Talk:Codex Alexandrinus/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Initial Comments

A very reasonable article. I will not be Quick Failing this WP:GAN.

It looks to be of the right standard to pass GA but that decision be taken later on, after I've gone through the article in some depth.Pyrotec (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I just noticed a problems that need to be addressed and may have been overlooked - the first two images in "In Britain" create sandwiching of text, which goes against the MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It appears to have been fixed.Pyrotec (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sumary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A comprehensive, wide-ranging article

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced

   C. No original research:

   well referenced

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A interesting well illustrated article.

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I found it interesting to read; and I'm awarding it GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

GA?

There are only 3-4 single sentences on the textual value of the codex concerning the Old Testament. This is not enough for a "good article" imho. --Shmuel haBalshan (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added more sentences. Leszek Jańczuk (talk)