Talk:Promptuarium Iconum Insigniorum/GA1
GA Review[edit]
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 15:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Surprised to see you aren't listed as having any other GAs! (Is that true or is the bot just struggling?) This is good work; at the moment I have only a few notes. I reserve the right to comment further, but this is all that comes up so far:
- Keep an eye on MOS:LQ for quotes -- some use logical quotation, some use internal quotation.
- The Google Books link isn't really ideal -- their previews vary by individual IP and geographic location, so you can't assume anything you see can be seen by anyone else. The Latin version is on IA, which is a guaranteed link.
- On that note, any knowledge of if any of its versions are on Wikisource somewhere? If it is, that's what we should preferentially use. (If not, maybe poke people.)
- Wikisource doesn't have any, as far as I know. BorgQueen (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- As for your suggestion to "poke people" ( ...with a red hot poker?
) I really don't know what to do about that. I'm not familiar with how things work on Wikisource and don't know anyone there. I sincerely hope it's not one of the GA requirements. BorgQueen (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, not a requirement! But many smaller projects have centralized discussion areas in a sense enwiki doesn't (I used to edit Wikivoyage a lot, where basically all of projectspace is one page linked on the sidebar, and have a generally similar impression of most of the other non-Wikipedias), and are still looking to add to their content base. There may be a centralized area for suggestions on e.g. Latin Wikisource. But this is really just thinking-out-loud wondering if we have the text on a WMF wiki somewhere -- IA is definitely fine. Vaticidalprophet 22:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the infobox needs the whole long title as the first thing you see, if it's commonly known by a short one. This made me pause -- some of the sources seem to imply it's either generally known by the Whole Huge Title, or by the French shortened title only. Given the nature of the sources this isn't perfectly easy for me to tease out, though. Is our title...right? If it is, that's probably what the infobox should use as the primary title.
Done I agree using the full title in the infobox is unnecessary and overwhelming to the reader. I don't think using the shortened French title is a good idea; Rouillé dedicated the Latin edition to Henry II of France, the king of his country, and the Italian edition to his wife. He probably didn't regard the French vernacular edition as 'the main edition', so to speak. BorgQueen (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- The one thing that really makes me pause: is this all the legacy we have? Do no other modern scholars of rare books discuss it? It intuitively seems like there'd be more discussion of a contemporaneously popular 16th-century book than our article records.
Vaticidalprophet 15:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet: I'm still working on the Reception section, trying to find a few more sources to make it comprehensive. Meanwhile, all sections of the article have been slightly expanded thanks to an excellent source (Cunnally, 1999) I had found on the Internet Archive. Please feel free to share more bits of constructive criticism if you have any. BorgQueen (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet It seems to me that the Reception section is finally presentable to the reader, having been nicely expanded and copyedited. Please let me know what you think. BorgQueen (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's looking great! I've been following the work from afar (have a couple other on- and off-wiki obligations), but in general, I'm comfortable saying the article is GA-level now. There's nothing that looks suspicious in the sources either, nor can I trivially find any other sources to add, though it might be worth looking at expansion again if you take this to FA. (Sounds daunting, I know, but -- the GA-FA jump is not large for books.) Thanks for your work on this article, and I'm happy to see you get your first GA. Vaticidalprophet 22:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet It seems to me that the Reception section is finally presentable to the reader, having been nicely expanded and copyedited. Please let me know what you think. BorgQueen (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet: I'm still working on the Reception section, trying to find a few more sources to make it comprehensive. Meanwhile, all sections of the article have been slightly expanded thanks to an excellent source (Cunnally, 1999) I had found on the Internet Archive. Please feel free to share more bits of constructive criticism if you have any. BorgQueen (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet Thank you for your notes. It's not the poor bot's fault as I indeed don't have any other GA; I do have one former FA but I wasn't really focusing on content-building until very recently. Good point on the legacy section; I'm going to dig something up through the wiki library. As for the title, I've just checked the German, French, Latin and Russian Wikipedia articles and they all currently use the shortened Latin title (the Latin Wikipedia version being shortened a little more!) -- but I'll check the sources and see if they use another name more often. As for the quotes and Google Books links, I'll work on fixing them up now. BorgQueen (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2023 (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.