Talk:Hortensius (Cicero)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 06:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction and limitations

Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I have little knowledge on the subject, but I am very interested in Roman history and culture, and most of my GA reviews are very well received. I have time to do this review until the 30th, after which I won't be available for two weeks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

1. Prose:

No copyright violations.
~~The article generally reads professional and smooth, but a little confusing at times. In some parts, more explanation may need to be added for the uninitiated. Below I will do a detailed review.~~

2. MOS: The article meets MOS standards.

3. References layout:

Just noting here that there is one link that requires subscription.
~~Some sources do not have ISBN numbers or OCLC numbers. Please add those to help identify sources.~~

4. Reliable sources: Sources appear very reliable.

5. Original research: None found.

6. Broadness: Will check later.

7. Focus: Yes, very.

8. Neutral: Yes.

9. Stable: article is stable.

10-11. Pics: Pictures are relevant. Are you sure that the File:Cicero_-_Musei_Capitolini.JPG image of Hortensius is allowed? Italy does not have freedom of panorama.

Excellent catch. I went ahead and swapped it out for an image that I'm nearly positive is in the public domain (photo scan from a book published in 1900).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed review per section

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. To keep communication to the point, you might want to use templates like Done, Doing..., Not done, Removed, Added, and Fixed. Please do not cross out my comments, as I will not yours but only my own. I will do the review of the lead mostly at the end.

According to the Constantinian writer Trebellius Pollio I would move this note into the main body of the article, as it is is quite relevant to the subject. Perhaps it could be integrated with the section "Relation to Aristotle's Protrepticus".

Done. I've re-arranged this section a bit, too.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~John Hammond Taylor Please say briefly what kind of scholar this is, just to help build some context.~~

Added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 1976, Laila Straume-Zimmermann produced Cicero's Hortensius. That is not very useful information: please expand a little on this, or if not relevant enough, remove it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed it, as I don't think it really matters.--Gen. Quon (Talk)

Broadness

The following information is relevant enough, that a GA should cover it to some extent:

Taylor 1963, pages 487–8 explains the attitudes which led Cicero to write the Hortensius. Though you mention the part about the personal tragedies, you do not mention how he emotionally responded to political events that occurred. There is also some more psychological analysis with regard to the Hortensius in Schmidt 1979, page 121.

In regard to the first part, how does this edit look? I don't want to dive too far into it, as it seems more background than anything, but I totally see your point.--Gen. Quon (Talk)

I'll try to work the second part into this article in a bit.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. I found the article to be quite comprehensive.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

After Hortensius argues that oratory is the greatest art, Cicero "appeal[s] as earnestly as [he can] for the study of philosophy" This quote is interesting, but would perhaps better be placed in the body of the text. You should add a general statement with regard to Cicero's purpose in writing the Hortensius, or with regard to its main tenets.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 04:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January

Sorry for the delay. I have a tendency to focus my time first on problematic articles, and this isn't one of them. My review is above. there are not many comments for this article—in fact, the least comments of all my reviews. ~~There is also the request on oclc numbers underlined above.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~For searching oclc numbers to add to the references to help other editors identify the older sources with no isbns, try this link.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 04:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Just the lead remains.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

@Farang Rak Tham: No worries on the delay! Thanks for reviewing this. I'll get to work later today.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Farang Rak Tham: I found OCLCs for a good chunk of the references. A few of them don't have them still, but I don't think they exist.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Farang Rak Tham: I did an ol' switcheroo. How does this edit look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good enough to me. I am passing for GA. Let me know if you do a DYK. Also, I'd appreciate it if you could do a GA review of one of my articles at WP:GAN#REL as well. Thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Farang Rak Tham: Thanks so much! And sure, I'll try to do that in the next few days. If it slips my mind, feel free to ping me.--16:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]