Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brothers Poem/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 July 2019 [1].

Brothers Poem edit

Nominator(s): Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a poem by the ancient Greek poet Sappho, discovered in 2014. It is the most recently-discovered of Sappho's poems, one of the best-preserved, and generated considerable excitement when it was first published both in academia and in the press. I got this article almost ready for nomination towards the end of 2017, but then spent 18 months mostly away from wikipedia; having returned and given it a final polish I believe it's ready to be put through the FAC wringer. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Ceoil

  • you over use the word "poem".
  • The narrative direction is not well explained
  • I have high hopes for this page Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ceoil: thanks for your comments (and edits!) You have me bang to rights on the overuse of(( "poem"; I have trimmed a few, but still count 38 instances of "poem" or "poems", plus 21 of "Brothers Poem", in the body text. Will have another run through and see what I can do about the problem...
    • In re. the narrative, does this edit help at all? I hope so! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes much clearer, thanks. Will have another read shortly. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • as well as the language used - not very elegant (given the article is about a poem)
  • It is presented as speech - ditto; maybe first person narrative or something
    • Will think on this; I think the fact that it is direct speech is important and "first person narrative" does not fully convey this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, a tough one. I assume the sources have already resolved this problem (hint hint). Ceoil (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • What about this? The two issues I had with your attempt were (a) "verse", which can mean both "poem" and "stanza" and struck me as unnecessarily ambiguous (yes, it should be clear from context, but it's easier not to give readers the problem at all!) and (b) "unnamed voice": voices don't have names: people do! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • criticises the addressee for repeating that Charaxos will return safely - I'd use a more dramatic word than "criticises" (google is your friend) - "repeating" maybe just "claiming", you could probably drop "safely"...and from where? So far we have no context. The word "safety" is repeated in the next sentence.
    • Re. "repeating": there has been some discussion of how exactly θρυλεω, the verb in question, ought to be translated; the fact that it is repetitive is a key part, however (it's a rare verb, but there are two poetic uses in Athenian drama: in Knights, Aristophanes uses it to describe someone who spends all night rehearsing their speech for a court case; in Euripides' Electra, Electra talks of every morning listing her grievances against her stepfather Aegisthus). The fact that the interlocutor has claimed that Charaxus will return is not, I think, the issue; it's that she keeps going on about it.
    • Re. where C. is returning from: we don't know. Possibly it was established earlier in the poem. Testimonia have him as a wine-trader and visiting Egypt, so he may be coming back from a trading voyage and/or Egypt, but those testimonies don't necessarily derive from the Brother's Poem, so that isn't certain. I have put a parenthetical note to that effect in the lead... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless, this is not apparent, so you, at least, need to try and establish the when who and where, before you get into the main focus of the page, ie the what (fragments etc). Ceoil (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does this edit solve this problem, or are you still not happy with this? (and in re "criticizes", how do you feel about "chastises" as an alternative?) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Prefer "chastises", and you clarification. Getting there. Ceoil (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • She then switches her focus. The "verse then switches focus" (not so sure how firmly you have established attribution by this stage).
  • Received rather than attracted academic and popular attention. Maybe be aware of flowery language from some types of sources. Ceoil (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning support, but it still needs work. Ceoil (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The speaker chastises the addressee for repeating that Charaxos will return (possibly from a trading voyage, as later sources say that he was a wine-trader), instead maintaining that his safety is in the hands of the gods and offering to pray to Hera for his return. Huh? "repeating" who? But mostly, this makes no sense as written. Do you mean that only by praying to Hera, he has any chance of returning? Is this a fatalism thing? I see this is much better explained in the article body.
    • *Spinning hourglass symbol* Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not entirely sure what your objection is here. What is wrong with "repeating"? It's a perfectly good way of expressing "saying over and over again". And I mean that praying to Hera is the only thing that the characters in the poem can do to improve C's chances of returning. I don't see any implication that only by praying does he have any chance of returning. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead the addressee should send her to pray to Hera for Charaxos' safe return - who is "her"? Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The speaker. I think this is fairly clear, but if you can find another wording which doesn't repeat "the speaker" for the third time in as many sentences I'm happy to consider it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'appear to have been either about the family and religious or cultic practices, or about passion and love.[49] The Brothers Poem is instead focused on her family - "about the family"..."is instead focused on her family". The first statement contradicts the second. Ceoil (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most impressive was that containing the Brothers Poem, which survives on P. Sapph. Obbink,[1] a piece of a critical edition of Book - I don't understand this. The most impressive poem on the fragment "which survives on P. Sapph. Obbink" - survives? Who/what/when is P. Sapph. Obbink? Clf re "impressive", ie complete vs. its literary credentials. Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.Sapph.Obbink is the papyrus fragment with the Brothers Poem on; the other papyri are known as P.GC. inv.105 frr.1-4. The point of this sentence is that the most impressive of the papyri is the piece with the Brothers Poem on – it isn't a comment on the poem itself. Tried to clarify. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question of whether, and to what extent the speaker can be identified with Sappho' - the article doesnt really explain the "to what extent" part in this section, presenting the question as simply binary.
