Talk:Codex Zacynthius

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 17:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC) I'll be completing the rest of the review shortly, but I also foresee problems about the understandability of the prose here too, from a non-expert perspective. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The article needs a thorough copyedit. May I suggest the Guild's request page? Placed on hold for 7 days pending a substantial improvement in prose quality and understandability. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been about two weeks without further edits; should it be failed? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I closed one of three similar nominations as failed but thought I'd give the other two just a couple more days for a reaction to my closing the first. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No further action, failing. Consider renominating when the above points have been addressed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

In-line tags

Hello! It's been fun working on this article today—I think I am done; I just had a few questions:

• The description states that the codex is composed of ~89 leaves. Later, the article states that the palimpsest is made up of 176 leaves. What's the story here? That there is a 176-page palimpsest and 89 of those pages contain the Gospel fragments? Maybe the problem is that I don't fully understand the distinctions between palimpsest, codex, and manuscript.

• There is one statement: "The text of the lectionary is cited in some critical editions of the Greek New Testament". And later: "It is often cited in the critical editions of the Greek New Testament." Both often and some are vague, but I think some connotes few, while often connotes many. Both statements are cited :-(

That's all I can think of for now. You may want to read through the whole article to make sure I didn't unintentionally introduce factual errors. But I read a couple of the sources and made sure to cite the stuff I did change. Muy interesante. Regards. Braincricket (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The leaves were folded in half and written in format 28.7 cm by 18.2 cm (original size 36.4 x 28.7). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Eighty-six pages and three half-pages. 86*2+3=175. Pretty close. I get it now. Braincricket (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There is one detail, according to the INTF palimpsest has 176 leaves, but 040 has 89 leaves (three of them are partial). There is only one explanation - 175 leaves of the palimpsest belonged to the original codex, and one leaf (176th leaf) has another origin (not palimpsest), but I can not give sources for now. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Codex Zacynthius/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 12:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Dates: In the lead, you talk about how the codex was first thought to have been written in the 8th century but is really from the 6th century. I don't see anything elaborating on this in the body of the article though - per WP:LEAD, everything in the lead should be in the body as well. You might be able to cite the Parker and Birdsall or Hatch articles listed in the further reading for this.
• Infobox: The note in the infobox says "Close to Codex B." Does this mean physically close or similar in content?
• Lead: It is often used in critical editions of the Greek New Testament. Why is this? What makes this manuscript more suitable than others?
• Chapter divisions: The codex uses a peculiar system of chapter divisions. What is this peculiar system? What is so peculiar about it?
• Script: The commentary was written in a different kind of uncial script. Different from what?
• Variations and omissions: The style here is inconsistent; the first entry has the scripture reference followed by a dash, the next two have the scripture reference followed by "it".
• Other codices: as in codices Sinaiticus B C Θ L 33 700 892 1241 syr, and copbo. Would it make sense to put commas in between the entries here?
• Luke 9:10: What is the standard text of this verse?
• Independent readings: There are 3 independent or distinctive readings. Are these readings the same as the variants listed above? If not, what are they?
• Category: Alands considered the quality of the text to suit his Category III. Can you briefly explain what Category III is?
• Prose: one folio was supplied with paper (folio LXVIII). What does this mean?
• Corrections: edited the list of corrections in 1957. What is this list of corrections?
• Reexamination: The codex probably needs another examination with modern technology. It is problematic to make this kind of statement in Wikipedia's voice without backing it up; either add "according to so-and-so" or explain why the codex needs to be reexamined.
• Lower text: I don't know anything about palimpsests, so I am unclear on how Tregelles was able to read the lower text if it had been scraped off. Did he use some kind of chemical process? The image provided, File:Zacynthios_facsimile.JPG, seems to show only one layer of text, so I am somewhat confused.
• Significance: I am left wondering what makes this manuscript special. Is it just another manuscript, or is there something distinctive about it which makes it especially important? It would be great if you could include a "significance" section explain why this manuscript matters.

Thank you for your work on this article, I enjoyed reading it! I've made a few changes to the prose, trying to improve readability, so please look over my edits and make sure I have not introduced any errors. Overall, you've done a good job on the article, but it seems a little superficial - it leaves me with lots of questions. Since the article is pretty short right now, I think you have room to expand it to explain some of the technical content and add more detail. For example, you write, the early history of the manuscript is unknown, but hasn't there been at least some scholarly speculation on its early history which could be included? Something like the "Provenance" section in Codex Vaticanus would be great here. I'm placing the article on hold for now - just address the above comments and I'll be happy to pass it. Keep up the good work! --Cerebellum (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

All right, most of my comments have been addressed, so I'm going to pass this article as a GA. I'll leave the comments above as a basis for future work. Good job! --Cerebellum (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)