Talk:Catalogue of Women/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Requested move

Catalogues of Women->Catalogue of Women: more usually known (both now and in antiquity) as "Catalogue of Women". The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petrouchka (talk • contribs) 04:32, 21 Jun 2005.

I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I have done wrong: I have already gone ahead and created a rather large new article at Catalogue of Women, incorporating material from the 'Catalogues of Women' that was here and turning this page into a redirect. This kind of makes the move request redundant, unless someone undoes what I've done. As I said, I'm new, so my apologies if I've gone about this in the wrong way: mea culpa. Petrouchka 11:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is a requirement of the GFDL license that we retain edit histories, and copy/pasting content destroys the link to it. I've therefore merged the history into this article. WP:RM has had quite a backlog so I'm sorry it wasn't attended to sooner, and thanks for your comments above. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

manuscripts

I moved manuscripts section from Hesiod to here, though the section has problems. McCronion (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll expand it, but should I? There are at least 54 papyri of the Catalogue, not counting those which have been more doubtfully assigned to the poem by Traversa and Hirschberger. Also, when we list manuscripts on other pages it means we are outlining the textual history of the work, but with the Catalogue over 70% of the fragments are preserved in quotations by other ancient authors. So, should we list all the papyri with proper annotation or delete this bit altogether. I'm fine with both and will take action on both. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the best approach is a summary of the manuscript tradition and papyrus finds rather dwarf the reader with an obscure list. Your choice. I'm not really interested - I just wanted to remove the burden from Hesiod. McCronion (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds right: I'll describe the situation in a little "Transmission and reconstruction" section when I get a chance. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

citation templates

In advance of completing a major expansion and reorganization that I've been attempting in fits and starts, I'm augmenting the bibliography and formatting it all with citation templates. On the page for this method of citation it says not to do this without consensus, since some editors find the syntax annoying (I do, too), but since the topic involves so much doubt and dialogue between different types of scholarship (editions, reviews, chapters, etc.), this seems most accessible way to go. If people are much opposed, I'll do the grunt-work of reformatting the whole list and will, of course, take responsibility for formatting the additions of others if we decide to keep the method. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

An update on this. Since the above described complicated system of cross-references has fully developed, my wonderfully generous offer to reformat the citation method if challenged has expired. If a consensus is reached to the effect of changing this convention, I will still honor my commitment to undertake the conversion. In any event, I still promise to reformat any bibliographic additions for consistency, should new editors simply wish to add bare details. Fragmentarily yours, — cardiff | chestnut — 00:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Show off

I just noticed the current state of this article here, all the work of User:Cardiffchestnut. What's he trying to do? Impress people? It won't work! I see through his tissue-thin scholarship and his pretence at a work ethic as if through a glass. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is actually a very good article, and Cardiffchestnut has done (and keep doing) some excellent work on it. You should know that talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view, as you did here. For more please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Macedonian (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Eyeless is just kidding with me. But thanks to both of you ... hopefully this article will be in shape before some monastery yields a complete MS of the Catalogue and everything written so far is found to be hogwash. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 04:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I should have guessed that something was wrong here!... :) Macedonian (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A few suggestions

No, I won't be reviewing this good article nomination - simply because I don't have time to have a careful look at everything and check all of those references.

Nevertheless, I had a brief look at the article. It certainly looks good, comprehensive and informative, and especially very well researched and annotated. However, there are a few things I think should be changed. These remarks are nothing more than suggestions for improvement, according to my personal opinion, not per WP:GACR:

  • The lead section is quite long. It seems to be the longest piece of text after "Aeolids". Could you rearrange or rewrite it in a shorter way?
  • Quotes (in first section and onwards): translation left, Greek text right. I prefer the original Greek at the left and the translation at the right, but this is just a matter of taste.
    • It is also nice if you could put a short "Translation by ##, year" beneath each translation. Yes, note b contains this information, but this is quite long to read if you just want to know the translator at a one short glance. Again, just a matter of taste.
  • The two portraits are quite large if compared to the other images. Furthermore, those two and another third image are at the left margin, but all other pictures are at the right margin. Don't you think it would be better to put all images at the right margin?
  • The second last picture is called "Seneca.jpg", but the figure caption says "intended to be Hesiod". Could you place a short note in the caption to explain?
  • You might want to have a separate (sub)section "Authorship" instead of having it incorporated at "Date, composition and authorship".