    • "To what extent" was I think meant to cover Bär's argument for the speaker as Sappho's poetic persona, but I agree it doesn't really add anything. Cut. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The classical historian Anton Bierl argues that Sappho's offer to pray to Hera is contrasted with a masculine ideology in which the pursuit of wealth is the solution to the family's problems, and therefore suggests a male relative of Sappho as the addressee Not well explained.
    • You are right: this does seem somewhat obscure! I need to re-read Bierl and see if I can come up with a better way of summarising his views... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • In simple english pls! Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • How does this look?
          • Much better. 01:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Lardinois sees the argument that Sappho's mother could have gone to pray to Hera for her son's safe return herself, and therefore it does not make sense for her to send Sappho to do so on her behalf, as the strongest against the thesis that the addressee is Sappho's mother, arguing on this basis for a male addressee. Drop 'safe', 'to do so' and 'on this basis'. Again all this, the cause and effect, is very unclear as written. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to The Daily Beast being used to cite this type of article, on any grounds. Its journalists cannot possibly have any expertise, and will have only summarized other sources. Surely we can find better secondary sources. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of the Daily Beast's general reputation, James Romm is a professor of classics and a former Guggenheim Fellow: he absolutely does have expertise. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Human fortunes are changeable ("fair winds swiftly follow harsh gales"[2]): I know this is cited, but that makes it more worrisome - whose voice is this. Ceoil (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, yes, as you no doubt suspect this is still in the speaker's voice. Could be clearer... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cant support this. The more i look, the more fundamental problems I find. Needs a top to bottom c/e from an expert. Oppose Ceoil (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC) - Striking oppose as there has been a lot of work, and article is advancing nicely. Ceoil (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The article would greatly benefit from a separate section on attribution. Ceoil (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would split out the paragraph which begins "When Obbink published the poem" into a separate sub-section, but unfortunately there really isn't much further to say – with the exception of this MA thesis (which per WP:SCHOLARSHIP would not normally be considered reliable), nobody seriously questions Sappho's authorship of the poem. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I have split out a separate section on authorship. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe rephrase "ancient biographical tradition"
  • "the best-preserved Sappho papyrus in existence." would paraphrase rather than leave in quotes
    Pff. Its hard to say anyother way.
    "The best preserved extant Sappho papyrus" - that way you avoid in existence, which is a bit History Channel. Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    a bit History Channel ouch. Changed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am leaving this as it is for now: if I can come up with a good paraphrase I will consider it, but I have spent some time thinking about it and I haven't yet come up with a paraphrase as strong and concise as the original. Reworded the beginning of the sentence slightly to avoid the repetition of "papyrus". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the University of Mississippi...After the library at the university deaccessioned
    • changed to "left to the University of Mississippi Library... after the library deaccessioned" Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oxrhynchus Papyri Project - not sure this deserves triple capitalisation
    • It isn't fully capped: Oxyrhynchus Papyri is capped but project is lowercase. That being said, it looks like more often than not (at least in the sources on the Brothers Poem) "Oxyrhynchus papyri" is rendered like so, and not treated as a proper noun, so I have lowercased "papyri" in the article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A second piece of papyrus, Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2289
  • When Obbink published the poem - is "published" the right word
    • Both the papyri and the poems contained on them are described as being "published" in the literature. e.g. A.E. Peponi, in Bierl & Lardinois 2016, talks of "the recently published Brothers Poem", Lidov 2016 says "when the poem was first published", and Lardinois 2016 says "twelve years ago two new poems were published". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of improvement since I last read through. Ceoil (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that we have a section on attribution, can we say Sappho rather than "the speaker"? I mean, it's about her brothers, or brothers in general. So at least, in a few instances, maybe switch from "the speaker" to "she".
