Talk:Thebaid (Latin poem)/GA1

GA Review[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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 08:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starting first read-through. Initial comments will follow shortly, I hope. Tim riley talk 08:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

I've greatly enjoyed my first read-through, and I don't foresee any problem about promoting the article to GA. For now, just a few minor points, all on the wording rather than the substance of the article.

politics and the family – is a blue link really helpful here?
Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Critics have also noted the poem's innovate depiction – is this a typo? The OED gives "innovate" only as a verb, and I wonder if you mean innovative?
Just a typo, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fury Tisiphone is sent to Thebes in order to sow discord – some reviewers (of whom I am not one) get aerated over "in order to", and insist it should be just "to". I don't feel in the least strongly about the matter, but I just mention it here for your consideration.
He commits suicide in anticipation of the king's punishment. – We had a terrific punch-up in Wikipedia a year or so ago when one editor maintained, very combatively, that "commit suicide" was a judgmental and derogatory phrase. I shared the majority view that this was nonsense, but even so, I would now write "kills himself" rather than "commits suicide" here. I do not press the point at all.
Adressed, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jupiter instructs Mars to incite the citizens of Argos for war. – Does one incite for? Incite to seems more idiomatic.
Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
he bows to his allies' pressure and lets his seers Amphiaraus and Melampus to find out – the "to" seems superfluous here. Either that or "lets" should be "orders" or some such.
Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the Argive army makes their way to Thebes – singular noun and verb with plural pronoun.
Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
they're own army – you mean "their"
This one is rather embarrassing, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
down form the city walls – "from" not "form"?
Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Atys, the fiancee – both the OED and Chambers insist on the acute accent, and as Atys was a man, he was a fiancé rather than a fiancée
Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When he sets his sight on Eteolces, Tydeus is overwhelmed by Melanippus. In a final act of horror, he devours his killer's brains. I got thoroughly lost here: if someone kills you, how can you eat his brains, or putting it another way, if you've eaten someone's brains how can he kill you?

In other words, Tydeus (mortally wounded and aware that he will die) eats the brains of Melanippus as an act of revenge. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides are horrorstruck – both the above dictionaries hyphenate horror-struck
Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
but makes the mistake to the river god's grandson Crenaeus – makes what mistake? It isn't at all clear.
I missed a few words here, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the protection of king Theseus – the usual convention is to capitalise King when it's attached to someone's name. We wouldn't refer to the British head of state as queen Elizabeth, for instance.
Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to classicist Kathleen Coleman – in such a scholarly article it seems a pity to indulge in clunky tabloidese false titles of this kind. A simple definite article will restore the prose to respectability.
Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
exhibited by Homer and Vergil – he was Virgil, not Vergil earlier in the text.
I have changed it to "Vergil" (my preferred spelling) everywhere. Someone seems to have changed my initial version. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Writer C. S. Lewis – another false title
Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the poem's heroes commit acts of exceptional violence, they are not balanced by a benign cast of gods – I'd be careful with "while" here. It can be read as meaning simultaneity rather than – as I imagine is meant – contrasting two things. (While Miss Jones sang Mozart, Mr Smith played Beethoven.) "Although" is safer.
In to contrast to other Roman epics – an odd phrase – the first "to" seems superfluous, and "contrast" is normally "with" rather than "to", surely?
Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Latinist D. R. Shackleton Bailey – another false title we would be better off without.

Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

housed at Paris – unexpected pronoun: we'd normally write "in Paris".
Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Latinist Michael Dewar … Latinist Robert Maxwell Ogilvie – two more false titles
Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References: Ref 20 puzzled me: why is Howatson's Oxford Companion to Classical Literature the only source included in the References section and omitted from Works cited? The latter, by the way, seems to me impeccable, and a nice change from the mish-mashes of Sources sections I have been running across lately.
Adjusted. Thank you very much for your observation. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are such minor points that – unless you'd prefer me to – I shan't bother putting the review on formal hold while you address them. Tim riley talk 09:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thank you very much for your helpful comments; I have addressed most of them. Let me know if the article needs more work. All the best, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're pretty much there. I have to go out now, and will return to the article this evening, when I am confident I shall be able to perform the ribbon-cutting ceremony. Tim riley talk 10:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity you had to wait since January for a review, but now it has finally come it can be concluded quam celerrime. The article clearly meets all the GA criteria in my opinion, and I don't see why it shouldn't be a candidate for FA in due course.

Thank you, Tim riley. The swiftness of your review makes up for the long wait. I do have plans to bring this to FAC when it's ready. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well mind you ping me when you take it to FAC, and I'll gladly add my two pennorth to the review. Tim riley talk 14:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

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:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

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.