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