba at the GAN talk page. This is one outstanding from that list. I am initiating a community GAR instead of an individual one because I have also previously failed articles from the GA nominator due to prose issues and would probably do the same here if I conducted an individual re-assessment. However, other reviewers (some who are quite experienced with the process) have found the level of prose acceptable in similar articles, so I feel it is only fair to make this a community re-assessment. AIR corn (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – Some of the prose in the lead and the Description section seems a little terse and it doesn't always flow well. But the remainder of the article is a decent read. I see a number of inconsistencies in the formatting of the references. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delist, the lead does not fully summarize the article, the prose does not read very well and insufficient context is provided. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)