Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Astronomica (Manilius)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2017 [1].

Astronomica (Manilius)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article focuses on the titular work, a Latin hexameter didactic poem probably written by the Roman poet Marcus Manilius during the reign of Caesar Augustus or Tiberius. The five-book work describes celestial phenomena, explaining the zodiac and astrology. The poem—which seems to have been inspired by Lucretius's Epicurean poem, De rerum natura—espouses a Stoic, deterministic understanding of a universe overseen by a god and governed by reason. The work is of note for a number of reasons. First, it is seen as an answer to Lucretius's aforementioned poem. Second, it is an important window into Roman views on astrology and Stoicism. Third, it very barely made it to the present day, as only one manuscript transmitted the poem through the Middle Ages. Finally, it's style is rather heady and peculiar—it has been described (rather hilariously, might I add) as "like a trigonometry texbook rendered as a Saturday New York Times crossword." Currently, it is a good article (the very thorough review can be accessed here). It has also undergone two extensive peer-reviews: one in June of 2016, and the other in January of 2017. Finally, it has been copy-edit not just once but also twice by two extremely competent editors. Due to the rigor of its sources, the quality of the text, and its layout, I believe that it is ready for the next stage.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by edwininlondon

[edit]

At glance this looks good. I'm looking forward to reviewing it thoroughly. But already I can see excessive use of parentheses. More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and collapsed many of the parenthetical line citations down into reference tags. Hopefully that clears up some of the parentheses clutter.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead first sentence: I would prefer it if had an actual date indication as well, not just Caesar Augustus or Tiberius
    Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • not quoted by any extant Latin author (a Latin author whose works exist today) -> why not simply "not quoted by any Latin author whose works exist today"?
    That was weird. Simplified.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if something about the manuscripts should be in the lead. Is the one Bracciolini found still around? Where are the oldest? Etc.
    Honestly, the manuscript section is really confusing as it is (I boiled that down from something like 20 pages in Housman's book). I worry that condensing it any more will just make it more esoteric for a novice. With that said, I did add "who had a copy made upon which the modern text derives."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Katharina Volk writes that Manilius -> I think Katharina needs some sort of introduction. Few will know who she is.
    Added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • historian Paul Monceaux -> which century is he?
    Added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops:"which he argues resembles" -> they?
Oops indeed! Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone else say something about this? Would be good for the coherence of article if we could say it's from family alpha or beta,
Unfortunately, I cannot find that info anywhere. I speculate it's from family beta, but that's just it—speculation.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a few points I need to get to, so I'll be back. @Edwininlondon: I have responded to and/or rectified all the points you bring up.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I'll look at this closer as from a glance and your nom statement it seems very interesting, but you are using ibid in the sources section - not practical on a wiki where things can be moved about quite frequently. Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to the very end section? If so, I have removed the author masks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]
Comments from JM

I am excited to see this here.

  • I think listing the affiliations of the scholars you are mentioning is a bad idea; they have a tendency to go out-of-date, as academics move around. I note that you listed Victoria Moul as a "lecturer" (roughly: assistant professor) when she's actually a senior lecturer (roughly: associate professor)- this is perhaps an example!
    • Here are the particular examples I noticed: "University of Toronto Classics professor Alison Keith", "King's College London classicist Victoria Moul", and "G. Goold, a Classics professor at University College" (note also the dablink).
  • To parrot something I learnt at a previous FAC and have now internalised... False titles are sometimes considered non-standard, so you may want to consider changing them.
    • Here are the examples I noticed: "University of Toronto Classics professor Alison Keith", "King's College London classicist Victoria Moul", "classicist Katharina Volk", "Nineteenth-century classicist Fridericus Jacobs and historian Paul Monceaux", "classicist Steven Green", "classicist G. P. Goold" and "Italian humanist Lorenzo Bonincontri".
I have either removed the titles (for most of the scholars, since the refs will lead a potential reader to their books, wherein it can be discovered that they are indeed classicists etc.) and added "the" in front of other 'titles' to imply that they are not titles, just adjectival phrases.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first footnote, you refer to Volk by surname only before she has been introduced. I think the best move would be to introduce her in both the footnote and the prose.
Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "didactic poems [e.g. De natura rerum and Astronomica) ... were often regarded as (some kind of) epic poetry" Could you check the brackets?
Whoops! Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This article will use the term "didactic poem" where necessary, following Volk's assertion that "in histories of Latin literature, Manilius is typically treated under the rubric of didactic poetry"." Two things: this is a self reference, I'm not sure I like "assertion" (it strikes me as a little judgemental). Perhaps this could be moved to the start of the footnote? "Though, as explained by [intro] Volk, "in histories of Latin literature, Manilius is typically treated under the rubric of didactic poetry",[ref] there has been much debates as to whether the Astronomica should be categorized as an "epic poem" or as a "didactic poem".[ref]" Just a thought.
Good points all around. How does this look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(implying an Augustinian date), the second claims that Capricorn is the Emperor’s natal sign (implying this book was written under Augustus), and the fourth describes Libra as the natal sign of the leader (implying that this book was written under Tiberius)" This is perhaps my problem rather than yours, but these don't strictly imply those things, they suggest, indicate or perhaps implicate them.
I changed all instances of "imply" to other things; this also varies the prose so there isn't the same word repeated three times.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Manilius digresses about the" Can one digress about something?
I think so? I did a quick Google Book search and it looks like it's a common enough phrase in published media.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are G. Goold and G. P. Goold the same person? You spell out his name several times.
They indeed are. I have tried to standardize the name and cut out redundant instances of it appearing in full.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally very strong. Please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Thank you for your constructive feedback. I have fixed/responded to all your points. Please check and see if these edits are suitable?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • The citation for the Bryn Mawr Classical Review does work, but I think it could perhaps be a little neater if you cite it as a journal, rather than as a webpage. For example: It has an ISSN, it has an issue number...
    Good idea. I have done as you suggested (although the review doesn't have issue numbers, since it's open-access and only posts reviews).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Volk, K.; Schindler, C." Spell out?
    I added Katharina Volk's full name, but I can't find C. Schindler's full name.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it not be usual to cite the particular article in Britannica, rather than the whole encyclopedia?
    I added that ref before I knew the cite:encyclopedia template was a thing. Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're inconsistent on whether you provide publication locations for books. I would advise in favour. I'm also not sure I understand why you provide City, Country: in some cases and City: in others.
    An overlook on my part. I have added locations for all books, and tried to standardize the rest.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Lorenzo Bonincontri’s Reception of Manilius’ Chapter on Comets (‘’Astr.’’ 1.809–926"" Could you check that title?
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Goold, G" You provide fuller initials elsewhere.
    Added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what jumps out on a first look. All sources are appropriately scholarly. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Thank you for the source review. I have responded to your points.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An excellent article. I see no reason to hold up its promotion, but will watch this page in case I have missed anything. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the thorough review, and thanks for the support!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber

