Talk:Historia Divae Monacellae/GA1

GA Review

Passed. —Kusma (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: Sawyer777 (talk · contribs) 23:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 15:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this, probably by the end of the week. —Kusma (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content and prose review

I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned. Feel free to push back if you think I am asking too much, and please tell me when I am wrong.

Lead: will comment later on content
Synopsis: "princess of an Irish kingdom called Iowchel and had lived there alone" in this sentence, "there" seems to connect to Iowchel, not to Powys.
What does "established virgins in the area" mean?
Textual history: why does 604 indicate familiarity with Bede?
"Considering that the author used local sources, the Historia was probably written in Pennant Melangell or somewhere in its vicinity" this was already mentioned earlier; I don't quite see a good reason to repeat it here
Thematic analysis: Link Mary Magdalene. Are the comparisons between MM and Melangell only in specific Welsh legends of MM?

good catch, clarified
it means established either an organized convent (living communally) or several virgin hermits (living in solitude); the text is unclear. i've changed it to "female monastics" - hopefully that's a bit clearer.
clarified
combined with the beginning of the preceding paragraph
done (not sure how i'd forgotten to link MM) and yes, Cartwright is only comparing with specifically Welsh folklore about MM.

... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecks

Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1234016577.

3: ok. It is a rather excellent source also for some of my broadness questions, "the Historia has been in print since 1848" on p. 24 and Thomas Pennant (someone I came across when I rewrote Anna Blackburne) possibly using it to inform his own writing on p. 35
4: ok
8: could not access. You do not need to add "offline" explicitly; it is assumed when you do not give a link.
9: ok
16: could not access. what do you mean by "page number not provided"? Can you describe where it is in the text? (using {{sfn}} with |loc= instead of |p=, for example)?
17: ok
19: ~~are you sure about the page numbers? Looks more like Melangell is discussed on p. 8. Not sure about the moral lesson.~~ ok
21: ok

No major issues (one page number), so I will assume the offline content is fine as well. —Kusma (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i will add the bits you suggest from Pryce 1994
neither of the offline sources are digitized at all, which is why i thought to add "offline" as that's a very unusual circumstance, but i've removed it for concision.
i got access to the two offline sources by emailing the Wikimedian in residence at the NLW - for ref 16, the picture he provided did not have a visible page number and i do not know where it is in the text. that's the best i've got unfortunately - if you've got a suggestion on how to cite it more nicely, i'm open.
for Cartwright 2002 the part i'm specifically citing is page 7, although she does discuss Melangell on pages 6 and 8 as well.

... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I looked at the same page number in Cartwright 2013. For the missing page number, not a problem, but I would probably drop the "page number not provided" as a bit confusing and just use a hidden comment in the wikitext. But your call. —Kusma (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments and GA criteria

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I am a bit concerned about "broadness". The entire article is about the Latin text of the hagiography and its manuscript copies, but there is nothing at all about translations into Welsh or English and even whether the Latin text was ever reprinted. (Typically, I would expect hagiographies to be republished many times in various collections of such stories).
We also hear nothing about influence and legacy of the story. That would be fine if it was never widely distributed, but I have a hard time believing that.
It would be good to have a little bit of background/context on what is generally agreed knowledge about Melangell and her veneration.
Why is the image PD? Willy Pogany died in 1955, so 70 years post mortem auctoris gets us to PD on 1 January 2026?

More soon, but it might be next week until I finish, sorry! (Busy at work, travelling over the weekend). —Kusma (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'm quite certain i've completely exhausted the sources for this topic - it has been, to my knowledge, translated only a few times and there is scarce secondary information about translations. i'll look and see if i can find anything to add, but i can't promise anything.
it was indeed never very widely-distributed as far as i know; it seems to have only been of interest to antiquarians after the Reformation, when Melangell's cult was suppressed.
i can add that.
crap, i think you're right ~~(although wouldn't it be 2025?)~~. i uploaded that before i was super familiar with copyright (still not my strong suit), and was just very excited to have finally found an image to use at Melangell. i'll take it off both articles and re-add it once it's definitely in the clear.

... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti commented on my talk page about the image issue - see here User talk:Sawyer777/Archive 1#Public domain ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... looking through c:Commons:Hirtle chart, the image might indeed actually be PD in the US even if it is not PD in the UK. Which means it is not acceptable on Commons, but could be fine to use here. Copyright rules are weird. —Kusma (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

strange... i'll ask around about what i should do with this. anyhow, i think the issue for this GAN has been solved, no? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources fine, no issues with OR or copyvio.
Lead section is a little bit on the short side, perhaps try to expand a little more.

Done with my first pass. Not far from GA, nice work. —Kusma (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you had the image deleted from Commons. I guess it is OK to reupload to enwiki as PD in the US only. Other than that, I think all that is needed is a slight expansion along the lines mentioned above and in the sources section. That Melangell's cult was suppressed after the Reformation is also useful context that might be worth mentioning. (Turns out I am not travelling after all, not by choice). —Kusma (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sounds good. i'll try to get that done today! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
got a little bit sidetracked by yesterday's news, but i've added the detail about the 1848 printing, and a little about Thomas Pennant/local folklore. i plan on expanding Melangell further, and a lot of the info about folklore and her cult will be better suited to that article. i've also added a sentence about the suppression of her cult, and expanded the lead somewhat. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that works. I understand why you don't want too much repetition between the articles (it is the natural point of view when you consider the articles together), but here at GA I tend to look at things from the point of view of making the article under review stand on its own as much as it can. Anyway, I will promote this now, well done! —Kusma (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.