    • The most recent paper on the song, by Peter O'Connell, scrupulously refers to "the speaker" throughout and avoids identifying her with Sappho. Though several scholars do identify the speaker with Sappho, the question is still not fully settled and though personally I would identify the two, I suspect that Wikipedia should not. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • that Larichos will grow into manhood - This seems a banal hope; ie that he will survive adolescence. Did she mean something more. Ceoil (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about writing will of course come under especial scrutiny. I am happy with Caeciliusinhorto's prompt and good humored responses here, and as stated earlier, was very delighted to have seen this nominated in the first place; it seems to have been a brave but correct move. Support and more please Ceoil (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Thank you very much for your extremely thorough review! I am very grateful for all your feedback, and it's definitely a stronger article for your comments. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

  • "Charaxos to Larichos, who she hopes" Shouldn't that be whom?
  • "whether Charaxos and Larichos are the historical or fictional brothers of Sappho" This could be clearer, I think.
  • I'd like to hear more about the papyrus fragments. Do we have no idea of where Robinson got them from?
    • A little, yes. I didn't want to get into too much of the minuitae of their provenance, but happy to add more detail if you think necessary. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to hear more, personally, but maybe that's just me. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added a little more on the papyrus before it was turned into cartonnage. Unless there is more on the history of the papyri in the 2011 Christies catalogue, or in a paper from 1961 by David Willis (neither of which I have easy access to) I think I have summarised everything that it thus far known about the papyri. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Great! What's the Willis paper? I could see if I have access? Josh Milburn (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • W.H. Willis, "The New Collection of Papyri at the University of Mississippi". Proceedings of the IX International Congress of Papyrology, Oslo 1959. pp.381-392. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though the Brothers Song was included in at least some Hellenistic editions of Sappho" Presumably now lost? Or have these been discovered in the last few years? I'm puzzled.
    • Ah, yes, this is puzzling to the lay (by which I mean "not me") reader... The papyrus we have was written in the Roman period, but it's a copy of the Alexandrian edition, which was compiled in the Hellenistic period. (My understanding of papyrology doesn't stretch to knowing why it is universally agreed that this is the case, but it certainly is, and if necessary I can cite several authorities on the point). I shall try to clarify in the article... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if this will be controversial, but would it not make sense to include the poem itself? Both in the Greek and in English? Or is the worry that the English translations will be in copyright?
    • I haven't because all of the English translations are (AFAIK) in copyright, I do not have good enough Greek to produce a CC translation, and I assume most of our readers will just be lost at 20 lines of Aeolic Greek. Arguably Rayor/Lardinois' translation could be fair use, but per the no free equivalent criterion, Wikipedia's policy requires that not only no free equivalent is available, but even could be created. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph beginning "The first two surviving" is unreferenced.
  • "Most scholars agree that the addressee is some concerned friend or relative of Charaxos, many selecting Sappho's mother as the most likely option" Does your source identify that most and many scholars say these things?
    • It identifies some of the "many", who I have now added; it doesn't specifically identify the "most", though the only scholar to have seriously suggested anyone else that comes to mind is Anja Bettenworth, who suggests C's nurse. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:BADITALICS, you shouldn't italicise anything in Greek script.
  • The paragraph beginning "This is not universally agreed upon" takes it for granted that the speaker is Sappho; previously, this was an open question.
  • I didn't know the word testimonium, and a few dictionaries suggest that it's not a common word. Wiktionary doesn't even list it as an English word. Could I suggest using something more reader friendly?
    • Replaced. Testimonium is the term of art used in classics, but for the general reader "source"/"ancient source" does just as good a job. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in fact Sappho's actual brothers" Do we need in fact and actual?
    • Cut "in fact" – does seem a little superfluous!
  • " The Brothers Poem seems to have been part of a series about Sappho's brothers,[49] though David Gribble disagrees with this conclusion." Then perhaps we should attribute the view that it seems to be part of a series to (a) particular author(s)?
    • You are absolutely right; I have expanded on what the point of contention is here. Hopefully clear Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have dealt with Charaxos or Doricha" You are yet to introduce Doricha, so this is jarring.
    • This is explained in a footnote: Doricha is Charaxos' lover, who Herodotus calls Rhodopis. It's a little confusing – I will try to find a better way to explain it in the text! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "just as Sappho hopes in the third stanza of the Brothers Poem that Charaxos" Again, are you presupposing the identity of the speaker?
