Talk:Aetia (Callimachus)/GA1

GA Review

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: ImaginesTigers (talk · contribs) 12:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings and discussion

Hi there! I tend to move through my reviews fairly quickly. That usually depends on the scope of any issues and the difficulty I have tracking down the references. I haven't yet read the article, but will be doing so now. Depending on how quickly you see this, the template below may be empty. It is filled in towards the end of the process. I will read through, take notes, then partially fill it in. Referencing fullness and COPYVIO are done towards the end of the process.

Having now skimmed the article, I'm confident this isn't a quick-fail, but there are some issues. I'm looking forward to working with you! Given the holidays, don't feel the need to rush—you can have as much time as you like. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: Thank you very much for taking on this review. I'll try and work on your suggestions as soon as I can. Now, about Raven: it's Cambridge University's online verification portal. I'm based at that institution and it probably qualifies as a careless mistake on my part to leave a link in the article that leads users through Raven. The website behind the verification portal is Brill's New Pauly, you should be able to have access via any library or university. I could also send you a screenshot if you can't get access yourself. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I move our conversation up here—it'll be easier to keep track. No trouble about Raven, but you'll have to replace it in the right places to make sure others can access it. I'll be able to get access through my own institution. I'm pretty tired right now, so I won't keep going lest you get some very bad no good work from me. Tomorrow, though! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Brilliant, I'm looking forward to hearing from you! Modussiccandi (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Having read you comments so far, I think the issues are all quite manageable, especially since I'm not short on time at the moment. Thank you, for giving this article a thorough review. Thank you, too, for offering to do some copy editing. I'll start by expanding the reception section. I'll let you know if I have more questions. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I claimed I was going to start with the reception section, but I ended up doing everything else first. I quite agreed with your suggestions for improvement. Please feel free to make changes to the changes I've made today if something catches your eye. Reception is, of course, still to be dealt with. I might get around to expanding that section tomorrow. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The article is looking much better! Everything is very well-structured, flowing better. I'll do a copy-edit tomorrow, I think—I'm working on my first original article at the moment and I really need to power through. There's a chance I might do it tonight. Really great work, Modussicandi; hope you're proud of the article's progress. ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: Indeed, I'm rather happy with how your suggestions have improved the article. I've now expanded the reception section to include more on modern criticism. I've also added a section for modern editions. This was once recommended to me by a review for a different Good Article candidate and I thought it might be a good idea for this article too. I know it's quite off-topic for this page, but may I ask the topic of your new article? Just out of interest. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Modussiccandi: Of course! It’s a novel by Florence Marryat called The Blood of the Vampire (1897). It’s rough right now, but you can see the draft on my sandbox. Really good work on expanding reception—I'll have a look soon! ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Modussiccandi: Hi there. I've added a few more comments to the bottom of this page. After you've replied to those, all that stands in the way now is the absence of alt text on images. Like I said before, this is for accessibility purposes.

@ImaginesTigers: My apologies for not adding the alternative captions earlier; it must have overlooked that part of your comments. It's done now. I've also attempted to clarify this one bit in the Books 3 and 4 subsection. Now, regarding the OCD's opinion on how the poem was composed: my original source was Gutzwiller's Guide to Hellenistic Literature p. 63. Her view is that the two editions theory is the most common scholarly explanation. Given that the OCD concedes that this explanation is generally added, I believe it is fair to leave the section as it is. I understand that the current text smoothes over an ongoing debate, but I think this is mitigated by the addition of Harder's opinion in the next sentence. As always, feel free to adjust anything I've written.

Makes total sense! What really matters is that you're able to defend the choice; not the criticism itself. Agree completely with your above summary. ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Seeing that this process is coming to an end, I'd like to thank you again for an engaged and thorough review. I feel it's a nice coincidence that you should be reviewing my GA nomination: after Odyssey became a GA, I gave you a barnstar because I thought it was intriguing to see someone fairly early in their tenure at Wikipedia contribute to such a vital article improvement project. Back then, I was glad to find a new editor willing to improve our Classics coverage in a professional way. I'm glad you still are; somehow the circle closes itself now with you reviewing my GA. Perhaps you were aware of this, but I thought I'd share this here because it's quite neat. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course I remember! It was my first ever barnstar—I didn't even know what it was! I'm still learning a lot about Wikipedia every time I use it. I'll return to the classics soon. I'm trying to get an article to FA right now, and hopefully The Turn of the Screw's review will be complete soon, and then there's The Blood of the Vampire... but after that, I have my sights on the Iliad. I was looking through the list of outstanding GARs on WP:GA, recognised your name, and picked up the review. I was very much aware, and was going to mention it when the review was concluded, too. No coincidences here—one kind act deserves another. Your barnstar was a really kind moment that made me think, Oh wow, someone noticed—you definitely kept me editing. Our classics coverage really does need improvement, and I'd thank you for being a part of that, too.

