Wikipedia:Peer review/Astronomica (Manilius)/archive1

Astronomica (Manilius)

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it improve in quality. The Astronomica is a criminally under-rated piece of Latin literature, written by a relative unknown by the name of Marcus Manilius. Given its fascinating subject matter and its quality, I'd love to see more attention given to it, and as a result, I would love for its Wikipedia page to be one of the site's best. I've tried to improve the page as much as possible over the past few weeks, but I would really appreciate third-party opinions.

Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• Lead
  • "With that being said" – woolly. If you're insisting on an absolute construction the "With" is otiose, and in my view you'd be better off without the whole phrase.
  • "by Italian humanist Poggio Bracciolini" – clunking false title. OK for tabloid papers, but not for an enyclopaedia article, I think.
  • "never reached the level of popularity as other Classical Latin epics" – there seems to be a word missing here: "same" before "level"
  • "Modern scholarship, however, has taken..." – there are 11 howevers in this article. All but the tenth strike me as unnecessary. Howevers have a maddening way of sneaking into one's prose and gumming it up, and a page full of them makes a wearying read.
• Authorship and date
  • "Indeed, such confusion" – the WP:EDITORIAL "indeed" would be better gone.
  • Rome – WP:OVERLINK – we don't link major cities.
  • "resembles that of other African authors.[6][2]" – citations should be in numerical order
  • "pointing out that Manilius" – not neutral: "pointing out" implies that what is asserted is a fact. Something like "contending that" or "suggesting that" would be safer.
  • "although Chris Brennan notes" – likewise.
• Contents
  • "Book four—which Goold suggests that Manilius was using an Egyptian source for parts of this book, due to many of the topics discussed originating from Egypt." – I had to read this several times, and I don't think the syntax works. Something like "Book four—many of the topics in which originated from Egypt, leading Goold to suggest an Egyptian source" might be clearer and grammatically sound.
  • "deletrious" – probably should be "deleterious". (I think Deletrious is one the lovers in A Midsummer Night's Dream).
• Style
  • "the Harvard University Press notes" – as with Chris Brennan, above: we need a verb that doesn't imply our endorsement of the assertion.
  • "(albeit metrically correct[2])" – rather oddly, in my view, the Manual of Style bids us put the citation after the closing bracket: (albeit metrically correct)[2].
  • "can be chalked up" – to an English eye, at any rate, "chalked up" looks a touch slangy for an encylopaedia article. Something like "attributed" or "put down" would be less jarring.
  • "principle purpose" – did Pingree really write "principle purpose" rather than "principal purpose"?
• Completeness of work
  • Two more "notes" in this paragraph: not objectionable in themselves, I'd say, given the content, but you might consider finding another word for one of them, for variety.
• Influences
  • "the famed epic poem De rerum natura" – not sure we need the rather WP:PEACOCK "famed".
  • "however evidence for this hypothesis is scarce and thus remains a mostly speculative—albeit attractive—postulation" – there is a word missing here: without an "it" before or after "thus" it is the evidence and not the hypothesis that is the postulation. Whether it is desirable to add the editorialising "albeit attractive" I rather doubt.
  • The "indeed" and "furthermore" in this para could beneficially go.
  • Active and passive – I suppose everyone likely to read this article will know about active voice and passive voice, but nonetheless adding a blue link to each would be the done thing.
• Textual history
  • "courtesy of a scribe" – rather an unexpected phrase. Are you implying some gratuitous emendation? If not, perhaps simply "made by a scribe" might be safer.
  • "AD 1416–1417" – the Manual of Style prescribes the form "AD 1416–17" for such date ranges.
  • "A.E. Housman" – but he was "A. E. Housman", with a space between his initials, earlier. And he doesn't need linking twice.
• Reception
  • "What is more" – another outbreak of WP:EDITORIAL that really ought to go.
  • "made it into the Medieval period" – another slightly too informal wording, I'd say. Perhaps just "survived"?
  • "Italian humanist Lorenzo Bonincontri" – another false title that could be cured by a definite article in front of it.
  • "it never quite reached the level of interest as other Classical Latin epics" – as in the lead, this needs tweaking grammatically. (As a purely personal preference, I try to avoid repeating word-for-word in the text what I have put in the lead, preferring to paraphrase it for the sake of variety. There is nothing in the MoS to support my view, and feel free to ignore it.) The Yet and indeed at the start of the para could advantageously be dispensed with.
  • "starting to take a more interested look in Manilius..." – seems a rather roundabout way of saying "starting to take more interest in Manilius..."

I enjoyed this article very much, though I think I'll stick to reading Housman's poems rather than venture on Manilius's. The article looks to me to be well worth putting up as a featured article candidate, and if you do so, please ping me and I'll happily look in at the review page. Tim riley talk 08:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thank you for looking over this (here are my changes), and you did a wonderful job finding and pointing out my screws-ups! I really appreciate this, and if/when I take this to FAN (I hope to!) I will let you know.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Caeciliusinhorto

• "Despite this initial dearth of interest, modern scholarship has taken a renewed interest in the poem." The word "interest" is used twice in this sentence. Can it be re-written to avoid this? Unfortunately, I can't think of an obviously improved wording for the moment, but I'm sure there is one.
• "Manilius's Astronomica is notable because the first extant work on astrology that is extensive, coherent, and for the most part intact.": you can lose "notable because" here without any loss of meaning: it's just puffery. (N.B. if you want to keep it, you're missing "it is" from the sentence).
• "As to why, Green contends that 'the digression is very well chosen...'": I'd cut "As to why, ", so that the sentence begins "Green contends..."
• "the Astronomica has also been noted for its peculiar (albeit metrically correct) style of writing": might be worth discussing what the metre is. The lead tells us that the poem is epic, so I presume that we're talking hexameters here, but articles should generally be accessible to a non-specialist audience who don't know a) what a hexameter is or b) that it's an epic metre.
• "What is more peculiar, is that Manilius, throughout his work, repeatedly announces that he will examine and discuss the zodiacal nature of the planets; such a treatment is not to be found": this can surely be written more straightforwardly. For e.g. "More peculiarly, despite Manilius's repeated claims that the poem will discuss the zodiacal nature of the planets, no such treatment is found in the Astronomica"
• And on that point, is there a source saying that this omission is more peculiar than the omissions that Housman discusses? While it seems more peculiar to me, it also reads like the Dread Pirate RobertsOriginal Research.
• "contra to Lucretius": "contra" is a preposition; either "contra Lucretius" or "in contrast to Lucretius" but "contra to Lucretius" is ungrammatical.
• "The work is famous—some might say notorious—for its bold handling of the text, its incisive commentary, and its merciless [...] invective against other scholars." No comment here; I just love Housman's intolerance of other classicists.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Here are the changes that I have made. Thank you so much for looking over this!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Quick comment by Johnbod

I won't add to these two sets of comments from experienced reviewers, but it looks close to FA-quality to me. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm prepping for that!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)