Talk:Lectionary 179

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lectionary 179/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Puffin (talk · contribs) 21:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	In the lead, you say "on parchment", can you clarify this please? Does it mean that it was written on parchment? "It contains the Menology." What is the "Menology?" This implies it contains a service book, even tohugh it's a manuscript? Please clarify. Also, you have a lot of short sentences and paragraphs in here, this is discouraged in the GA criteria, it makes the article harder to navigate, with information everywhere. "Paleographically it has been assigned to the 10th century" Does this mean it was written in the 10th century? Please clarify. Instead of "It uses breathings (rough breathing, smooth breathing)" It would make the article much easier to understand if you just wrote "It uses rough and smooth breathings" Or something along those lines. "It has subscriptions." what are subscriptions? I would suggest wiki linking this to the relevant article. "In Genesis 12:4 it reads θεος for Κυριος" Isn't this information slightly random? Why is this important? Instead of just the vague section heading of "description" maybe you could use a level 2 heading to divide up your information, instead of just leaving spaces everywhere. "The manuscript was brought from Syria in the 11th century" Who brought it? Why? Where did they bring it? Please clarify this information. "The nomina sacra and other words are written in an abbreviated way" This is hard to understand. Don't you mean "Words such as "nomina sacra" are abbreviated" This would make the article more clear. "The following words are abbreviated: και, πατηρ, μητηρ, υιος, θυγατηρ, ανθρωπος, Θεος, Κυριος, σωτηρ, πνευμα, ουρανος, Αβρααμ, Δαυιδ, Χριστος, Ιερουσαλημ" What do these words mean? Why are they abbreviated? Couldn't you re word this to make it more clear and use less examples by maybe writing "Some words in the manuscript are abbreviated. For example, και (give the meaning), πατηρ (give the meaning), μητηρ (give the meaning etc...), υιος, θυγατηρ, ανθρωπος, Θεος, Κυριος, σωτηρ, πνευμα, ουρανος, Αβρααμ, Δαυιδ, Χριστος, Ιερουσαλημ "The error of itacism occur frequently: αι and η for ε, ει for ι, ω for ο, υ for οι." This is very hard to understand. I would suggest re writing it as "The error of itacism occur frequently, for example: αι and η are commonly mistaken for ε and ει is commonly mistaken for ι. Also, could you possibly explain what these mean? "It contains the decorated headpieces, decorated initial letters, and musical notes in red at the margin" Why do you need the word "the" in there? It would read much better if you wrote "It contains decorated headpieces, decorated initial letters and musical notes in red in the margin" Is this what you mean? Where else do these features occur in the manuscript? "Currently the codex is located in the Domschatz" What is "the Domschatz?" Also, what does "(Hs. 72, fol. 2-9)" mean? Could it be clarified?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text. See Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Paragraphs There are many of these through out the article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Words to watch: "It has many grammar corrections" How many? Please clarify. Also, it would be clearer to write "It has many grammatical mistakes which were corrected" But, give examples to not make the statement so vague.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Ref 1: Can you link this book the the google books result instead of the Wikipedia article? It provides more information quickly than reading the whole article on the book. Ref 2: What language is this? Can you provide it in the citation? Do you have the ISSN for this journal? Ref 3: What language is this in? Do you have a URL to the google books result for example or something similar?
	2c. it contains no original research.	Possibly, what makes those readings so unusual?
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There could be a more detailed view of the manuscript, without randomly throwing in pieces of information that are out of place. The article could be broken up into further sections to imrpove the reading and to address more of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	You possibly give too many examples, like the error of itacism and the abbreviated words. Include less examples and improve the wording, as explained above.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	"It has some unusual readings" What makes these readings so unsual? Which reading are unusual? Can you give examples?
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Yes.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image has no caption. What is the image? The front page? The back page? The caption should explain what the image is, to make the reader understand what they are seeing, instead of just a random snapshot of the manuscript.
	7. Overall assessment.	Unfortunately, there are major issues with this article that realistically can't be solved quickly. Mainly the sentence structure and the request for copy edit. When the copy edit is completed and the issues are resolved, I encourage you to re nominate the article. Puffin Let's talk! 19:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"subscriptio" - at the end of book some information were added by a scribe (e.g. name of scribe, date, number of stichoi, etc.).

Nomina sacra. ΘΣ for Θεός; ΚΣ for Κύριος.

"In Genesis 12:4 it reads θεος for Κυριος" - θεος (God) for Κυριος (the Lord).

"Itacism". This informations perhaps are not important for usual reader, but they are important for palaeographers. Steininger do not explain how many errors of itacism. Minuscule 543 (Gregory-Aland)

Domschatz - museum. I want to create article about Domschatz (Museum am Dom Trier, P. Weber, Der Domschatz zu Trier). We have even category in Commons Commons:Category:Domschatz, Trier

"unusual readings" - technical term, it means the readings do not occur, or rarely occur in other manuscripts. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)