Promoting to GA. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: One last comment: Thanks for promoting. Do reach out to me if you ever want to collaborate on anything Classics related. I'm looking to tackle Hellenistic literature in the future (it's currently a redirect). I am also always open to reviewing Classics GANs if time permits. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll let you know when I start work on Iliad! I'm a trained literary theorist, but I only took one class on Classical texts—so Iliad, Odyssey, Theogony, Metamorphoses. My knowledge of Hellenistic literature is basically negligible, and it’d require a lot of research on my part (time that would serve Wikipedia better if I pointed it elsewhere, like what I'm working up to overhauling). So although I know a lot about historical and contemporary English translations of Homer, for example, but not much about its reception in antiquity (and beyond). If I'm not very busy with University (I'm sure you know the busiest months), likewise—give me a shout! ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Criteria

This template will be complete towards the end of the process.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Some issues to be addressed.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Please add alt text to the images for accessibility.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Observations

Lead

Relevant reading: WP:LEAD.

Above all else, the lead of any article—especially one for a topic like this–must be accessible and plainly written. On these grounds, the lead has a lot going for it. It succinctly explains what aetiology is and the first paragraph is a succinct description of its contents. The last sentence of the first paragraph, however, introduces some modern criticism; it feels misplaced. Aim to provide only a brief, catchy summary in the first paragraph. Separate the other two sections with clear through-lines. I'd recommend something like: FIRST / CONTENT / RECEPTION (historical and modern).

The repetition of "aetiological" in the second paragraph feels excessive, and there might be some redundancy given the mention of myths later in that sentence. "Dialectic structure" will be unclear to most people who view this page. I tend to imagine a student is reading my writing, likely someone in undergrad.

The paragraph in the lead on critical reception paragraph is almost as large as the entire section, which does worry me a little. More on that in the relevant section.

Name and genre

Properly sets its scope, and explains the name. In your place, I think I'd rename the heading to "Name" and re-write it to place the book first, instead of the genre. This is part of criteria 1b (focus).

Date

Instead of "240s BC", MOS:BCE preference is for a specified range. For example, 240 to 230 BC. There's another instance of that I've seen so far (in the same paragraph), so alter it to be more consistent with the lead. I think this section could use some tightening up. It goes back and forth in a way that would be confusing to someone only skimming the page. Start with some declarative about how there is uncertainty, and give the full range (270 to 240 BC, as in the lead); explain why the range is so large.

You can expect more feedback at some stage tomorrow.

Transmission

There's some strange wording in here that I think, for clarity, could be simplified. This is for section 1a criteria—it must be comprehensible to a broad audience. I'll point in particular to unmediated awareness and diegeseis (is this the name given to a bunch of prose summaries? I've no idea).

There's also some lighter problems with the prose; it’s a little clotted at times.This isn't part of the criteria, and is just a recommendation: After the Aetia had disappeared from circulation in the early 13th century, the Florentine scholar Polizianosought to reconstruct the text from brief quotations found in other classical authors in the 15th century. could become: The Aetia disappeared from circulation in the 13th century; two centuries later, Florentine scholar Polizianosought sought to reconstruct the text from quotations found in other classical works. These are present elsewhere, but I'll do a copy edit on the page before the end of the process.

Reception

This section feels very thin compared to what I expected, but I do understand that the text is mostly lost. But I am surprised that there's only one contemporary critic mentioned in here. Expanding on what Gutzwiller said is probably a good idea if there's a real dearth of material on the text, but just googling around, there's a lot on Google Scholar that isn't in this article. If it were elsewhere in the text—for example, in a section on Themes—that might be understandable, but there's a lot drawn from a handful of sources, and missing a broader sweep of the criticism. If Gutzwiller says it’s his most influential and original work, there must be enough for others to have spoken about it at some length. This is the main problem, I think, as the article currently stands. GA-status should mean that the article is basically content-complete. It can be filled out, but that otherwise the article is in good standing to assist other readers. I don't think, right now, it is.

