Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Catalogue of Women/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 April 2019 [1].

Catalogue of Women

Nominator(s): davidiad { t } 04:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fragmentary Greek epic poem that was politically and socially important during its time of circulation, and which had a lasting influence upon later Greek, Roman and Byzantine literature. davidiad { t } 04:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only a passing one at the moment, though I'll look in more thoroughly shortly if I can. A swift skim through for spelling brings up a few queries:

"descendent/s" is used throughout where I would expect the noun "descendant/s".
"enamoured" (passim) looks like English spelling in an article that is otherwise in American spelling, but perhaps this is acceptable to Webster etc.
"catalogue" looks rather the same, but is perhaps optional in American spelling.
"centered around" Some reviewers (not including me) get very hot under the collar about this construction, insisting that things centre on rather than round. I just mention it, but ignore ad lib.
"impius" should surely be "impious"?

More later, I hope, time permitting. Tim riley talk 17:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you very much, Tim: descendants, enamoured and impius (thanks ImmortalWizard are corrected. Catalogue is less common in American English, but since Oxford scholars dominated scholarship on this work, I've kept their spelling for the title and for the word. davidiad { t } 07:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Catalogue" for the title is certainly correct. And using either "catalog" or catalogue" for the common noun would be ok I think. Paul August ☎ 13:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now supporting. I suppose I should with duly straight face object to the WP:EDIT adverb in "Zeus unsurprisingly had first pick from the catalogue of women", but it's far too pleasing a sentence to be tampered with. The family tree is impressive; the prose is very readable; the content is clearly expounded without excessive detail; the article is thoroughly and widely referenced; there are judiciously chosen images throughout. I'm a hopelessly bad classicist, but the article, me judice, meets the FA criteria in all regards. – Tim riley talk 23:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi Davidiad, there are 13 citation error messages in "Editions and translations", all "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation." I've noticed this before with {{Citation}}. If you read through the template documentation, there must be a way to fix it, or you could use {{Cite book}} or {{Cite journal}}. There are seven error messages in the "References" section, and a lot in Bibliography. If you add importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js, you'll see them. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you SlimVirgin. I can correct the missing ref links from the references to the bibliography, but I'm not sure what to do about the "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation" in Editions and translations and in the Bibliography. Should I have used a different template for these sections? Editions and translations is a reference section of major editions of the work, so there would only be a reference to a work if needed in the body. Bibliography is kind of the same: it's a bibliography, not a list of references. I'll research the different markups for these. davidiad { t } 07:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Davidiad, I've noticed this problem before with {{Citation}}; it acts as if one had entered ref=harv. The template documentation almost certainly explains how to fix it. Or you can use {{Cite book}} and {{Cite journal}}, which don't have that problem. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I made one edit to show you what I mean. Feel free to revert if it's not what you want. The citations are missing the publisher. I added one but you'll need to add the rest. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

P.Oxy._XI_1359_fr._2.jpg: no need for the double tagging, the latter would suffice. Same with File:P.Lit.Lond._32.jpg, File:P.Oxy._XI_1358_fr._2.jpg, File:P.Berol._inv._9739_col._iv-v.jpg

File:Roubaix_Louis_Billotey.JPG: copyright tag is incorrect, reproduction of a 2D work garners no new copyright and copyright details for the original work are absent

File:Bauer_-_Erysichthon_Mnestra.jpg needs a US PD tag

File:Seneca.JPG needs a tag for the original work

File:Daniel_Heinsius_-_Imagines_philologorum.jpg is tagged as lacking author information and needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Nikkimaria, I'm a novice at image tagging. I'll research and address. davidiad { t } 07:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack

Certainly a great work, and very interesting, I learned quite a bit from it. It is highly complex though, as all those names need to be mentioned, but I think there is not much one can do about it. Still, I think the article needs just some more polishing, see comments below:

Some statements appear to miss a source:

This view was disproved conclusively in 1911 with the publication of an extensive papyrus fragment (pictured) of the episode which derived from the same bookroll that contained the myth of Europa described above.
(frr. 10a.83–98, 10d OCT, 15) – I don't quite understand which source I need to look at here. It can't just be the original of the Catalogue, as this citation seems to cover interpretation also.

not the eponym of the Magnetes – I do not understand, what is Magnetes?
Aeolus' extended family, via both sons and daughters, is notable for a concentration of fantastical narratives and folk elements of a sort largely absent from the Homeric poems – Hm, you are comparing a family with an author? Does this mean that these narratives appear in the Catalogue? Is this refering to the section on Aeolus' family in the book?
The sons who were certainly found in the Catalogue are Cretheus, Athamas, Sisyphus, Salmoneus, Deion (or Deioneus) and Perieres. A seventh son's name is obscured in lacuna – That means the other sons names are mentioned in the surviving fragments? Uf so, why say "certainty"?
Suggest to briefly names of central importance in a few words, such as Aeolus. Would make the article more accessible.
the name used in the poem for the woman later and more famously known as Iphigenia. – took me time to understand, its a bit convoluted. Maybe simplyfy by removing "later and"?
for Mestra does not bear children to Glaucus. – I know it is mentioned at the beginning of the article, but I think it would not hurt to repeat who Glaucus is and why he is important here.
Atalanta was transformed into lion – "a" lion?
Zeus changed all of Aegina's ants – I would explain why she has ants in the first place.
described by West – introduce him at first mention? Also, all quotes should be attributed to the respective authors; this is only partly the case.
Pindar, Pythian 9 tells – what is this, could you add explanation and/or a link?
another papyrus containing 21 hexameters related to the Actaeon myth was published by Edgar Lobel – maybe give a date here?
well after period to which Hesiod has been assigned – "the" period?
Martin West – was previously introduced, but not with first name. Should be with first name at first mention.
where are the papyri from, how got they preserved? From Alexsndria? That's important considering possible alterations
Pseudo-Apollodoran Bibliotheca, an early Roman-era handbook of Greek mythology – this work is introduced too late. Should be explained at first mention.
of Heinsius (1603) and Graevius (1667). – not standard to link these as references, and even inconsistent within the article. I would suggest to unlink and simply add the regular citation behind (e.g., Heinsius (1603)[23] and Graevius (1667)[45]). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Unfortunately this seems to have withered on the vine since there is no nominator response and they have not edited in well over a month. @Davidiad: This may be renominated after the customary two-week waiting period if you have further interest. I'd expect Jens Lallensack's comments to be addressed as part of that process. --Laser brain (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.