Talk:Anyte/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 14:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Copyvio check - lead appears on Goodreads - I suspect it was copied from Wikipedia rather than vice versa; I will try and look into this. No concerns with the other top matches from Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which are titles and prhrases that are OK per WP:LIMITED.

• Unfortunately, there's no archived copy of the Goodreads page on the Internet Archive. There are past examples of Goodreads using Wikipedia text (e.g. [1], [2]). Looking at the development of the article, I'm happy to AGF. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Images - none; a brief search suggested that there are no suitable free images of the subject available.
• No sign of edit wars.
• I ran a script to standarise the ISBN formats.

Sources

• All look suitable.
• Optionally, The Barnard citation could be made more complete (e.g. mention pp. 204–13, maybe add JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3296687)
• Optionally, the page range of the Bowman citation (pp. 1-27) could be addded.
• I spot checked Barnard (1978) p.209 x3; Bowman (2004) p.10 & p.22; Brooklyn Museum; USGS. No issues.
• Optionally, be consistent in whether location is mentioned for book citations. (It isn't for Bloodaxe Books)
• It feels to me like it would be nice to have a poem or two included (like those in John Keats), or at least some quotations from Anyte's work in the article, but I can't locate definitive guidelines on whether they should or shouldn't be. (The opening paragraph of WP:NPS is probably the most relevant thing I found.) Any views?

Life

• I think that "Greek Anthology" should be italicised. (Also in the Poetry section)
• Optionally, briefly explain what the Greek Anthology is and its significance (to save ignorant people, like me, having to click the wikilink), both here and in the lead.

Poetry

• "Twenty-five epigrams attributed..." - MOS:NUMNOTES sayd "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure" - I'm open to hearing a case for applying WP:IGNORE.
• MOS:NUMERAL says that "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words" - but I'd suggest being consistent between the lead (24 /19)and this section (Twenty-five / nineteen)
• Kathryn Gutzwiller could be wikilinked
• Add a word or two to "introduce" Gutzwiller, along the lines "Classics scholar Kathryn Gutzwiller"

Reception

• Josephine Balmer could be wikilinked

External links

• I think it's probably out of scope for a GA review, so no need to reply, but are all of the external links suitable?

Lead

• In the spirit of MOS:LEADCITE, I'd suggest adding the point that "She introduced rural themes to the genre, which became a standard theme in Hellenistic epigrams" and the attached citation into the Poetry section and removing the citation (but not the text) from the lead.
• As per the previous point, the same could be done for the mention of the Palatine Anthology (to the Reception section).
• I think that "Palatine Anthology" should be italicised

Many thanks for your work on this article, Caeciliusinhorto. Information from high quality sources has been compiled into a readable, logically structured, article. I've only got a few minor points and questions. Regards, 16:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose. I have adopted most of your suggestions, with exceptions as follows:

• It's certainly a good question as to whether we should quote a poem. Unlike Keats, there isn't an obvious candidate for The Poem which best illustrates Anyte's work for a general audience, so I will have to think carefully about which one to use.
• I agree that Greek Anthology is worth glossing in the body, but it's not immediately obvious to me how best to do that concisely. Suggestions very welcome!
• re. MOS:NUMNOTES, I believe that the prohibition is against using figures specifically, not just numbers, at the start of sentences, thus "25 epigrams attributed..." would be forbidden but "Twenty-five epigrams attributed..." is permitted. The examples list "There were many matches. Twenty-three ended in a draw." as an acceptable usage.
• I think "classics scholar Kathryn Gutzwiller" and similar constructions almost always add absolutely no useful information to readers, and avoid them. Readers can probably judge for themselves what kind of scholar might publish in Syllecta Classica.
• I've cut two external links per WP:ELNO#11; I've retained the Martine Cuypers bibliography under WP:IAR. Cuypers is a recognised expert (for instance co-editor of Blackwell's Companion to Hellenistic Literature) and the bibliography was previously hosted by the University of Leiden.
• I've removed the citations from the lead. The "rural themes" is supported by the first sentence of legacy.

I think that answers all your outstanding queries - let me know if there's anything I've missed Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, Caeciliusinhorto . I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:52, 5 January 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.