Wikipedia:Peer review/Hortensius (Cicero)/archive1
Hortensius (Cicero)[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to promote it to GA. Many moons ago, I tried to get it up there, but it wasn't ready at the time (I was younger and made quite a few bone-headed mistakes), and the nomination rightfully failed. Since then, I've added a lot more info, reorganized whole sections, rewritten the prose, and improved the references. I'm sure there are still some areas that are 'off', and I'd love for someone to take a look at the article and tell me what they think.
Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Overall, I think the article is a great entry. I corrected the minor typos that I found while reading and didn't notice any others. I can't speak much to the use of sources given that—besides Confessions—I haven't read many of them since my undergrad. In any case, here are some areas where I think there could be improvement:
- In the section on the Relation to Aristotle's Protrepticus, there are some weasel words where there could be more specificity. The one that sticks out the most is "later," as in the cases "The English classical scholar Ingram Bywater later agreed..." and "Later, working off Bywater and..."
- I'm wondering whether it's standard practice to include both the author (Cicero) and the editor (Ruch, Grilli, or Straume-Zimmermann) in the citation. I'm not too sure on this point, I just thought it was worth asking about since it looked odd to me. Making citations with ancient authors that are published in the modern day always confuses me.
- Comparing with the previous GA review, it seems like a lot of the previous errors have since been fixed. Hopefully it can move forward this time! Tkbrett (✉) 23:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I'll get to work eliminating those weasel words and getting some more specified info in there. As for citing both the author and editor, that's just something I've done, since, in my opinion, it seems weird to have a source just say, for instance, "Cicero (2017)", when I'm citing the work of the editor, or someone else's translation. But of course, I'll change it if there's a better way!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)