Michael! (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

On the introduction, I don't think it's terribly long per WP:LEAD in relation to the article as a whole, but it might be less daunting with a couple of the paragraphs broken up. (I'll insert at least one break that I see.) Placing the Greek on the right seems appropriate for Wikipedia's non-specialist readership, with "form following function" as the aesthetic principle. The translator doesn't need to be attributed within the body copy, unless the point is to highlight the translator. The Seneca/Hesiod portrait has such a long checkered history that it has its own article, to which we can helpfully link. I'm not sure how you can disconnect composition and authorship. Will try to act on the rest, while noting for an potential reviewer that these points wouldn't keep the article from getting a C rating, let alone a GA. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, for the bronze bust Pseudo-Seneca is already linked; discussing the identification as Seneca would be off-topic for this article, and the file name isn't displayed in the article to generate confusion. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The points I made are just a few opinions after a short first impression - I didn't read the article carefully - they're nothing more than quick suggestions. Of course, they don't have to be addressed for passing it as a GA. Feel free to ignore them.Michael! (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I might return to this interesting article in a few days to have a more careful look at it - although I won't be reviewing it, as I said before.Michael! (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Mestra engraving

Davidiad, the Baur engraving is awfully dark to read. Might I suggest you take it to the photography workshop at Commons? I've been really impressed by how promptly they respond to requests, and they do a nice job. There's an easy form for requests. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I'll look into that in a bit. I've honestly hated that image forever, but Mestra gets so much print, so I had to take a gulp and say the picture stays in, kid.  davidiad { t } 15:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Catalogue of Women. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Drmies (talk · contribs) 22:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

(Sorry to interrupt Drmies' review here, but in the following comment I can't accept any praise for this article at all: each of my edits is minor to the point of triviality. It's entirely Davidiad's work! Drmies is gracious but I would feel better if he would strike my name from his comment. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC))

