Hi Zhongshusheng! I saw that you were assigned/working on De rerum nautra for a UChicago project. I just wanted to let you know that I'm a Wikipedia Visiting Scholars in the Classics, and I've been working on that article for a few months now as part of that program. As such, I'd love to help you improve the article (many hands make light work); are there any sources or books that you might be needing? I could perhaps point you in a few directions. Just let me know.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 14:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thanks a lot for reaching out to me. It would be great if you could offer me some sources to look at and give me some directions on how to better edit this article. Look forward to work with you to improve the article on "De rerum natura". --Zhongshusheng (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure thing! Do you know what aspect(s) of the article you are wanting to work on? If it's the whole thing, I have some good general sources, but if it's just certain sections, I might have to do a little more digging. I'm thinking that since you'll (probably) be working more on the skepticism/synopsis side of things, I'll stick mostly to working on the textual history aspects of the poem. There's a good book (The Early Textual History of Lucretius' De rerum natura) that I'll use for that. Either way, just let me know if I can help and/or suggest anything.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 14:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I have written a short introduction about what I would like to develop about the article and some of the sources I found in my sandbox. I was wondering if you could offer me some suggestions on these references and the topics I have chosen. Also, it would be great if you could provide me with more sources about this wikipedia page, either it be general or specific. --Zhongshusheng (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, Philip de May's Lucretius: Poet and Epicurean is a really solid book to use, and would be ideal for this project (I see that you've already listed it). It translates the poem and then provides nice, rather simple notes on each section. I like that it's sophisticated but also easy to navigate and read (unlike a lot of the other Latin-y monographs out there). When you start to add to the article itself, I can also help out a bit. I won't back-seat edit or anything that might be annoying, but I can do minor things like "wiki-fy" citation templates, copy-edit, etc. I can also offer advice or suggestions. Like I said, I'll probably focus most of my attention on the " Manuscript history and rediscovery" and "Reponses" sections (although feel free to jump in there, too, if you've got any good info).--Gen. Quon(Talk) 17:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
