Talk:Codex Coislinianus

Codex Coislinianus has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 24, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Bible Mid‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 14:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The reader needs to know where it is currently in the lead, you should mention at least a few of the actual libraries they are found in in Paris, Athos, Petersburg etc.

The lead doesn't adequately sum of the entire article, needs more history info, even if only brief. According to Eberhard Nestle it is "one of the most valuable manuscripts" is also important and should be mentioned in the lead. Can you expand the lead?

History

"The codex was probably written in the 6th century at the library in Caesarea, later coming into the possession of the monastery of the Great Lavra on Mount Athos, but its value appears to have been overlooked." Citation needed.
"He made a few mistakes corrected by Tischendorf. " Do we have a full name and link for Tischendorf? Ah yes "It is cited in the printed editions of the Greek New Testament since Tischendorf's edition." Tischendorf needs to be linked in the first part and delinked in the second part.

I have expanded the lead and added some references. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Looks satisfactory now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

few things on this page

Drawing attention of page editor for the 14th link cause it is no-where in page. Hatorininja (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]