Talk:Lectionary 183

Lectionary 183 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 3, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 12, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that according to Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, Lectionary 183 (pictured) probably is the most valuable manuscript he had ever collated?

Bible Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

British Library Low‑importance

	This article is related to the British Library. Please copy assessments of the article from the most relevant WikiProject template to this one as needed.British LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/British LibraryTemplate:WikiProject British LibraryBritish Library-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lectionary 183/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 00:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
This is very badly written. Needs a thorough copy edit to render it into good plain English. Some examples:

Westcott and Hort labelled it by 38e, Scrivener by 257e. "by"? please use a more appropriate word.

Paleographically usually it has been assigned to the 10th century. Rewrite in oplain English

Textually it often agrees with old uncial manuscript of the New Testament Do you mean "manuscripts">

It has numerous errors, but unequally distributed in the codex. Rewrite in plain English

"It was examined by several palaeographers. Who?

The codex contains all the Church lessons from Easter to Pentecost, for every Saturday and Sunday for the rest of the year. "and for every Saturday and Sunday"?

The leaf with text of John 20:19–30 is on paper, Missing definite article

Various stray sentences, lead does not conform to WP:LEAD.

The text is written in Greek uncial letters, in two columns per page, 22 lines per page. Please at least attempt to use English grammar.

The first page is in red and gold, the rest pages in black ink, much faded in parts. missing preposition.

This is nowhere near "reasonably good prose". If you get it copy-edited, then it can be assessed.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
ref #1[1] appears to be the index or footnote section of a book. How does it support the cited statements?

The codex contains all the Church lessons from Easter to Pentecost, for every Saturday and Sunday for the rest of the year. Appears to be a close paraphrase of the cited source.[2]

I am concerned that much of the article appears to be close paraphrases of sources that I can access, please rewrite in your own words.

Please read WP:CITE/ES to see how to cite sources properly. You don't need to repeat bibliographical detail in the cites, if you have provided a bibliography.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Appears to cover the subject, but as it is so poorly written, it is hard to judge.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Two images used, but captions do not explain anything.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This article is very poorly written, apparently by editors with no command of good plain English. It should not have been nominated in this poor state. Get it copy-edited, read and aptly the good article criteria, take to peer review before renominating. WP:GAN is not the place to learn how to reach those criteria, it is where articles are checked against them. Not listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Language

The article states: The text is written in old Slavic language. It is a mixture of Slavic Cyrillic and Greek where few letters are borrowed from Persian, Hebrew, and Latin. This type of language/letter was used by Serbians and Bulgarians. I often deal with manuscripts using the Old Slavic Language but I here can see no Cyrillic letter such as ѣ, ь, ъ, ш, щ, ц, б, ж, ѧ, or ѫ, and also no slavic word. Instead, the codex is writen in Greek. An Old Slavic manuscript would look like the Ostromir Gospels. Kormuh (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]