Sorry for interrupting myself, but Cynwolfe, that just won't do. You can choose to not put the GA symbol thingie on your user page, but I am an admin and my comments can only be struck per ArbCom, since they are of necessity true. This article is very, very impressive, and that's in part because of you. Now help bring this up to GA status! Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I still don't have a clue how this particular template works, but I'm reviewing this article. Feel free to help me out. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Cynwulfe and Davidiad, I think you got a fine piece of work here. I'll do a review. Let me get a couple of quick and simple questions out of the way--I hope you don't mind a piecemeal approach; I find that it helps to get things out of the way on a first read.
      • Why Tzetzes, and not John Tzetzes? I clicked through to see if it was a title that needed to be italicized. Also, I'm a great fan of the appositive/adjectival introduction, "the twelfth-century Byzantine poet and grammarian John Tzetzes" (and in that case you can drop John).
      • "The poet completes his treatment"--we don't know the poet's gender, and the appropriate section says nothing about it. Consider that the poetic phallus is not a penis. :)
    • More later: apparently laundry takes precedence over poetry. I know, it's a fucked-up world. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Done. Thanks, Drmies. It was just Tzetzes because that's what I call him, forgetting that even some classicists have never read of him (and that his poor brother Isaac wallowed with him).  davidiad { t } 22:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Do we need to do the GA subpage thang?  davidiad { t } 22:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't know, Davidiad--I just started the template and it looks like hell. If you can fix it that'd be great. This isn't some fill in the blank kind of thing. Also, please define "verse" at its first occurrence, possibly connecting it with "line" which is wikilinked nearby. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Stuck in a link to dactylic hexameter for now. Currently making dinner—will think of a more graceful and efficient way to keep the concepts of verse and stichometry at the fore: this while trying to retain the ridiculous construction "in part or entire" which strains the copulative properties of "survive".  davidiad { t } 23:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
          • I'm not quite sure what you mean by define verse, here. Is it that the fact that verse and line are synonymous in stichic meters needs to be implied more strongly? If so, do we think that linking dactylic hexameter does enough?  davidiad { t } 00:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Yes--I think it looks fine now. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • West is mentioned in the lead. I'm not a big fan of self-reference in WP articles ("this article reflects...") but it's fine if it's done in a scholarly acceptable manner (and this is not really a lay audience you're shooting for). You can earn the mention of West in the lead by having some discussion, and the "Date, composition and authorship" section is the best place for that. What I see right now is "Martin West argues..." and "West's arguments have been highly influential", but no discussion of West's role in the scholarship of the poem. I think that if you beef up the opening of the third paragraph to include a bit of commentary on West and his importance you will have a stronger argument. Or place it in the second paragraph ("Modern scholars have not shared..."), where you mention one scholar. Or simply give him a short paragraph, between the second and the third: if he is important enough to be explicitly cited as the major source for this article, he deserves a couple of sentences that elucidate just why he is so relevant. For your consideration. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I think that the sentence in the lead might have begun life as part of the interminable note b: I wonder if it should make its way back to the apparatus. I also used to have a few pointers at West's influence, but the superlatives from other scholars bothered me. A greater description of West (and his early partnership with Merkelbach) might actually fit well in the final section so that the back and forth of the dating–authorship debate can remain focused on the topic at hand. Cynwolfe, you rightly split it off from the third paragraph. Do you think it should be trimmed and moved to a note? There should be more explicit treatment of West and the Cat. (a relationship that began when the former was 24), but I'm going vacillating on whether to keep the sentence Drmies brings up in the article text.  davidiad { t } 02:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Cutting it from the lead is a possibility as well, and it's probably more in line with other Wikipedia articles. Having said that, I think a section/couple of paragraphs on current scholarship and who the big players are (can't be that big a group) is very useful for the more academically inclined reader. I wouldn't stick that in a note, no. Note b speaks of "edition of record"--the text should make that clear. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm going to think about this over the next few hours. The final section is a bit thoughtless right now, and the revolution in our knowledge of the Catalogue that came during the third quarter of the 20th century is a bit too muted compared to the thrill I get when I look at just what happened from 1956 to 1981. So this will allow for more coverage of West (And Merkelbach) and allow the reader a window into why there's an "edition of record" and why West's name is all over the place (aside from the fact that he's the greatest Hellenist of the latter half of the twentieth century). I need also to think about the lead, though, if the sentence is cut. The last word before the body of the article probably shouldn't be "missteps".  davidiad { t } 17:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Your idolatrous attitude toward West is ironic in the context of an article on a bunch of gods that blatantly contradicts what the good book tells me, and will no doubt be noted on the RfC/U on your POV ("academic"--pshaw). Also, yes, think it over some. I think (but I am an academic bore) that a note on scholarship and (changing) opinions is of great value. If it turns out that your thrill is not just about nostalgia, it may well be that the muted nature of current scholarship is the result of some issues having been settled, at least for now, and scholarship will reflect that. In my opinion, an encyclopedic article is better served by a discussion of scholarship and attitudes than by a "popular culture" section, for instance. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

