Talk:Philinna Papyrus

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philinna Papyrus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 20:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks interesting...Ealdgyth (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Refs:
  • Not required, but is there online links for the Baptista Sánchez, Daniel, Dickie, and Ritner refs? DOIs?
    • I've given jstor links for Daniel & Dickie & a link to the journal's open-access pdf of Baptista Sánchez Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Likewise not required, but ISBNs for the books wouldn't be bad either.
    • ISBNs added for the books Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Papyrus section:
  • "The surviving piece is 10 x 8.2 cm in total" ...is this a convention in the field - I would think it would be "The surviving pieces are 10 x 8.2 cm in total.."
    • Good spot; changed Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Do we know who previously owned the pieces? Any clue as to provenance?
    • As far as I can tell, there's no previous ownership - I imagine (but haven't been able to confirm) that Grenfell & Hunt discovered the Amherst fragment and it immediately went to Lord Amherst, while the Berlin fragment was presumably acquired from whoever discovered it or it was discovered on an expedition sponsored by Berlin Museums. Grenfell & Hunt's editio princeps of P.Amh.11 is spectacularly unilluminating. I haven't got access to Wilamowitz's of P.Berol.7504 – it's in the (apparently undigitised and available in only a few libraries) Berliner Klassikertexte vol.5. There's also a 1910 paper by Adam Abt, but I don't see anything useful there – though it is in Latin and I only skimmed it, so I may have missed something! Best I can do for a findspot is "Egypt", which I have added. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I gather that these bits have been reprinted elsewhere? Can we list those?
    • Added mention of the two standard critical editions in which it is included. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• First spell section:
  • "The text printed in PGM2 ..." link and expand the abbreviation for PGM2?
    • Expanded to Papyri Graecae Magicae Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Syrian woman's spell section:
  • Link for "Greek mythology" and "Egyptian myth" (I didn't add them myself as I wasn't sure if there might be a better match than the main articles)
  • Link for "ancient Greek magic"?
    • Added all three links Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Philinna's spell section:
  • link for "magical papyri"?
  • Any reason you didn't link Alexander the Great?
    • Linked both Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Like the first spell, Philinna's spell is a traditional form." reads a bit odd to me .. maybe "Like the first spell, Philinna's spell takes a traditional form."?
    • Rewritten Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "and were still in use in the time of Pliny the Elder" .. suggest adding a date there ... perhaps "and were still in use in the first century AD when Pliny the Elder..."
    • Rewritten Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for such a rapid review! I believe I have addressed all the points you made; do let me know if there is anything further you think could be improved. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

All those look good, passing it now! Ealdgyth (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)