Talk:Saturnalia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs)

I'll take on this interesting article. 18:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead: see comments. layout: see comments. weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See comments.
	7. Overall assessment.	Timed out, alas. See below.

Comments

Sources

One immediate comment: there should be a list of sources, rather than having "Versnel, Saturnus and the Saturnalia" both defined in and scattered among the references. It would be far tidier to place the full citation in a list of Sources and then simply say "Versnel, p. 123" as necessary. Other references that need the same treatment include Beard's Religions of Rome. I think there are others. More later. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if it wouldn't also be helpful to the reader to make a list of the classical sources, preferably with links to translations (on Archive.com etc). Should be simple to do.

Other ancient interpretations:

If perceived relations among Mithraic mysteries, 25 Dec and Christian nativity are long debated, the matter needs urgently to be properly cited, and at least a paragraph (maybe a section) needs to be devoted to summarizing the main theories in that debate, i.e. what do different scholars believe are the likely relationships between these 3 things, and briefly what evidence do they have for their views?

Influence on Christmas:

if there are many mediaeval and modern customs deriving from the Saturnalia, you must give examples of each (and I think their approximate dates) to show the general nature of that influence. Of all the sections in the article, this one seems most clearly to be "lightweight", giving the feeling that major aspects have not been covered adequately. For example, why do you name just these scholars? Are they opposed - are there scholars who think the opposite, and if so, what evidence is there for the various opinions?

Phrygian cap:

is mentioned only in the lead image caption. Please discuss this in the text, with references.

The sacrifice was officiated by a priest. What sacrifice? You haven't even said there was a sacrifice up to this point, let alone what it was or why it was offered.

Greek rite: why? Did this consist of nothing more than having the head uncovered? The Glossary of ancient Roman religion says there's more to it than that.

Links

Why are Livy, Macrobius and Suetonius linked in the refs, but not Catullus, Virgil, Statius or Horace? And please spell Vergil as Virgil.

Better wikilink Martial (the writer).

Provide a main link to Sigillaria at head of that section.

best-known of several festivals ... role reversals: can we have a further link to an account or list of the relevant Roman festivals? There may be sections in that or other articles worth linking to here.

Layout

"Saturnalia as a whole is not described from beginning to end in any single ancient source." The comment could describe the article, which lacks unity. The material in each section looks not unreasonable at first glance, but standing back and looking at the list of sections as a whole, the effect is confusing and disconcerting.

For example, why is 'Historical context' in the middle of the article? Why does it have just one subsection?

Why is a section obscurely entitled 'Munera' (a term that isn't even bluelinked)? Why does that section take Frazer's Golden Bough as an authority? It's certainly a doubtful source of opinion: the article rightly says "Frazer surmises..." but fails to follow this up with a rebuttal of any kind. For that matter, why should we rely on the Acts of Saint Dasius, and why is this minor event given such weight in the article? Perhaps it's undue, or worse, original research. Certainly it isn't clear from the text how far scholars today believe the interpretation.

Why does the 'Influence on Christmas' section say nothing about what that influence was, save perhaps the giving of gifts?

In short, it all looks a bit random. The article needs a simple, logical structure. I wouldn't want to impose my personal view of what that should be, but it might have a 'Historical context' section first, followed by a description of the 'Festivities', public and private, followed by a discussion of the disputed 'Interpretations' or 'Viewpoints', with a subsection for each alternative view. Finally it should have a section on the Saturnalia's 'Influence', which may well include other festivals as well as Christmas (the lead mentions New Year, for instance), and one might wonder if the Celtic midwinter festival was related, too. I am not sure whether a major rewrite is required - some material may need reshaping - but a reorganisation of the material is definitely necessary.

Lead

Why is the Catullus quote placed in the lead?

Why is the Greek Kronia mentioned and cited in the lead, but not in the body, and why is it then repeated in the See also list?

Why is Sol Invictus mainly mentioned and cited in the lead?

The lead needs to summarize the body, mentioning and summarizing each of the major sections. Probably this will need to be done after the restructuring required for the 'Layout' comments so as to reflect the new and hopefully more satisfactory structure for the article.

Images

Caption for Temple of Saturn: please say this is in Rome, and give its date.

Caption for Calendar of Philocalus: give source and date.

Ave Caesar! Io, Saturnalia!: please rewrite the caption to explain why this image is relevant, and preferably refer to it in the text. At the moment, barring the name of the painting, it's quite obscure. What is the painting really about? The still more obscure explanation in the reference is not sufficient.

Saturn driving a chariot: please rewrite the caption to explain why this image is relevant, and refer to the image or elements of it in the text.

---

I'm sorry to have to close this GA but with no response from nom (and no editing for a while) there seems no hope of getting this done, and the normal time-out period has now elapsed. If anyone (including the original nominator) would like to resume this review to take the article through to GA, then please relist it under GAN and ping me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)