This is an archive of past discussions about Codex Cyprius. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Codex Cyprius/Archive 1 was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
The lead is entirely too skimpy for the size of the article. It also contains information that is not included in the body of the article - the information on what it is numbered/named should be in the description also.
Per convention, you should include conversions to imperial measurements for those of use not on the metric system.
"The manuscript has complex contents." What does THAT mean? I'd expect a bit more explanation than that…
Sentence fragment - "Former name - Codex Colbertinus 5149."
Quite frankly, the prose is utterly dull. The first paragraph of Description has almost every single sentence start with "the". While 'brilliant' prose isn't a requirement for GA, the prose shouldn't put me to sleep either.
Suggested reword on the first paragraph of "description": "Unusually for a Greek manuscript, the codex contains a complete text of the four Gospels. The entire work is arranged on 267 parchment leaves The leaves each measure 26 cm 26 centimetres (10 in) by 19 19 centimetres (7.5 in), in a quatro format with four leaves to each quire. The text itself is written in brown ink in one single column per page. Each page contains 16 to 31 lines because the handwriting is irregular and varies in size, with some pages having letters that are quite large."
The short choppy one and two sentence paragraphs make the prose hard to read, it would be better to combine some of these paragraphs together.
Link Ammonian Sections.
What are "breathings"? "Prima manna"?
"There was no a division…" did you mean "there was not a division"?
Is there a reason you're using the greek for chapters and titles? Do we have articles on these if they are technical terms? We should use English terms with the Greek technical term in parentheses rather than the greek alone like you do after the introduction.
Suggest removing the long list of textual variants or making it a table - it is incredibly dull and not really encyclopedic. Presumably this information is available elsewhere?
You say in the lead that it's dated to the 9th century, but it appears that there is a great deal of controversy about when it was written - you should state there is controversy in the lead, not a definitive date.
What is the INTF? You link, but should expand the abbreviation rather than just link.
"According to Silva Lake it can hardly to prove have been written earlier than the year 1000, …" something is off in this sentence, and needs reworking.
"compressed letters Σ, Ε, Ο, and Θ were ever used in manuscripts so early a date as the 8th century" something off here too, did you mean "were ever used in manuscripts at so early a date"?
"The letters Ζ and Ξ ever have their strokes prolonged beneath the line, or that the small strokes at the bottom of the letter Δ are ever extended below the line, in the manuscripts from the 8th century." Something is off here too, and I haven't a clue what is intended.
"According to Tregelles the manuscript.." who is Tregelles?
"because of the formal liturgical hand and the palaeographic ground." link to Hand (handwriting) and what is "paleographic ground"?
Link Virgin and St Eutychios.
Sentence fragment: "This assessment based rather on the textual dependency from other manuscript, members of the family Π, than on the palaeographical ground." there is no verb here.
"Cyprius could be copied from the 1219 or copy of 1219 (hypothetical codex b). 1219 can hardly have written before the year 980 or long after 990, in result Codex Cyprius can hardly be dated very long before the year 1000." is very unclear on what is meant here, needs rewording.
Picky, but you only say "1000 A. D." after about five or six mentions of other dates. Should say "AD" after the first mention of a hard and fast date, then you don't need it again.
We no longer link single years like you have with 1673.
"… to the Colbert Library (no. 5149) in Paris in 1673, whence it passed into its present locality." but you haven't mentioned its present locality - you only do that at the very end of the article - should do it there, instead of "present locality."
"Montfaucon, who published the first facsimile of the codex, with text of Matthew 2:19–22." sentence fragment here, no verb.
"Wettstein used readings of the codex with not great accuracy." how is it not great accuracy????
"According to Wettstein the text of the codex was altered by Old Latin manuscripts." how/why did Wettstein think this?
"Scholz, though valued it very highly, collated the text of the manuscript in 1820,[51] but with so little care and with numerous errors that his testimony is worth but little." I can't make heads or tails of what this is supposed to mean.