  • " most authors accept that the Brother's Poem is missing at least one stanza" Again, does your source specify most authors?
    • Bär himself says that the "fragment hypothesis" is generally held; Swift (the most recent author to publish on the poem) takes the hypothesis as read, and does not cite Bär at all. I admittedly cannot immediately find an author post-Bär who specifically says that most authors agree with the fragment hypothesis... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " or even, like the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, be a forgery" Are you missing some words here?
    • I am not, and I'm not even sure what is confusing here: can you elaborate?
      • I think it's the lack of a subject for that final be, but the tense switch also jars. "Other commentators expressed concern about the provenance of the papyrus, fearing that it had been illegally acquired on the black market, or even, like the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, be a forgery." How about "Other commentators expressed concern about the provenance of the papyrus, fearing that it had been illegally acquired on the black market, or even that, like the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, it was a forgery." Josh Milburn (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:P.Sapph.Obbink.jpg: I'm struggling with the PD claim here. Is the thought that the papyrus itself is not under copyright, so a scan of it can't be either? If so, you'll need a different PD tag, and probably a crop to just the papyrus.
    • That was the logic, yes. Happy to crop the ruler out. Do you have a suggestion as to a more appropriate PD tag? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Athenaeus isn't in the bibliography.
  • Ferrari is in the bibliography, but isn't cited.
  • A lot of items in the bibliography seem incomplete.
    • Do you have any examples? Possibly I've spent so much time staring at the bibliography that I'm seeing what I think ought be there, but I'm not seeing anything obvious! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, seen some. A bot had added page-ranges and dois for some journal articles but not all. Damn thing. Added further page ranges and dois; a few journal articles do not seem to have dois so not added there... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really great article, and a really great topic for an FA. I hop this review goes well. And please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Started to reply to your specific comments inline. Some of them are going to take a little more thinking about than others... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Thanks for your thorough review! I believe I have now dealt with all of your issues, with two exceptions:
  1. Regarding the commons tag for the P. Sapph. Obbink image, I am not sure what the best tag would be. Do you think that simply wrapping the current PD tag in c:Template:PD-Art is sufficient, or do you object to c:Template:PD-old-auto-1996 for some reason? If so, do you have a suggestion of a more appropriate tag?
    How about c:Template:PD-old-100-expired with c:Template-PD-scan?
  2. I haven't yet added an entry for Athenaeus to the bibliography. I have not referred to a particular edition of A, but there is a recent Loeb I could cite in the bibliography. Alternatively I could refer to Campbell's Loeb edition of Sappho & Alcaeus, which includes the line in Greek and English. Or I could add a biblio entry reading simply: "Athenaeus, Δειπνοσοφισταί [The Scholars at Dinner]", but that seems unhelpful: it doesn't add any new information onto that included in the footnote! Or I could simply cut the footnote entirely: the fact that he says such a thing is supported by the ref to Bär at the end of the sentence. Do you have any thoughts on which would be best? (I note that for my other references to the testimonia, I have not added a footnote at all: probably if it is worth doing it is worth doing consistently!)
    I agree with your point abut consistency. Perhaps removing it altogether would be best. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do let me know if there's anything else you still are not happy with or think that I have missed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; first of all, sorry for the delay. I am very keen to support promotion. I can't access the Willis paper, but it's sufficiently obscure (and only loosely related to the central topic, I accept) that there's no reason to hold up the review until it has been read. There still seem to be a few places where the Sappho is uncritically referred to as the narrator, when, elsewhere in the article, this is presented as a controversial thesis. Here are the examples I noticed, but there may be others:

  • "Sappho hopes that Charaxos will return successfully from his trading voyage, and that Larichos will grow into manhood."
  • "The role of Sappho in the Brothers Poem has been compared to that of Penelope in the Odyssey; Sappho awaiting the return of her brother Charaxos just as Penelope (depicted here by Heva Coomans) waits for her husband Odysseus."

I think these need to be resolved; as it is contentious that Sappho herself is the speaker, we shouldn't present her as such in Wikipedia's neutral voice. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two good spots, both now fixed. I have had another look through the article and can't see any other instances where we conflate Sappho/the speaker except when describing the views of specific scholars who do identify the two. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A great subject and a very well-put-together article. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • Bär: You should probably use 'single quotes' for the quotes within quotes. Same for Gribble and Papadimitropoulos.
  • I would recommend including page ranges for chapters in edited collections, but it's probably not a problem if you don't.