[edit]
Comments from Cas Liber

Looking now....

Okay then, looking again, nothing really jumped out at me prose-wise and it looks well-rounded and comprehensive, so support (though acknowledging I am a novice in the area) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for looking over this and lending your support.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:31, 27 June 2017 (=UTC)

Ceoil

[edit]

Oppose. Dull and uninspiring language for a nominally literary article. I shaved a few but, there is huge repetition here, for eg 37 instances of the word "poem" throughout, and which in places it appears 3 times in the same construct. Further the language is overwrought, academic; "espouses", "a copy made upon", "it was neglected by scholars for centuries. However, 21st-century scholars" (two instances of repetition in 10 words), classicist x 5, "of the Astronomica, the text of the Astronomica", "named after a now-lost source manuscript), and includes manuscripts", "the aforementioned", "whereas G and L are derived from a different copy (α) of the archetype...The second family is known as "β", taking its name from the now-lost archetype; it includes manuscript M", "critically edited" (what?). I stopped there. To much fact fact fact latterly, you would need a compass to navigate. I'm familiar with hands and supposition from bare fact, but this is unnecessarily technical and dry; it could be better explained with eg, linking back to specific text to guide the reader. Far from FA standard. Ceoil (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate to know what is "dull and uninspiring" about this? Also, this is an article of about 4,000 words about a poem. So the use of the word "poem" more than few times seems OK to me (and, what is more, 37 instances of the word only make up 0.9% of the entire article). Your point about the word appearing three times in the same construct is duly noted, and I have tried to improve this issue.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Honest question here... Did I offend you with that revert? I thought that you had changed "poem" to "lines" by mistake. I wanted to make the section a bit clearer, and I think (thanks to your work!) it looks better now. Anyway, I feel like some of your comments ([2] [3]) read as if you have an axe to grind, so if I did something to make you angry, I truly apologize.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are all of substance, can you address please rather than second guess. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that many of them are. But at the same time many of them seem a bit odd. For instance, what's wrong with the use of the term "classicist"? Or the use of the term "critically edited" in an article that deals with textual criticism?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(To lighten the mood: I do find it kind of funny that this article is accused of being too dry and too technical. It fits Manilius rather well!)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To restate, its often not the word choice in isolation thats the problem, though it is often that, its the overuse of certain words, "classicist" among them. I have demonstrated that the same terms are appearing over and over, often in the same sentence ("of the Astronomica, the text of the Astronomica"), and that's not really good enough for FA standard. The dry and technical thing is a separate matter, and quite odd. Are you paraphrasing from old sources? (source check needed here). Re "critically edited", as opposed to hagiographic editing? Either editing stands back and improves or, I dunno what you mean. My opposition stands, and I wont respond further, until you take this seriously, with actual, substantive replies. Ceoil (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Nominator has requested withdrawal -- will action shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Astronomica_(Manilius)/archive1&oldid=1136098820"