"Tischendorf in 1842 and 1849, and Tregelles in 1950 gave a new and more accurate collation (in 1950 in Leipzig they compare their collations and made one)." also can't make heads or tails of the part in parentheses.
Need to give publishers for most of your books.
Need an access date for current ref 42.
What is UBS3 in the refs?
Can we standardize the usage of first or initials in the references? And can all authors have first names or initials?
Please alphabetize the further reading sections by last name.
Where is the printing/puslishing history? Surely there are editions of the work?
Where in Cyprus did the work come from? Is nothing known of it before it arrived in France?
Quite honestly, this is going to need a lot of work to get up to snuff, especially the prose. There are lots of sections where the prose is unclear, and while I would normally have just made corrections myself, I'm not comfortable enough with the subject matter to do that here. After you've worked through this pile of problems, I'll need to reread the prose and see if there are other problems I couldn't' see at first. Ealdgyth - Talk13:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Additional comments: I don't agree on the textual variants; these are really the only reason the MS is notable, and boring to non-specialists as they are, it is right that they are covered. Any reader who has got that far will either be interested in them, or know to skip that section. Otherwise I agree with the comments. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hate to be a nag, but what is the progress here? Given the quality of the prose, the above are really only a starting point, and it would be helpful to me if things taht are finished could be checked off. If some progress isn't being made, I may have to fail the nomination. Ealdgyth - Talk14:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I made almost everything. One explanation is needed. The entire of text of the codex was never edited. Scholz in 1820 published textual variants of the codex (with errorrs). Tischendorf cited textual variants of the codex in his "Editio Octava major". It is also cited in other editions of the Greek New Testament (in footnotes). Perhaps it is still not clear enough in the article. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Continuation:
Lead is still way short.
Still have a sentence fragment in the lead - "Former name – Codex Colbertinus 5149."
I realize this is a technical article, but "It contains lectionary markings on the margin, Synaxarion (folios 1–9) with Menologion, and the Eusebian tables (folios 10–14)." is completely undecipherable to anyone. A bit of effort to explain what a lectionary marking is, and what the Synaxarion/Menologion/Eusebian tables are would be good.
In general, although you link things, you don't explain them. An attempt at explaining what linked terms are would be helpful to keep from losing your audience to other articles.
Unclear meaning "but a references to the Eusebian Canons are absent."?
"According to Gregory it has many old readings.." Who is Gregory and why does his opinion matter?
Same for Silvia Lake, why does her opinion matter?
And same for Kurt Aland?
Who is Wettstein and why does his opinion matter?
Same for Richard Simon, Montfaucon, Scholz, Hug, Tischerndorf … Kenyon… in general, wherever you give some authorities name, you need to give a quick synopsis of why they are worth mentioning their opinion - are they gospel scholars? Historians? Manuscript scholars??
In the text of the colophon, what do the lines over some words mean?
Still no idea what paleographic ground is.
Still way too many short one and two sentence paragraphs in Dating and Discovery.
Still lack accessdate for ref 43.
Still have authors lacking first names or initials.
If the manuscript itself has never been published, it should state that.
The prose is still rough. Further work on polishing it would help greatly.
Colophon is a description of publication (date, place, name of scribe, and other matter). It is linked. We can change into "description at the end of book", but not every description is a colophon. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
After reviewing the prose again today, and getting a second opinion, I'm going to fail this article. I know a lot of work has gone into the prose and everything but there are still issues with prose flow, word choices, explanations of jargon and other issues. I suspect some of the problem may be that the principal editor is not a native English speaker. I strongly suggest taking the article to Wikipedia:Peer Review for some help with the underlying issues. Ealdgyth - Talk20:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
If I were to put this up again as a GA article nominee, would it actually pass now numerous changes (hopefully improvements) have been implemented? :) Stephen Walch (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
b (citations to reliable sources): 
b (focused): 
