This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Catullus 16 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Catullus 16 was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cirt ( talk · contribs) 00:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I will review this article. — Cirt ( talk) 00:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Image free-use from Wikimedia Commons, passes here.
External audio | |
---|---|
![]() |
Next, on to Stability review. — Cirt ( talk) 01:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Next, on to rest of review. — Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I strenuously oppose a GA rating for this article, which has major omissions in its coverage, and fails to cover several of the standard issues that are dealt with in scholarship of the poem and its poet—as indicated by the absence of T.P. Wiseman, among others, in the bibliography. It dwells almost entirely on the sexual language of the poem (I say this as the main contributor to Sexuality in ancient Rome, so believe me, this assessment doesn't come from prudery). Although I added a mention of its meter in the intro, there's no discussion whatever of its genre, metrics, or antecedents in the literary tradition. The relation of the poem to the rest of the Catullan corpus is minimal. The article is an an incoherent patching together of snippets of scholarship, and only appears to have a structure: there's a subhead "Ironic message", for instance. Why's this separate? Is irony a major theme of scholarship on the poem? If so, why is only one scholar quoted there? What's the "message"? If this article gets a GA, then truly the designation is meaningless. Cynwolfe ( talk) 12:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
See question about that audio link, above. Obviously if you can't get it, no worries, but worth a try? — Cirt ( talk) 05:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I can see there are some major points to address, as noted above. I suggest a Peer Review as the next step, and recommend notifying multiple talk pages of relevant WikiProjects, prior to another try for WP:GAN. Good luck! — Cirt ( talk) 03:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by GA bot ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Catullus 16. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Is sodomize clearly enough understood here? While it often refers to anal intercourse, it can just as easily refer to face fucking, potentially leading to a redundant interpretation.
Additionally, sodomize is a higher- register word than facefuck. Is this the translation Traupman uses? I’d opt for arse-fuck, the only downside I see being the commitment to a particular variety of English (ass v. arse). — Wiki Wikardo 02:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Catullus 16 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Catullus 16 was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cirt ( talk · contribs) 00:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I will review this article. — Cirt ( talk) 00:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Image free-use from Wikimedia Commons, passes here.
External audio | |
---|---|
![]() |
Next, on to Stability review. — Cirt ( talk) 01:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Next, on to rest of review. — Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I strenuously oppose a GA rating for this article, which has major omissions in its coverage, and fails to cover several of the standard issues that are dealt with in scholarship of the poem and its poet—as indicated by the absence of T.P. Wiseman, among others, in the bibliography. It dwells almost entirely on the sexual language of the poem (I say this as the main contributor to Sexuality in ancient Rome, so believe me, this assessment doesn't come from prudery). Although I added a mention of its meter in the intro, there's no discussion whatever of its genre, metrics, or antecedents in the literary tradition. The relation of the poem to the rest of the Catullan corpus is minimal. The article is an an incoherent patching together of snippets of scholarship, and only appears to have a structure: there's a subhead "Ironic message", for instance. Why's this separate? Is irony a major theme of scholarship on the poem? If so, why is only one scholar quoted there? What's the "message"? If this article gets a GA, then truly the designation is meaningless. Cynwolfe ( talk) 12:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
See question about that audio link, above. Obviously if you can't get it, no worries, but worth a try? — Cirt ( talk) 05:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I can see there are some major points to address, as noted above. I suggest a Peer Review as the next step, and recommend notifying multiple talk pages of relevant WikiProjects, prior to another try for WP:GAN. Good luck! — Cirt ( talk) 03:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by GA bot ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Catullus 16. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Is sodomize clearly enough understood here? While it often refers to anal intercourse, it can just as easily refer to face fucking, potentially leading to a redundant interpretation.
Additionally, sodomize is a higher- register word than facefuck. Is this the translation Traupman uses? I’d opt for arse-fuck, the only downside I see being the commitment to a particular variety of English (ass v. arse). — Wiki Wikardo 02:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)