More

  • Pet peeve: wikilink in quote ("heroic age" in the lead). Is it that necessary? Consider linking it separately, here or elsewhere.
    • Done. Take a look at the links in the translations. I linked mythology and geographical topics that aren't discussed in the body text, but this might be against some Wikilaw.  davidiad { t } 17:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I saw one of them, yes. The Wikilaw in question is the MOS, WP:LINKSTYLE. IMO, it's less obtrusive in a block quote, and LINKSTYLE is not a policy or anything like that. I'll see.
  • Why "Clytemestra"? Is there a convention here I'm unaware of?
    • Because I'm a pedantic dick ... her name was Clytemestra (famous of counsel), not Clytemnestra (famous of marriage), and in the Catalogue text, since it isn't transmitted through the medieval tradition, actually has the n-less form. But unless we make a point of this in the article, piping the link is a bit much. I'll change.  davidiad { t } 18:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Consider rewriting the beginning of the second half--"...than they were in the Iliad: they were fierce...": "they were fierce conjoined twins in the Catalogue, no?
  • "Agenorids and the Gês Períodos": I had to look hard for the Gês Períodos in this section--it comes in the next-to-last sentence of the third paragraph. To warrant inclusion in a subject heading it needs to be given a slightly more prominent position, and the easiest solution, I think, is to make it part of a (stronger) topic sentence for that last paragraph. I mean, these Ges are the travels of Phineus, so it makes sense. This has an additional benefit: it creates a paragraph where the first sentence is not "just" plot; if there's anything right now that gives me pause it's the plottiness of the entire article. Right now, I'd say that it would be helpful if more individual paragraphs were given a slightly larger topic sentence that places its content not just in terms of the plot (which is a predictable way of organizing and does not "argue" its own inclusion) but also in terms of, for instance, later or competing tradition, etc. "ἰσαίωνες", for instance, could be placed in a topic sentence, if it's an important enough matter, by simply shifting a few of those sentences around. Instead of importance buried in plot (pardon my rhetorical emphasis) you might create importance borne out by plot.
    • This is where the article started to get a bit burdensome for me. The two points you bring up are helpful, and if you see others that appear to have an obvious path away from bare, breathless summary, that would be helpful. Two sections that aren't strictly about the poem's content have been on hold until I get a better sense of how to keep the summary of the fragments readerly. (This is one of the reasons that I was psyched about this review ... every time I've opened this page since I moved to Arkansas I've just thrown up my hands and groaned.)  davidiad { t } 18:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually the Ges periodos can't be treated with the detail necessary for it to be given any real prominence in a Wikipedia article. Over the past six years there have been a couple articles on the passage and the ancient ethnographic tradition, but it hasn't risen to the point of being a real discussion.  davidiad { t } 18:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't think you need to add extensive detail. Flipping some sentences around, to have it in a topic sentence rather than in the middle of a paragraph, is already helpful in earning that heading.
        • I've switched the order around here to give the episode it's due importance upon introduction, but the title Ges Periodos as the passage is currently is specifically relevant only to Ephorus' citation and earlier scholarships idea that this referred to another lost Hesiodic work. If the Catalogue and early Greek ethnography becomes more of a cottage, I'll tweak the emphasis then.  davidiad { t } 18:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • " Amphilochus and Alcmaeon, the sons of Amphiaraus, wooed from Argos"--missing word, clause?
    • Nope, just stylistically odd. Will rethink: that paragraph is a bit dashed off.  davidiad { t } 18:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I see it now, yes. But indeed, that whole paragraph is a tad long. There's one whose gift was different from the other Catalogue--that's worth listing, certainly. I'm still thinking about plot. (It's one of the GA criteria.)
        • I've removed two of the minor suitors and restructured the sentence that was a bit of a brier for you. The issue with completely reorganizing this section and trimming further is that the Catalogue of Suitors is a big topic. I could treat it as a dialogue between West, Finkelberg and Heilinger, but this would entail leading with scholarly polemic. If it doesn't seem too offensive to you, I think I'd like to leave it as is and return to it at a later incarnation of the article. I wrote much of the synopsis with an eye toward topical sections to be added later. In this case a section on "The Catalogue and the epic tradition" would allow for two short paragraphs here with a clue toward the significance of the Catalogue of Suitors in the constellation of oral traditions and the Athenian question of our textual transmission.  davidiad { t } 18:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Question. Do any of the above concerns vitiate the ability of the article to pass any of the review categories? If so, that category should be marked "no". (And I must reiterate that I did nothing to develop the article; I made trivial edits and to recognize its excellence.) Cynwolfe (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I take them as just notes ... it's a GA or just bit of thought away from a GA, so the rubric is kind of a formality (though Drmies has actually left blank the assessment points to which these notes would apply), and I kind of need a kick in the ass these days to actually write. Do you have any ideas about Drmies big point above on moving away from plodding plotiness?  davidiad { t } 18:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Cynwolfe, this article is going to pass, but the "well-written" part is a big assignment here since there is so much text. Davidiad, you mentioned a dick and an ass in your comments; please keep your private life out of this. Yes, let's think plot. Hold on--math test. BRB. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "recherche scholar-poets": you are the only Google hit for this phrase. :) Can you explain?
    • They were scholars who were also poets (or the other way around) whose taste was for ostentatiously recondite verse—a nascent species in the fifth and fourth centuries (Ion of Chios, Antimachos of Kolophon), but characteristic of the Hellenistic period. The Reception section needs to be three or four paragraphs without subsections: my rare phrase will go in the process. I want to deal with the content issues in the "plot" summary before doing too much cleanup in the Authorship, etc. and Reception sections, though.  davidiad { t } 21:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You may not be ready for this then, but I'll tell you anyway. There's a few brief remarks in the bibliography and the list of editions that qualify them (like, "takes much recent scholarship into consideration", "faithfully based upon"), and a few in the notes ("none of the scholarship cited in the present article mentions this opinion, and Most might here be confusing this papyrus with the passages found in the Bibliotheca discussed below"). Now, in our business that's fine and I personally don't have a problem with it, though one might charge that this is, strictly speaking, OR and POV. It's best to verify such claims with a note, of course, but maybe that's the kind of thing you want to leave until next time (meaning the FA review, which is inevitable). And now I'm going to look over the whole thing one more time.
    • Yeah, I knew I was being bad when I wrote those notes. I did because those editions were being cited all over WP for false info. But I'll fix. I might actually have an RS for Evelyn-White, but I'm just going to delete the 1908 translation because maybe if I ignore it it will go away. (Not editing now since you are ... and edit conflicts really suck with the sloooow page loads because of all those citation templates.)  davidiad { t } 21:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
      • It would be a pity to lose the assessment of Mair (1908). Paul August 22:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
        • (I assume that that's an objective, and not possessive, genitive.) The rules are the rules, and I understand the spirit of this one. But, since Drmies doesn't find the inclusion of my qualifications enough to keep it from GA, it might stay a while. I'm still trying to deal with more pressing issues, but this week is a bear. I have to ask though, if I find Mair such pest, why do I go so far as to link the blunderer?  davidiad { t } 01:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, and "Rome" is a bit short in comparison with the other section. I think a temporary fix would be to add maybe two more examples, which you can probably rattle off fairly easily.
    • Can you come up with a different title for that section? "Hellenistic period" and "Rome" aren't very parallel. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The periods aren't parallel, but successive points in the reception of the Catalogue. I've tweaked the first paragraph and done away with the subheadings. Two more paragraphs—one on the epinicia and tragedy, the other on the Greek poets of the Imperial Period—could be added, but these would require OR to have enough material to warrant inclusion.  davidiad { t } 22:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Formalities

