Jump to content

Talk:Codex Alexandrinus/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

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

Initial Comments

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Sumary

[edit]

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)[reply]

GA?

[edit]

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)[reply]

I have added more sentences. Leszek Jańczuk (talk)