    • I don't have a strong preference either way, so I've added this on the grounds that more bibliographic information cannot possibly hurt Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your date formatting is inconsistent.
  • Childers: Again, I recommend the use of single quotes; do you have a volume and issue number?
    • Dug up vol. and issue numbers; don't know how I missed them when preparing this for FAC (I looked!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you take a look at Liberman? I had some trouble working out what it was that was being cited. The Obbink paper, too; I'm surprised by the italics!
  • If you don't have DOIs, perhaps links to online versions would help? Unless there are no online versions; an archived abstract, perhaps?
    • There are JSTOR versions for the two Obbink ZPE papers; and Childers appears to be available online. For Neri, it looks like the choice is between the abstract on the journal's website, or the paper on academia.edu. I've included the academia.edu version, as it conveniently gives the whole article, but I can't work out a way to archive that... Do say if you think the abstract would be a better target! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neri: You should use the language= parameter.
  • Do you need to provide both access dates and archive dates? I'd recommend only the latter, but be consistent.
    • Removed all access dates: I think everything that needs an archive date has an archive date. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of your chapter/article names are in Title Case, but a few are in sentence case. Either's fine, but consistency would be good.
    • I think all are now in title case, excepting Neri, because I believe Italian does not use title case ever. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All sources appropriately scholarly; the ones that aren't scholarly are being used to show popular attention. No spotchecks done, not view on comprehensiveness. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My (minor) quibbles were attended to at the peer review, and it has been a pleasure to revisit the article after quite a gap. As far as a layman – this one, at any rate – can tell, it is comprehensive, and it is an excellent read, clear, balanced, and devoid of jargon. I have seen more lavishly illustrated articles, but the three pictures we have are all ad rem. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 20:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim! Your peer review was much appreciated, and your kind words there did a lot to persuade me that FAC might not be as terrifying as I had previously thought! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by RL0919 edit

I reviewed this for GA back in 2016 and am glad to see it has made its way here. Setting this placeholder so I can comment this weekend, but from an initial scan it looks pretty good. --RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my notes. A general theme is that it is important to realize that many will read articles like this with relatively limited background about the subject. The more people, places, and things that get mentioned without explanation, the more cognitive burden they accumulate: who/what is this? will I need to remember them later? etc. Wikilinks can help with this, but often a descriptive word or two can alleviate the problem even more easily, especially when there is no WP article to link.

  • "chastises the addressee for repeating": The word "repeating" by itself could mean "saying something over and over" or "repeating what someone else has said". Something like "repeatedly saying" would clear up the ambiguity. (Same for the similar phrasing in the body text.)
    • I am unconvinced that this is really ambiguous, but as you are not the only one to object to this phrasing, I have changed it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to James Romm": As Ceoil's initial reaction above indicates, an obvious question is who is James Romm, and upon seeing the linked source, the presumed answer will be "a journalist for the Daily Beast". There's no WP article to link, so something like "According to classics professor James Romm" would resolve the problem. (I haven't listed each instance where a named person has an immediate citation to their own writing, but assume readers will think this person must be a scholar or journalist according to the nature of the source. Where that isn't the case, as with Romm, a description would be helpful.)
    • I generally dislike the "classicist James Romm" approach because it leads to a lot of superfluous verbiage: obviously Obbink is a papyrologist if he is editing newly discovered papyri of Sappho! In the case of Romm I see the relevance, however: added a gloss. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "part of David Moore Robinson's collection": This time there is a link, but "part of archaeologist David Moore Robinson's collection" would explain sufficiently for the vast majority without needing to bother with a click.
    • Here is a case where I am not so convinced: it doesn't particularly matter that Robinson was a classical archaeologist, as we are not interested in his scholarship, only his collection. If people really care who he is there is the link. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and draws comparision to Lycambes and his daughters, from the poetry of Archilochus, and generally considered fictionalised": This wording is awkward because there doesn't seem to be verb leading to "and generally considered fictionalised". How about "and draws comparison to the poems of Archilochus about Lycambes and his daughters, who are generally considered fictionalised"?
  • "from the first book of the Alexandrian edition – i.e. those poems in Sapphic stanzas – ": A rare case where I think you may have over-explained. You already provided a note saying that the first book contains the poems in Sapphic stanzas, so it seems unnecessary to interrupt the sentence here to say it again. If needed you could link the same footnote a second time.
