Talk:Claremont Profile Method

Very unclear article

This article is poorly written.

• The introduction contains much jargon ("large manuscript attestation", "balanced representatives", "the whole tradition"), making it incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't already know what it is about.

• The introduction is written from the myopic viewpoint of someone involved in the topic, making for ridiculous generalization. The method is not a classifaction method for any ancient text: it is a classification method for Greek manuscripts of the New Testament of the Bible that contain the gospel of Luke.

• The only non-introductory paragraph in the whole article is too brief to clearly explain what the method is, nor does it say anything about the meaning of the classification or the(historical) significance of the method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.88.177 (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• ...and why "Claremont", the average reader would be asking--Wetman (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sloppy Greek and attribution problems

Where are the diacritics on the Greek? And also, why is almost the entirety of this article an incomplete and unattributed apparatus criticus?

Whim

The alleged method is utterly whimsical. Three chapters have been chosen on whim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

These three chapters are a result of very long work. More than 1000 manuscripts in three chapters - amazing work. It is incredible. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)