Talk:Jupiter (god)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) 18:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Inconsistent spelling: honored and honours in "Jupiter and the state". Check for consistency of British v/s American English. Please clarify this. Are you asking for simple consistency of usage in the section or requesting us to check what variant should be used here. This isn't an American article so the English version could well be used.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Address ^[who?], ^{[clarification needed]}, ^{[citation needed]} tags in article.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Replace references using primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) with secondary sources e.g Livy, Petronius, Dionysius Halicarnasseus, Trebatius Testa etc. original research may result from primary Greek/Roman sources. This is rather vague to be of help. Please list some of the references you have spotted that are primary and have been used against policy to at least see what you are looking at.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Other ^{[original research?]} tagged.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Children are missing: Diana, Minerva etc. No clear indication that Juno is his wife except a hint in "the royal couple Uni (Juno) and Tinia (Jupiter)"
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	FAIL primarily primary sources.

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references problem is so grave that it will some time to fix. I will check this article next Sunday and if there is any progress in fixing this issue, I will review further. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the original main editor of this article I decided to undertake the task of completing the citation work, even though (as per discussion above) the present article is a totally new one, fruit of a rather clumsy, misleading and unfaithful job of restructuring carried out by another editor.

Nonetheless I find I cannot answer the question about OR in the etymology section: I suppose any dummy here who is unable to read English can come around putting silly tags...if one reads the section with attention it is self evident that this fact is implied and supported by the referenced scholarship. But one can also look for other (plentiful) secondary sources if one wishes...good luck and enjoy yourself!Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see work is being done. Will check in detail on Sunday. "OR in the etymology section" is quite valid. Just because Dyaus Pita and Dieus-pater and variants have similar etymology does not mean that Zeus/Dyaus Pita is derived of the god. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the reviewer would like to glance at the version before the supposedly disastrous restructuring and copyediting, it's here, but it seems to me to exhibit some of the same kinds of problems that are marked in the evaluation already. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I overcame myself and decided to try and fix the mentioned issues. Only the section on Genius will take more time. I apologise to user Cynwolf as the issues raised by the reviwer are mainly due to my edits.Aldrasto11 (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was extremely gracious of you!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the OR issue: I see the reviwer's point but the text says "is derived" not is the same entity. Moreover this was Wissowa's implication, sky god father (p. 100).Aldrasto11 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (mostly...).Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still primary sources remain.
I can't understand some of the notations (underlined)
- Wissowa above p. 105-108.
- G. Dumézil ARR above p. 258-261.
Multiple page range should "pp. 258-261"
Pages missing for many refs

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to comment on my talk User_talk:Redtigerxyz#Jupiter: I don't see the similarities about the ref style of Gladiator and Jupiter. Gladiator uses {{harv}} refs, pp. It does not use acronyms like ARR, but years "Futrell 2006, p. 157."
Primary sources issue is still grave. Servius, Livy, Plutarch, Augustine, Varro, Ovid, Aulus Gellius are still are used as sources. Need to replaced by secondary scholarly refs.

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misunderstanding on the part of the reviewer. I do not care about rating, but this point must be made clear also out of respect for readers: if a primary source is cited this does not mean it is OR, simply it is the material on which every scholarly work is based.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not reflect that it is based on secondary sources. Gladiator model is the perfect way to do. Use secondary sources, but also note the primary source as given in the secondary one. Also, the interpretation of primary sources is generally different is different in different scholarly works. It is necessary to state in ref whose interpretation of an ancient Greek/Latin/Roman et. al text is used. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will not comment on these statements much further. This may suffice: My aim when editing is providing readers with a presentation of the subject matter as broad and clear as possible. I am not interested in scholars's views and differences per se, but only insofar they can help the general reader to understand and have a good grasp of the subject. If the reviewer feels the article does not reflect that it is based on secondary sources it may be a matter of form, as the primary sources I quoted or cited are all to be found in secondary ones. The statement that the interpretation of primary sources is generally different in different scholars is a bit hazardous and at any rate inappropriate here: Dumézil is generally in agreement with Wissowa. But as I just wrote I do not see the use of giving the points of difference in scholarship if not when strictly necessary to the presentation or understanding of an issue. Other one should set out to write a book or perhaps many. The quotation of ancient authors are mostly if not exclusively factual: interpretations thereof are certain, which usually makes it irrelevant who made it. Reasonably only where are disputed issues these differences should be given, but here too only if the article deals with the issue itself: there are many questions that is better to leave alone as too specialistic.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's conventional in classical studies always to cite the ancient source passages on which modern scholars base their analyses. Omitting these would be like writing an article on a mathematical proof and giving only the answer, not the equation or steps to get there. As Redtigerxyz notes, though, the citations must indicate clearly the close and necessary connection between the primary sources and the secondary sources whose views are being expressed. Gladiator is a good example. In regard to this article, as a contributor I might point out some other coverage issues I'm aware of:

TMI: several sections are about other deities who have their own articles, and Jupiter is barely mentioned (see for instance Jupiter (mythology)#Penates). The sections in this article should focus only on explicating the relation to Jupiter. As Aldrasto notes, Jupiter is a huge topic, which is why subtopics that can sustain separate articles must be treated as summary sections and developed in spin-off articles. (I must demur from the criticism about Jupiter's "family"; that is the Hellenistic tradition, in which Greek myths about Zeus are adapted for Jupiter, though it does become significant in the Imperial period. That omission therefore points to the actual omission, for which see following.)
Literary treatment. Ovid's Fasti is referenced several times, but the Metamorphoses not once. The poetic treatment of Jupiter is an important link in the classical tradition, and the entry on Jupiter in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome[1] devotes a subsection to this.
Limited time period. Except for image captions, the latest dated reference is to a temple founding in 146 BC. Most discussion focuses on the 6th to the 3rd centuries BC. That omits about five centuries of Roman religion, including the late Republic and the reign of Augustus (the period of Roman history for which we have the most abundant information) and the entire Roman Empire (a notable work on this is Fears ANRW article in the bibliography provided by The Oxford Encyclopedia above). There's next to nothing about the role of Jupiter in relation to Imperial cult, nor his role in Stoic philosophy as "God", which was highly influential in the later philosophical and allegorical traditions of the Middle Ages and Renaissance.
Limited range of scholarly views. The limited time period reflects the undue weight placed on the theoretical approach of Dumézil, who often seems to be seeking to uncover the "real" Jupiter who existed in the proto-historical period. This approach does not reflect the full range of contemporary scholarly approaches to Roman religion.
Classical tradition. Insufficient coverage of Jupiter on later Western art and literature.

As far as I know, we don't have any articles on Greek and Roman deities that meet current GA standards. I would like to see one reach that level, so we have a model for how it's done. But that's also why I don't think this one is ready for GA. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Metamorphoses are cited a few times, read with more attention. The part of the article I edited is based on Wissowa first and then Dumézil. The authority of these scholars is unquestionable. If Cynwolf feels she is more insterested in the imperial time religion and what happened well after the Punic Wars why does she not add sections on later historical developments? But what I contributed spans also that period as I used works that deal with epithets and epigraphy: Cenerini, Cecere et al.

PS I object to the use of Fears' article on imperial time ideological use of religion as it has a heavy political Antiroman bias. The problem with writing on imperial time religion is mainly this: after the Augustan restoration Roman religion is repetitive, more and more debased to a mere political and ideological tool. In essence a sort of traditional lore about which most people do not care at all. The success of new religions including Christianity is a proof thereof. This is the view of W. W. Fowler in his Religious Experirence, see his last three chapters. It is interesting only for its antiquarian value, i. e. since it preserves to us much info about the ancient beliefs of the forefathers.Aldrasto11 (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To user Cynwolf in particular I would like to tell that if she felt this article was not ready for GA, why did she say the opposite just a few days ago? And why did she not try to make the changes or additions she deemed necessary and about which she has written here above at length?

Me on the opposite, even though I no longer recognise this article as mine, did spend a lot of time and effort trying to comply with the requests of our reviewer. So I leave it to readers to judge the quality of the personal effort and interest put here by different editors.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]