Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Codex Basilensis A. N. III. 12/1

Codex Basilensis A. N. III. 12 edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist I have carefully examined this article and it contains a number of elementary grammatical mistakes, weasel words, unclear statements and a lack of citations for key points. The lead does not fully summarize the article. No action has been undertaken to remedy these faults. The article may be renominated at WP:GAN when these issues are addressed. I am an uninvolved editor as per note 1 above.(Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators, unless the closure involves withdrawing the nomination; reviewers are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment) Jezhotwells (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was recently passed by He to Hecuba (talk · contribs). The review was later deleted by an admin per WP:Deny as He to Hecuba was discovered to be a sock. It was decided to conduct individual reassessments on the articles passed by Hecuba at the GAN talk page. This is one outstanding from that list. I am initiating a community GAR instead of an individual one because I have also previously failed articles from the GA nominator due to prose issues and would probably do the same here if I conducted an individual re-assessment. However, other reviewers (some who are quite experienced with the process) have found the level of prose acceptable in similar articles, so I feel it is only fair to make this a community re-assessment. AIRcorn (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Some of the prose in the lead and the Description section seems a little terse and it doesn't always flow well. But the remainder of the article is a decent read. I see a number of inconsistencies in the formatting of the references. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, the lead does not fully summarize the article, the prose does not read very well and insufficient context is provided. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2012 (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.