  1. Well written:
    1. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; --- yes
    2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. --- yes
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; --- yes
    2. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; --- yes
    3. it contains no original research. --- yes
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; --- yes
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). --- yes.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. --- yes
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. -- plenty stable
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; --- yes
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. --- yes

    Individual questions and answers are above.

    • Passed as GA. Congratulations! Drmies (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

    Wrong photo?

    "A Roman-era sculpture possibly representing Hesiod". That statue portrays Seneca (evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seneca.JPG ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.34.245.65 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks for this. It's linked to the article on the sculpture, which is called Pseudo-Seneca because of its great difference from other representations of him. It's been identified as a handful of folks, one of the most common identifications being Hesiod, hence its usage here.  davidiad { t } 00:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

    Chart template

    the update to use the chart templates was a step forward, in my opinion. sure, it may be that source for these is hard to read, but so is the corresponding html. the advantage of using the chart templates is (1) it is far more concise, so less bloat in the wikisource and (2) they can be tracked and updated later to something easier to read if such a method arises, and (3) the currently implementation may use html tables, but this can also be changed down the road if there is a more accessible method in the future, say using list markup or nested div markup. if there is some reason for using html table markup, please discuss here. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

    A'ight, Frietjes, works for me. But in the first generation, "(stones)" cannot be within the box, since that implies that the Leleges were stones and not descended from stones, hence my formatting of that branch, which matches the cited source. If that isn't possible, we should go back to HTML. Also, far less important, is there a way to get rid of those boxes? Thank you,  davidiad { t } 00:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
    Both fixed, though I'm not fond of the spacing or the 1px hiccough at the left hand juncture of multi-member branches.  davidiad { t } 01:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)