Talk:Third circle of hell/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) 21:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Just for the sake of record, I've read through Talk:First circle of hell/GA1 and Talk:Second circle of hell/GA1 to have a starting point. Like those reviews, I wasn't able to find major errors in the article. I do have some minor questions, however; they are:

• Link "heaven" to Heaven in Christianity for the sake of consistency with the other two articles (this one being the only point from the aforementioned reviews)

  Linked.

• I didn't understand the part "left blind and empty" of the sentence "Dante and Virgil walk further through the third circle, stepping upon the prostrate bodies of the gluttonous, who are being punished by lying face-first in the icy mud, left blind and empty". As far as I understood, it's saying that the gluttonous are left blind and empty, right? I mean, I do understand that probably it's telling us that the gluttonous were turned blind, but what does it mean to be turned empty? I could only think it's talking about a soul, but I'm not sure, and I think the text doesn't make it clear.

  It's empty in the sense that they're gluttons who will never be "full", but I've changed it to "unfulfilled" to hopefully make that seem clearer.

• In the sentence "Ciacco asks Dante to speak kindly of him when he returns to earth", I think "Earth" is referring to the planet, right? If so, it should be capitalized. If not, forget it.

  Changed to "the mortal world". Hell is depicted in Inferno as the centre of the planet so I think it's technically not "returning to planet earth", should hopefully skirt the issue here.

• In "Background", it is said that Cerberus's portrayal in Commedia is repurposed; for me, it's not clear how. Maybe could it be expanded?

  "Repurposed" here was meant to mean that character/concept was taken from an existing work or works and reused by Dante, it's a character he created but one he has repurposed from elsewhere. I can reword this; is there a phrasing you feel would convey this more clearly?

So that's it. It's an excellent article overall. No copyvios found. It's well-sourced and uses academic sources so no questions here. Please me ping after you've already solved the problems or replied to the ones you don't think are issues at all. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Gabriel Yuji, thank you for your review here. I hope I have covered or responded to your points; would like to hear your thoughts regarding the last point above. Thanks again. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time; I think the last point is okay – it was merely a suggestion that could be done or not. I'm passing it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)