Structure

I would recommend rearranging the article. It feels, sometimes, like you're having to over-explain because a foundation hasn't been properly laid. So, based on the article's current contents, I'd recommend going Name and genre -> Content -> Textual history (Composition and Transmission) -> Reception. Instead of having a lot of short headings, Composition (renamed from Dating) could be merged with Transmission under a full heading (textual history).

Conclusions

GA-status should mean that the article is basically content-complete. It can be filled out, but that otherwise the article is in good standing to assist other readers. I don't think, right now, it is. The Reception section, as I said before, is the main issue here. It is very thin, and I don't think is particularly comprehensive. There must be enough criticism on the Aetia to separate out historical criticism from contemporary criticism. GA status means the article has to have a significant amount of content for that section. On the whole, right now I have to say that the article would fail, but you can have all the time that you need to work on it. If you're strapped for time, I will be happy to chime in with some copy-editing the article while you work on expanding Reception.

This is a very cool article to have in greater detail now, though. Our coverage of the classics really sucks, and I sincerely hope I haven't put you off on bringing it up to GA status. Still looking forward to working with you! As I said before, I'll check through the references at the very end of the process. Things getting moved around and added means I don't want to miss anything out. ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources

I'm not familiar with Raven; a login required to access this lecture. Is this publicly available? Could you give me some more information about this link? Sources will happen at the end of the process, but I thought I'd ask now to get ahead of it.

Second pass

Below, I'm going to go through the article and make a simple bulleted list of statements with either 1) I do not understand or 2) I don't think most readers will understand. Following that, I'm going to make another note on sources.

• Books 3 and 4 offer a diverse range of linked dramatic settings. This didn't make much sense to me when I initially read it, and I tried to rephrase it but wasn't able to because I don't understand what it means. From the dedicated section to Books 3 and 4: Instead, individual aetiologies are set in a variety of dramatic situations and are linked only implicitly. This is a bit more clear, but I think you have to explain what you (or, more accurately, the source) means when they say they are linked implicitly.

The good news is that I've finished reading through again, and that was the only thing which through me. I've done some copy editing on the rest of the article, fixing mostly minor and stylistic things to be more clear. Onto sources...

Sources

I found everything well-sourced and properly attributed. I'm happy to give the article a pass on citations. That said, a few caveats:

I'm having really serious trouble tracking down the entry from Brill's New Pauly that you cited. My institution—as far as I can see—does not have access to it. I'm just going to trust that what you've related is correct. I did find this: Similarly, Callimachus’ Lock of Berenice can be dated to 246/5 on the basis of historical and astronomical allusions in Brill's New Pauly: Classical Tradition I, A-DEL, eds. Manfred Landfester, Hubert Cancik, and Helmith Smith (Boston: Leiden, 2006), p. 448. I also whipped out my own copy of the Ox. Classical Dictionary, and read Callimachus' entry. Really interesting; another classical writer who was spoken to directly by the Muses (how original!).

The OCD says: It is generally (but controversially) added that the Aetia went through two editions: the poet in old age added 'prologue' and 'epilogue', and perhaps books 3-4 entire'. The 'controversially' part makes me wonder if we should be more precise on the article. Currently, it reads: Attempting to reconcile these disparate dates, scholars have suggested that the poem's first half was written at an earlier stage of the poet's life and that the last two books were added during the reign of Berenice II. The OCD, to me, doesn't reflect a consensus there. It does seem like there is a lot of debate ongoing about this. I think, instead of scholars, we should simply be more precise and explain that the OCD is where this comes from, rather than attributing it broadly to "scholars".

For more information on this, I recommend reading WP:SOMEARGUE; I don't believe that these are weasel words at all—don't misunderstand—but the OCD seems to reflect that this is controversial, so we should frame it that way. I'm not sure where you've read first, so if you haven't read my comments in Discussion (I have not yet written them, so neither have I), have a look there. ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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.