  • Sometimes you write "i.e.", other times you write out "that is" in English. This should be consistent. (My preference is for "that is" but consistency matters more.)
    • Looking at it again, I don't think the "i.e." is actually necessary at all: cut Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added several wikilinks and made some edits. Happy to explain them individually if you have concerns about any of my changes. --RL0919 (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have removed a couple of duplicated links, but most of your changes look good. Thanks for your comments! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting to make sure the dust is settled on changes made in response to others before I do another full read-through, but I believe my previous issues have been addressed appropriately. One new issue I see: there is now a short citation to "West 2014" (currently ref 3) with no corresponding source under "Works cited". --RL0919 (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I thought I'd got all of the bibliographic changes correct! Now added. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the changes you've made in response to me and others have improved the article to the point that I am willing to support it for FA within my usual caveats about what I cover when I review. --RL0919 (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Haukur edit

  • Great to see such detailed work on Sappho. And I love all the redlinks - so much still to be done! Licensing on the head image is an interesting question. Was the poem 'published' in the ancient world in the relevant sense for copyright law? If not, maybe 'PD-US-unpublished' is the more appropriate license? Haukur (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • US copyright law is very much not my area, so I am unsure. J Milburn advised on the current license – and therefore may have an opinion on the matter? I'm happy to go with whatever the consensus is that the correct tag is! (And on the redlinks: I suspect that every poem of Sappho's of which we have more than, say, 10 reasonably comprehensibe lines has enough scholarship to write at least a Good Article; I currently have Sappho 94 waiting on a GA review, and Fr.1 and Fr.31 waiting on me finding time to do them justice; one of these days I will write articles for frr. 5, 17, 96, 98, and the Kypris poem at least, plus I have plans for Poetry of Sappho and Reception of Sappho...) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • My reading (IANAL!) is that this was indeed "published" centuries ago. The English Wikipedia's PD-old-100 doesn't mention publication; the one on Commons does, though... Josh Milburn (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anja Bettenworth has argued" - could we cite Bettenworth herself on this rather than going through Kurke? Haukur (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could, but my German is not nearly good enough that I can claim to have properly comprehended her paper, though I have looked it over – per Say Where You Got It I am citing Kurke. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think citing both would be natural. Also, I can read German if there's some specific point you want to clear up or nail down. Haukur (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I have struggled through enough of Bettenworth to trust that she says what Kurke says she says (though my German would embarrass any self-respecting Hellenist even more than my Greek!) so I have added the direct cite... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Reception of Sappho’s Brothers Poem in Rome" by Llewelyn Morgan is an interesting piece which attempts to tie the text to Horace. Could this be used? Haukur (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have read Morgan's piece (and have some notes on it lying about). I can't remember why I didn't add anything about it into the article – I will re-read it and see what can be used. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having re-read Morgan, I think I haven't mentioned it at all because there just isn't that much there. He identifies some Horatian allusions to the poem, but he doesn't really do anything with that, and unlike with the Midnight poem or Sappho 31, there's no great tradition of poets riffing off of the Brothers Poem to tie it into. Beyond "Horace knew the poem, and alluded to it twice", there isn't really anything to say. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another plausible article, from 2018, is “Charaxus Arrived with a Full Ship!” The Poetics of Welcome in Sappho's Brothers Song and the Charaxus Song Cycle by Peter A. O'Connell. Haukur (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is new since I wrote the bulk of the article, and I haven't got immediate access to it: I'll see what I can do... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hypothetically speaking, anyone who punched the DOI of the article into Sci-Hub would probably get access to a pdf file. Haukur (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]
        • O'Connell's article is actually extremely interesting: thank you for pointing me to it. I think the most obvious takeaway from it to fit into the article is the discussion of how the BP fits into (or can be seen as fitting into) several different traditions within archaic Greek poetry; I add a little on that topic here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking maybe it would be helpful to begin with a Background section laying out some key facts which readers new to Sappho would be unaware of. This would in particular include the small size of Sappho's surviving corpus which is one reason every new poem is such a big deal for our understanding of her work. Haukur (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have expanded on the background to this a little in the section titled Preservation in this edit... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you! I think that does make it more accessible. Haukur (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm impressed by your improvements and I think it's time to toss you a support :) Haukur (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Bierl & Lardinois 2016, p. 1.
  2. ^ Sappho, Brothers Poem, ll.11–12. trans. Rayor & Lardinois 2014, p. 160
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Brothers_Poem/archive1&oldid=1138456569"