Talk:Anyte/GA1

GA Review

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)