Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: -- Screwball23 talk 02:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): -- excellent; the sections regarding the differences that the Codex had with other Bibles is a little hard to follow; for one, it may help if full sentences were given to clarify the context of these words that are different.}} b (MoS): -- The article looks good, the references and sections neat and polished. I was turned away by some of the text, which had Greek lettering.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): -- these references are excellent. The page is absolutely well-referenced b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): -- the page does not have OR, but many times, a page with this many book references is accused of OR because wikipedia is generally web-centric

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): -- many of the major aspects (the Codex is highly regarded among scholars), (it is used for some of the most widely-sold New Testament translations), (it has small scribbles written by some of its past owners) is potentially very exciting to know, but I see a lot of this is not expanded on. b (focused): -- the translation sections, which point to missing text or text that is different, is a little distracting from the article's significance.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: I will review this article. :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Note, changes since last GA review

1. Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA1
2. [1] - changes since last GA review.

-- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Image review

(addressed notes)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
File:Codex Vaticanus B, 2Thess. 3,11-18, Hebr. 1,1-2,2.jpg Could use formatting with Commons:Template:Information. File:Codex vaticanus.jpg Could use formatting with Commons:Template:Information. File:Mark16-B.JPG Checks out okay, at Wikimedia Commons. File:Codex Vaticanus end or Luke.jpg Checks out okay, at Wikimedia Commons. File:2IWANNOU-B.JPG Checks out okay, at Wikimedia Commons. File:Rau, William Herman - n. 1999 - In The Great Hall, Vatican Library, Rome, Italy.jpg Could use formatting with Commons:Template:Information. File:Tischendorf - stehend.jpg Checks out okay, at Wikimedia Commons. File:Angelo Mai.JPG Could use formatting and a bit more information filled out, in the template, Commons:Template:Information. File:Codex Vaticanus Matthew 1,22-2,18.jpg Checks out okay, at Wikimedia Commons. Please address or respond to above issues. -- Cirt (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC) (Please respond, below, here, not above.) -- Cirt (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC) It is done. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you! Will do a stability review, next. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Stability review

(addressed notes)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article history looks pretty stable, going back over one month. [2] No significant ongoing conflicts or concerns apparent, upon inspection of talk page [3], and archive [4] Possible issues left to address remaining from the first GA Review for this article, but that will not hold up a stability review, in and of itself. -- Cirt (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Remaining issues

Evaluate article with respect to 1st GA Review, and WP:WIAGA general criteria. -- Cirt (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The review's been up for a month in a half, could it be sped up a bit so concerns can be addressed? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: Posted queries to two users that had commented in the prior GA Review, regarding comments they had made as related to changes to the article since then. Will await their responses, here, for a little bit longer, before proceeding with rest of review. -- Cirt (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no one else has commented here. Will move on to rest of the review. -- Cirt (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is reviewing this, Screwball23 or Cirt. I see that all of the criteria boxes have been ticked and the article is still listed at WP:GAN as unreviewed. Please can this be sorted ASAP? Jezhotwells (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Screwball23 has taken over the review. With no objections from me. :) -- Cirt (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have marked it as under review by him at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding comment from my talk page, which is relevant to here: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear}

Sorry, I read your message, and I think the #1 issue about the article is its style. It is not engaging or fun to read. I didn't gain any new insights or interesting details. The minute details about it's omissions are irrelevant; it is just a really boring article, and I can't put myself into the mood to edit it anymore.

And truth be told, this lack of interest is what is killing its GAN, and will continue to do so. --Screwball23 talk 03:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no stake in this article, but I took notice of it as the oldest pending review on on WP:GAN. I don't see why this article is not passed. Hasn't Screwball1123 already effectively passed it? If we are waiting for somebody to convert the article from a "good" article to a "brilliant" article, that's not a valid reason to hold the article up. If and when it comes up for Featured Article status, that's when we start to care how "engaging" or "interesting" the prose is. All we care about here, really, is that the article is coherent, makes sense, is descriptive, and uses proper grammar. I haven't done any review of my own, and probably won't have time to do so in the near future, but based on the above discussion, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be passed. COGDEN 02:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• At this point, I'll just do my own review of it tomorrow and see if there are any further issues. If not I'll pass it, if so I'll note them here. No reason for any article to be at GAN nearly 4 months. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any further issues with the article. I do agree with Screwball, after reading it, that the prose is at times dry, and as such I would not support an FAC at this time. It does pass all GA criteria though, and as a result I'm passing it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)