Talk:Sappho/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 18:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Beginning first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 18:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Initial comments

This is clearly of GA quality, and the following comments are mere suggestions rather than stipulations.

• However
  • The word "however" appears fourteen times, and most of the fourteen would be better dropped, in my view. Howevers have a maddening tendency to creep in when one is drafting, but the reader does rather quail at the umpteenth repetition of the word, and most howevers weaken the prose, add nothing and are better expunged.
    • Cut most of these; I only count five remaining. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Semicolons
  • There are no fewer than thirty-five sentences broken with semicolons. I am a great fan of semicolons and use them a lot in my own prose (too much, some say) but I think a judicious cull would be beneficial, breaking some semi-colonised sentences into two. Happy to comment in more detail if you wish to pursue the point.
    • I abuse semi-colons even more than I abuse the word "however", and always have done. The first essay I wrote at university contained, my supervisor pointed out, fourteen clauses in the first sentence. I like to think that both my historiography and my prose styling improved while I was there, but I fear neither did as much as I might have liked. I shall have to go through the article and try to trim some of these. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
      • And I've put the axe to them. My in-browser search still finds 26, but almost half of these are in Works cited and Further reading as a consequence of the citation style. I'm happy to cut more if there are any you particularly think should go. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Sexuality and community
  • First para: it would be helpful for the non-specialist reader if you gave us a couple of dates here – when was classical Athenian comedy and how much later was the Hellenistic period?
    •  Done Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Second para: a comma before note 35 would help the flow.
    •  Done Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Third and fifth paras: these seem to deal, overlappingly, with the same topic, and could perhaps be amalgamated and even condensed a little.
    • I shall have to consider how I am going to finesse these paragraphs, but you are absolutely right, they really ought to be condensed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I merged these paragraphs in this edit. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Works
  • Opening para: personally I'd write "a series ... contains" rather than "contain".
    • Changed, though BrE always has played fast and loose with collective noun agreement... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Ancient editions
  • "in the form of a score" – does this mean a musical score? I wasn't quite certain what we are dealing with here.
    • Yes, that's exactly what it means. Musical score is a dab page, and sheet music insists that it uses "modern musical symbols", so I don't think there's really an appropriate article to link it to. The source cited just says "score" and doesn't explain further, but presumably he means that the lyre music which accompanied the vocals would have also been included in early copies... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "by meter and incipit" – probably showing my ignorance here (49 years since I took my Greek O Level) but shouldn't that be "metre" in BrE?
    • It should be, and I have used "metre" elsewhere in the article. Changed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Surviving poetry
  • First para: we could do with a blue link to the Renaissance here. Ditto codex/codices.
    •  Done Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Ancient reputation
  • "Outside of poetry" – curious Americanism in a BrE article. A plain "Outside poetry" would be more normal English usage, perhaps. If that looks odd, then perhaps "Beyond poetry"?
  • Fourth para: the OED doesn't hyphenate "rediscover"
    •  Done Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Still more ancient poets" – ambiguous: do you mean still more poets who were ancient or poets who were still more ancient?
    • I mean that other ancient poets wrote about Sappho's life instead of imitating her verse. I have changed "still more" to "other" which hopefully makes this clearer. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "aside from its name " – another slightly unexpected bit of AmE, where one might expect "apart from its name"
    • Possibly a generational thing (my parents did their O-Levels a decade after you did), but neither "outside of" or "aside from" strike me as Americanisms, particularly. I didn't really like either phrasing though, so have changed them both anyway. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Modern reception
  • "...while A. E. Housman, adapted" – two points here. I don't think you want the comma, and your fondness for using "while" to mean "and" or "although", harmless elsewhere in the text, should, I think, be restrained here, where it gives a false impression of contemporaneity to Tennyson and Housman. Not in the "Miss X sang Bach while Mr Y played Beethoven" league, but still mildly ambiguous.
    • Comma definitely wrong, but not changed until I work out how I am going to rephrase the sentence to cut out the ambiguity. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Changed here. Not convinced that this is perfect, but at least the ambiguity is gone.
  • Third para: there's a duplicate link to Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker here. It isn't the only such duplicate in the text, but is the only one that caught my eye in a slightly distracting way.
    • Killed the duplicate links. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Those are my few suggestions. I think this article is a top-notch piece of work, and I hope we may see it at FAC in due course. Meanwhile, once you have considered my handful of comments we can proceed to the tape-cutting ceremony. – Tim riley talk 19:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Found myself with a little unexpected free time, so I knocked off some of the easier comments. I may have to think about those I haven't addressed a little more, and come back to them at the beginning of next week. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, I think I've addressed all of your queries, Tim. How does the article look now? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I have been trying to think of a way in which I can interpret the rules to allow me to disqualify the article following the killer low blow about the date of your parents' O Levels, but unfortunately the GA criteria don't seem to cover this point. So I am obliged to pass the article for promotion. I think the intervention, below, is interesting, but being a complete layman I cannot judge whether further research into recent sources would be needed before going to peer review and FAC, but anyway that is for another day. If you do go to PR or FAC please ping me, but meanwhile, I have much pleasure in promoting the article to GA. Tim riley talk 19:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Out of date on Sappho's sexuality

The article is out of date on Sappho's sexuality to the extent that scholars are now generally agreed that the fragments are largely homoerotic (OCD⁴, s.v. Sappho; see also, BNP, s.v. Sappho). It is interesting that in this regard the article's sources drop off just as/before three of the four most important monographs dedicated in whole or in part to the subject were published:

Boehringer, Sandra. L’Homosexualité féminine dans l’Antiquité grecque et romaine. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2007.

Snyder, Jane McIntosh. Lesbian Desire in the Lyrics of Sappho. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

Williamson, Margaret. Sappho’s Immortal Daughters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.

These are now standard references on their subjects. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: unless an edit war ensues from this, the article remains eligible for promotion to GA. The Wikipedia:Good article criteria do not call for comprehensiveness (unlike the FA criteria), although the nominator is of course at liberty to refer to these or any other additional sources if he or she wishes. Tim riley talk 09:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I have added some content to this effect, which I agree that the article was missing. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: