Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2024

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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 November 2024 [1].

Feather (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 07:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Carpenter, who thankfully does not need much of an introduction in 2024, found her first taste of success with the song "Feather" before, um, swiftly rising to superstardom the following year. The song's music video was a classic display of her twisted humor and got a priest in a world of trouble... I probably still have the Meghan Trainor demo of her debut single on an old laptop somewhere. What a great song it was but such a far cry from her raunchy music now. Also, her new album cover bears an eery resemblance to the Title cover. Would be pretty cool if Ms. Carpenter can gain her first FA within her breakout year. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 07:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco 1492

[edit]
  • believed it was easy to listen to - That's... nondescript. Is there perhaps a more meaty means of summarizing critical views?
  • Critical reviews generally hovered around calling it light, feathery, digestible, breezy, and airy so this seemed like the best way of capturing that. Open to suggestions.
  • number 21 on ... first number one - Inconsistency in spelling of numbers ("Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32.", per MOS:NUMNOTES)
  • Mia Barnes - worth a redlink?
  • She does not seem to be notable based on a search.
  • I kept the name out since she isn't really a public figure and is non-notable.
  • "Feather" is a pop,[20] dance,[21] dance-pop,[2] disco,[22] and neo-disco song,[3] - Given how subjective genres can be, I think it may be worth something like "'Feather' has been identified as
  • which lasts for three minutes and five seconds - Is this the sped-up version, or the original version? Or are both 3:05?
  • It's the original version. Since the sped-up version didn't really gain notability, I think its duration would be excess detail.
  • Reminiscing their memories together - I believe "reminiscing" is generally followed by about when used as a verb
  • send him pictures - "send him pictures" could be pictures of the dog, food, whatever, which would not necessarily be "stereotypical". If the source supports what this sentence seems to be implying ("nudes"), it should be made explicit.
  • "You fit every stereotype, 'Send a pic'" is the lyric so it being nudes isn't stated but the behavior being stereotypical is.
  • It's cited to American Songwriter, where the lyric appears. I haven't encountered any sources inferring a nude is being discussed, unfortunately.--NØ 21:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With 37 weeks, it is her longest-charting track on the ranking - Two things... "with 37 weeks" is unclear (you seem to mean "Spending 37 weeks in the Billboard Hot 100"). Second, this information could end up dated and as such should use {{as of}}.
  • Is there a guideline stating the use of the as of template is necessary? I would prefer to just remove the statement when it is no longer true.
  • her achievements in 2024 - Being...? As someone unfamiliar with Carpenter, this only raises questions.
  • This falls out of scope of the article but I have incorporated it as a note since it is a valid question, really.
  • sharing a clip of it on Instagram - I'd nix "of it"
  • before getting ran over by a truck. - "run"; this is the present perfect tense, which requires V3 ("run", see Collins)
  • I'd link Knee highs
  • gruesomely is a value judgment, and thus should be attributed or removed (per WP:WIKIVOICE, point 1)
  • She pulls his tie while exiting it and puts it between the elevator shaft, decapitating him in the process - pulls ... pulls
  • I didn't understand.
  • Tulle - Probably should be linked to Tulle (netting)
  • afront - Ironically, per Merriam-Webster this means "next to" ("abreast"). You probably mean "in front of"
  • Others also likened the visuals to Jennifer's Body, - We already had Jennifer's Body mentioned immediately before this... is it really necessary to repeat?
  • I think it is necessary so we are representing all three of the critics that had this opinion. It is to give additional weightage compared to the movies that only received comparisons by two critics.
  • character "the Girlfriend Reaper and compared it to the Grim Reaper. - Missing a closing quote, and this could be handled a bit more gracefully to avoid repeating "reaper" (for example, "the Girlfriend Reaper")
  • the Emails I Can't Send Tour and the Eras Tour - Another repetition of "tour"
  • She opened her KIIS-FM Jingle Ball set with the song in December 2023, clad in a red mini-dress and gloves on one date and a white corset top, shorts, and gloves on another. - Probably worth mentioning explicitly that this was a two-day event (in which case "sets" probably works best)
  • I'm seeing a lot of focus on Carpenter's outfits during these performances. How relevant are they to the topic?
  • I generally let the sources decide this. If reliable, secondary sources cover outfits I usually give them some air time in the article. In this case, the dress being decorated with feathers seems relevant to the song topic and the Jingle Bell outfits seem to be Christmas color-themed and relevant to the event.
  • Not a formal source review, but I'm seeing some references are not in order (see, for example, [62][60][63] and [65][63])

Overall, this is fairly easy to digest.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Chris! I hope the changes are satisfactory.--NØ 18:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • ""Feather" is song" => ""Feather" is a song"
  • This drove me crazy so I tracked it back and apparently it has been in the article since April... Crazy how I just kept skipping over the first sentence assuming it must be correct.
  • "Island Records released its sped-up version for digital download and streaming on August 4, 2023." - is this the only version that was released?
  • The digital download and streaming release on that date was indeed just the sped-up version.
  • I added that the original version was later promoted to airplay, if that helps? I know it's a bit odd but the sped-up version's release did begin the promotion of this song as a single so it seems to be the appropriate one for the lead.--NØ 18:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "became Carpenter's first one to reach the top 40" => "became Carpenter's first song to reach the top 40"
  • "puts it between the elevator shaft" - I don't think you can put something "between" a singular object
  • "which People's Jack Irvin believed was upraised" - what does "upraised" mean? Never seen this word before......
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

This time I'll let File:Feather screenshot.png pass, even though it illustrates a subtopic, because this subtopic is apparently more relevant than usual to the article topic. Otherwise, it seems like image use, rationale and placement are OK. ALT text is OK. Sources seem to be mainstream and I guess adequate and consistently formatted. What is rollingstoneindia.com, is it affiliated with Rolling Stone? What makes The Fader a high-quality reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, according to Reuters, Rolling Stone India is the Indian version of the Rolling Stone magazine, which is considered a prestigious source for musical commentary. The Fader is considered a reliable source according to WP:RSMUSIC and the author, Raphael Helfand, has contributed to the publication Pitchfork. Although I have removed it since the cited information appears in the other sources. Agreed with you about the music video screenshot. Do the reviews pass now, Jo-Jo Eumerus? Best, NØ 11:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, yes, although I must state a caveat that this isn't a topic where I know the sources well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ippantekina

[edit]

MaranoFan, how could you write good-quality articles about both Sabrina and Olivia? I thought the had a feud or something! Anyways, gonna leave some comments very soon. My review is prose-focused btw. I haven't listened to this song yet, but "Espresso" is a catchy (albeit a little annoying) one. Ippantekina (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ippantekina, doing my seven-day reminder a day early. I've heard Halloween is a good time to enjoy the music video, so you might be interested in finally checking out the song :) Although, the performances are a good option too. Have you ever tried this one?--NØ 04:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a smooth read. Some issues that I see:

  • Do we have an exact release date for the radio release? If not I think the Hits source can provide a range (at least month).
  • "Critics have identified" kind of nitpick-y but why not the present tense/simple past tense but the present perfect tense?
  • "I feel so much lighter like a feather with you off my mind". the period should be inside the quotation marks per MOS:LQ - make sure other parts of the article also adhere to this
  • shouldn't there be a comma before this part: "according to Rolling Stone India's Amit Vaidya"?
  • "Carpenter employs a delicate vocal style on the song" hmm, I think something like "Carpenter's vocals are delicate on the song" could read better
  • I wouldn't include hyperlinks in quotes per MOS:LWQ (e.g. "a neo-disco bop", "a masterclass in 2020s pop music")
  • Looking at MOS:LWQ, it seems to discourage their use if there is a chance they do not convey the author's intended meaning. The links in this case are straightforward, in my opinion. The 2020s in music article, in particular, has a dedicated paragraph about Carpenter which is useful.--NØ 06:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of critical reviews is surprisingly little.. have we got more retrospective reviews/rankings of Carpenter's songs etc.?
  • Medium.com is the only other source that has featured "Feather" on a ranking of Carpenter's discography, but that is a blog-hosting service.--NØ 06:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MaranoFan: Thanks for addressing my comments. I'm leaning support -- although I still think the pipe to "2020s pop music" is quite unhelpful... ("bop" might be though). For the Hits source, I would write something like, "The trade magazine Hits reported that "Feather" was sent to US radio by November 2023." Ippantekina (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • For this part in the lead, (and its original version was later promoted to radio stations by Republic Records), I would clarify what is meant by later as that is rather unclear at least to me.
  • I have a comment for this part from the lead, (issued a statement that he was "appalled" by the church scenes). I am not sure that the quote is necessary. I believe that this could be paraphrased without losing anything. Some suggestions are "a statement against the church scenes" or "a statement criticizing the church scenes", but go with what you think is best.
  • I have a nitpick for this part, (Emails I Can't Send Fwd:, which she did not view as a follow-up to the original album but "just a few songs that belong in the Emails world" to thank her fans). I believe that the semicolon should be a comma as the part after that is not an independent sentence and is instead a dependent clause.
  • Do we have a more specific date or time frame for this sentence: (Republic Records eventually promoted the song to radio in the United States.). Eventually is rather vague.
  • The best information available regarding this is that the song hit the top 10 in early November 2023, so I have now included that this happened later within the same year.--NØ 02:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the first sentence of the "Composition" section, I would clarify who is describing the song in this way. I am imagining that this is referencing critics so I would go with something like "Critics have identified 'Feather' as ... ". With that change, it would also avoid having two paragraphs in a row starting with the song title.
  • I am uncertain about this sentence: (The original version lasts for three minutes and five seconds.) I believe that you are specifying "the original version" to clarify that this is not referencing either the sped-up version or some other version, but it does read a bit unnecessary to clarify a certain version is a certain length if the lengths of the other versions are not mentioned here as well.
  • I would suggest that pre-chorus is linked to help people who may be unfamiliar with this type of music jargon.
  • Apologies again as I believe that this has been discussed above. I am unclear on on what the "send him pictures" line means in this part, (ask her to do stereotypical things like send him pictures). Send pictures of what? How is that stereotypical? I looked at the citations for the sentence, and I could only see this lyric in the American Songwriter source, but it does not really discuss it separately and it is instead quoted in a longer set of lyrics from the song. I am uncertain on how useful this part is if it cannot be clarified further.
  • It appears that Carpenter has performed this song while dressed up as Sandy from Grease for the Halloween performance of her tour. It is only covered in Cosmopolitan from what I can see so it may not be notable enough to include in the article, but I still wanted to raise this to your attention regardless.
  • I hope a slightly better reputed source will pick the story up in a few days, which is possible given the recency. While Cosmo would situationally be a reliable source for fashion matters, I do question if just them covering it justifies due weightage of its inclusion.--NØ 02:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your assessment. I am uncertain if this performance will get any additional coverage, or any real coverage in more music-based sources, as it is just one stop on a larger tour and it is a performance of an older song, as opposed to her new singles. As I said in my comment, I did not find much on it, but again, just wanted to bring it to your attention as it is rather recent. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work as always. I hope that these comments are helpful. They are most justly minor nitpicks, but let me know if there is anything that needs further clarification. I hope you are having a great weekend so far, and best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for the review! NØ 02:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: May I initiate another nomination?--NØ 04:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 November 2024 [2].

1 Wall Street

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about yet another building on Wall Street in New York City. This time, it's an office skyscraper that was built in 1929–1931 as a bank headquarters before being converted to residential use. The building has some notable architectural features including a curtain-like limestone facade, a polygonal red room with glittering mosaic tiles, and (originally) an executive lounge with a triple-height ceiling. Even the site, at the foot of Wall Street, was once deemed one of the most valuable sites worldwide. The structure may not be the tallest building in the area, or even on the street, but in my view at least, it's one of New York City's lesser-known Art Deco masterpieces.

This page became a Good Article four years ago after a GAN review by SurenGrig07 and Hog Farm, for which I am very grateful. After some more recent copyedits, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC prose

[edit]

12 days and no visitors?? I'll start the ball rolling shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done to the start of History. More to come. Overall, an enjoyable read, with not much for me to pick up on. - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

  • I fixed this yesterday when I was addressing your first point.
Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bank of New York": as you refer to BNY shortly afterwards, this should be "Bank of New York (BNY)"
  • "BNY Mellon opened a museum on the 10th floor in 1998": I though the BNY/Mellon merger and renaming was in 2006 or 07? I'd be inclined to keep the name as "BNY" for all references pre-merge, then move to "BNY Mellon" post merge (with a passing reference to the name change)
  • "Additionally, in 2007,": I don't think the "additionally" adds anything here – it makes it look like a forgotten add-on.

That's my lot. A long, but interesting read that I enjoyed going through. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review @SC. I've addressed the rest of your issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass

[edit]

I'll pick up on this too. - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check the capitalisation on the titles – there are some lower case in there that need to be capitalised (FNs 12, 63 are the ones in the first column that caught my eye, but these are examples only and there are probably more)
  • Ditto there are some caps that should be lower case (FNs 8, 34,43, 97 are the ones in the first column that caught my eye, but these are examples only and there are probably more)
  • FN24 " Skyscraper Style :" Rogue space before the colon
  • Wider searches show no major sources overlooked, and the coverage seems to be adequate for FAC requirements

- SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review SC. I'll fix the ref titles on Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed all the remaining titles now. The tool I was using didn't consistently capitalize or lowercase some conjunctions, so I changed these manually. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SchroCat, how is the source review looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - this dropped off my watchlist. Passed the source review. - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Pass

[edit]

Prose review by Generalissima

[edit]

Very solid piece. I went through and fixed some out of order cites, and wasn't able to find anything errant or out of place - so support from me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

[edit]

Support. I figured I'd review since I have an FAC of my own.

  • "1 Wall Street (also known as the Irving Trust Company Building, the Bank of New York Building, and the BNY Mellon Building) is a primarily residential skyscraper at the intersection of Broadway and Wall Street in the Financial District of Lower Manhattan in New York City, New York, U.S. " - that's a lot for the first sentence. I get including the other names, but I think the "primarily residential" part could be mentioned later, since so much of the first sentence already talks about the business names for the building. Maybe also simplify the location? The existing featured article, 23 Wall Street, has it as such:
"23 Wall Street (also known as the J.P. Morgan Building) is a four-story office building in the Financial District of Manhattan in New York City, at the southeast corner of Wall Street and Broad Street. "
I have reworded this bit, moving the exact location into the second paragraph of the lead. (The previous location was imprecise. It wasn't just at the intersection of Broadway and Wall Street, it occupies a full city block, and these streets are only two of the four streets that surround the block.) Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the lower stories are narrow windows with mullions" - this sort of sentence might be difficult to understand to a non-English reader. "Windows" is the subject of the sentence, but here "On the lower stories are" is how the sentence begins.
  • "The original portion of the building and its Red Room are designated city landmarks, and the structure is a contributing property to the Wall Street Historic District, a National Register of Historic Places district." - this seems like an afterthought, but perhaps add the year it became designated as landmarks? That would contrast better with it being ignored.
  • "There are also five basement levels under the original structure, three of which were below sea level." - small point, but are/were those basement levels still below sea level? The past tense "were below sea level" just seems striking compared to most of the article being in present tense.
  • "The top stories of the annex (completed in the 2020s)" - we're in the 2020s, but people in the future might read that and think plausibly that the event might not happen for another five years (2029). When were the top stories completed?
  • You might want to indicate somewhere that all currency figures are in the original year's USD, like in a note or something. I noticed one spot where you don't indicate the year - "which added $40,000 to the construction cost"
  • "An air-conditioning system was installed at 1 Wall Street in 1953."
  • "at which point it was 85% occupied" - minor point, but the rest of the article says the word "percent"
  • "A new entrance was also constructed on Broadway, with a design based on one of Walker's unrealized plans for the building,[43] and five stories were added to the southern annex." - the last part feels like an add-on, but five additional stories sounds a lot more significant than a new entrance. Unless I'm reading something wrong here.
  • Any more news/history since May? I did a Google news search and didn't find anything, but felt it worth asking.

All in all, a great read. Lemme know if you have questions about my comments. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback @Hurricanehink. I'll respond to these comments over the next few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the comments. I think I have now addressed all of them. Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick replies! Good job on this one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, I appreciate it. Also, I just noticed that you linked your FAC above - I didn't notice it before but can definitely take a look over the next few weeks. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

I'm shocked to see you writing about another building in New York. Comments within the week :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up the review, @PMC. Take as much time as you need ;) – Epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I lied, but eight days is pretty close :P

Lead & Site
  • I've got 27 instances of "contain" on a ctrl+F (well, 26, I removed one just now)
  • "A 36-story annex to the south was designed by successor firm Voorhees, Walker, Smith, Smith & Haines and built between 1963 and 1965." having now read a little further into Architecture, this isn't quite correct - it was 28 stories when they built it. The expansion to 36 was only in 2019.
  • "The facade, made of limestone" - could simplify to "The limestone facade", but only a mild suggestion
  • Para 2 in the lead is almost entirely sentences like "The X has Y. The Z has X and Y. The Thing has Thing." the prose could stand to be livened up a little, if possible
  • "After 1 Wall Street's residential conversion" - this comes before the actual mention of the residential conversion in para 3, making it a bit confusing. Also, "After...have contained" is grammatically off. Could probably solve both issues at once with something like "In 2023, the upper stories were renovated into 566 condominium apartments."
  • Harry Macklowe - who?
  • "despite initially remaining ignored" - by whom? Until when? What changed?
    • Basically, mid-20th-century architectural critics largely ignored the building, but it did receive some commentary in a few sources from 1975, 1987, and 2001. Honestly, I don't know the reason for this. Epicgenius (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last 3 sentences of para 2 for Site feel out of order. I might revise to something like "Under municipal law...revert to the government of New York City. When 1 Wall Street was built, its main occupant Irving Trust embedded small metal plaques to delineate the boundaries of its lot to preclude such a seizure." This also removes a touch of redundancy
Architecture
Architecture - Form & facade through Features
Architecture - Red Room and lobby to end
  • Hildreth Meière - who?
  • "as a reception room" for the bank I'm assuming?
  • "In addition, " not sure this is doing much here
  • The measurements might fit better in para 2, which seems to focus more on physical details like shape; para 1 is all about how it was designed and what for
  • "Although the building..." the "although" makes it seem like this was done reluctantly despite the crash, while the cited source says it was done "Because of the collapse" in order to make themselves look successful
    • From reading the sources, I was under the impression that the crash would have restricted the bank's ability to use ornate materials. However, I think you're right about this. I've switched around the sentences. Epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feels odd to go from the color scheme of the mosaics, to lightened tiles, and back to color scheme with the gold abstract bits
  • "The remainders of the walls" probably should be "rest of the walls" instead, but if you want to keep remainder, it should be singular I think
  • "The ceiling had an allegorical painting" I thought the ceiling had mosaics. Was the painting tiled over, making this correctly past tense? Or is there something else going on
  • "After 1 Wall Street's residential conversion, there have been" - "after" doesn't work with "have been". You could sub since for after and keep "have been", or keep after and sub "were" for "have been"
  • "are designed" should be past
  • "Other apartments included model units" it's not entirely clear what this means
  • "There are also amenities" - this reads oddly because we're going from discussing individual units straight to general amenities. I would revise to something like "Amenities for residents include..." or similar. That would have the bonus of making the following sentence ("The building also contains...") feel less repetitive
  • Is One Works separate from the "communal spaces with kitchens, phone booths, AV equipment, and printers"?
  • Entire section about the vault is past tense, implying it's no longer there - any confirmation or details about its final disposition?
History
  • Basically no notes till "A 10-inch (250 mm) strip of land..." - what?? do we know why he leased this, or what kind of "structure" he built? So weird.
  • "founded in 1851, had merged with numerous other banks in preceding years" - possibly I'm just a beer in, but wording kind of implies that the bank merged in the years before being founded. Maybe "Since its founding in 1851, Irving Trust had merged..."?
  • "outgrown its offices in" did it have these offices in succession as it merged? Like it moved from A -> B -> C and finally into 1 Wall Street? Or was it one entity scattered through 3 buildings that then consolidated into 1 Wall St?
  • You could merge the sentence that starts "The initial plans..." with the subsequent sentence for less redundancy
  • "Walker and his associate ... Smith and Meière..." these two sentences about the Red Room are tacked on to the end of para 1 in Construction, but they feel more like Planning to me, since they're about the design process
  • "Timekeepers and auditors checked employees' attendance, as well as job runners..." Is this particularly unusual? Otherwise it just feels like details about routine stuff that could be omitted
  • Why does footnote [vi] not have a dollar sign?
  • "Fiduciary Trust Company of New York also moved" cut also; it implies that some other bank moved to the 30th floor as well before it
  • "Macklowe initially planned...and he planned" in same sentence
  • "In addition, the Red Room..." can ditch the "in addition"
  • "Five stories were added to the southern annex" if the annex was 28 stories when it was built, and no other stories were ever built, where does the final number of 36 come from? ;_; what is the truth Epic
  • "The Printemps store was to use the Red Room." - "was" makes it sound like it fell through, but it sounds like maybe it just hasn't happened yet?
Impact
  • I'm not entirely sure about the Clute quote, especially the second portion. I got a snippet view of the source and it doesn't really help with the context.
    • I interpreted the quote as saying that the facade was little more than a skin, rather than an integral part of the structural framework. Clute doesn't say this, but it's akin to draping a blanket over a box - the blanket doesn't hold up the walls of the box, it merely covers the box. Epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was also praise for what Stern characterized as "Walker's only completed skyscraper"." this sentence is odd. It renders the praise in the passive voice (who praised it? when?) and also ties it to Stern's characterization in a way that I don't think fits, unless the praise is directly related to it being a completed skyscraper. Since all this stuff seems to be post-mid-century, I might say something like "The building began to be reappraised in the 1970s" or "Some later critics have praised the building".

That's all I have for now. I'll give it another look after changes and see how I fare. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll take a stab at these tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PMC, thanks for the comments. I've addressed the points you've raised so far. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay Epic! I cleared the ping and my brain was like "yeah we're done here right". I'm a support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 November 2024 [3].

Otto Hahn

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Otto Hahn, the German chemist who was awarded the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of nuclear fission. Today Hahn is something of a divisive figure. A century ago, there was much less of a distinction between chemistry and physics. Hahn was involved early in the chemistry of radioactive substances. Their presence could be detected from their radioactivity, and their unique half lives. Unfortunately, most of the new elements he discovered turned out to be isotopes, a concept that had not been invented when he began. He also had to deal with a lot of disapproval from more traditional chemists, for whom chemistry involved substances you could see, and smell and taste. Early on he formed a professional relationship with a physicist, Lise Meitner. Among his generation, he was regarded as progressive in his attitudes towards women, even a feminist. But women like Meitner still considered him a male chauvinist pig, and their historians have been much less reticent about publicly calling him one. After World War II, his cause was to resurrect the reputation of German science, which had been tarnished (to say the least) in the Nazi period. In this role, he sought publicity and downplayed uncomfortable truths. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Ernest_Rutherford_1905.jpg needs a US tag. File:Otto_Hahn_und_Lise_Meitner.jpg, File:Berliner_Physiker_u_Chemiker_1920.jpg, File:Otto_Hahn_Nobelpreis_1945-a.jpg, and File:Ottohahn1915.jpg have pending issues above. Given the above, suggest removing File:Edith_and_Otto_Hahn,_1959.jpg and File:Hahnfch.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hawkeye7 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 is this still outstanding? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Otto_Hahn_und_Lise_Meitner.jpg: caption on the Flickr source provided indicates a first publication date of 1966, not pre-1929 as tag indicates.
  • Flickr source is referring to Hahn (1966). That would be first publication in the United States. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Berliner_Physiker_u_Chemiker_1920.jpg is a 20th century work with no known author - a life+70 tag cannot be confirmed. Also no publication information.
    It is in Hahn (1966). No known author. Earlier publication in Germany in 1962. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ottohahn1915.jpg: permission statement doesn't align with tagging, and for-Wikipedia permissions are generally held to be non-free for our purposes.
    Taken in 1915, it would have entered the PD in 1985, and therefore falls under UNRAA. But we don't have a tag for anonymous works unpublished > 70 years old. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LittleLazyLass

[edit]
  • This is just a flyby, but I really think could do with more organization. Currently it had a whole nineteen major top level sections and zero subsections. A quick look at other FA biographies within the Science and Academia subject area doesn't seem to indicate this is a standard I'm not aware of. Some basic level of consolidation with his scientific advances in one section, personal life in another, and the Nobel Prize could probably make a section with his other honours seems doable and would make a big difference. Failing that even rudimentary sorting the events into subsections by time period would be an improvement of being bombarded with everything separate. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite correct; there is no standard. There are 33 featured article biographies of physicists and chemists, of which I brought 23 of them to featured. The article is written in chronological order and follows the layout guideline in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. I will consider your proposal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7, how are your considerations going? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since a couple of editors have recommended it, I have arranged the article into sections and subsections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better. IMO. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll try to review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 13:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • " "The Open Door Web Site : Chemistry : Visual Chemistry : Protactinium". Archived from the original on 16 December 2022. Retrieved 16 December 2022." - what makes this a high-quality RS? I would expect that it should be not overly difficult to find a better source for something as basic as what this is supporting
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Entdeckung der Kernspaltung 1938, Versuchsaufbau, Deutsches Museum München | Faszination Museum". YouTube. 7 July 2015." - what makes this YouTube video a high-quality reliable source?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Originalgeräte zur Entdeckung der Kernspaltung, "Hahn-Meitner-Straßmann-Tisch"". - citation needs the publisher and any other information added
    Added publisher and access date
  • ""Father of Nuclear Chemistry – Otto Emil Hahn". Kemicalinfo. 20 May 2020." - what makes this a high-quality RS?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Brown, Brandon R. (16 May 2015). "Gerard Kuiper's Daring Rescue of Max Planck at the End of World War II". Scientific American Blog Network. Retrieved 27 June 2020." - Scientific American is a decent source, but can we give their blog network the same level of quality?
    Brandon R. Brown is professor of physics and astronomy at the University of San Francisco. He is the author of Planck: Driven by Vision, Broken by War (Oxford, 2015), which won the 2016 Housatonic Award for nonfiction. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " "NS Otto Hahn". Germany's Nuclear Powered Cargo Ship. Retrieved 28 June 2020." - what makes this a high-quality RS? And "Germany's Nuclear Powered Cargo Ship" is not the publisher in this source
    It was the source used by the article on the ship. Switched to a couple of other sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really on-topic to list all of the physicists that Meitner became friends with in an article on Hahn? That content seems more suited for our article on Meitner
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link phosgene?
    Linked

Will continue this; hopefully tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 02:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipate supporting, but want to give this another read-through first. Hog Farm Talk 02:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HF, any further thoughts on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting on the source review to be completed; I'll try to read through again tonight. Hog Farm Talk 16:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like the source reviewer, I'm not a huge fan of how much Hahn's autobiography is used, but it's mainly used to cover detail in his early life that the sources focused on his career wouldn't cover as well. Leaning support. Hog Farm Talk 01:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hog Farm, Have your leanings reached an actual support yet? Or are you still deliberating? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Hog Farm Talk 17:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass

[edit]

I am working on this now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some initial comments:

I'll keep looking and leave more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to a couple items above; otherwise, I consider those initial comments addressed. I'll have more fresh comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see my comments above are all satisfactorily addressed. Here are a few more:

I'll continue looking at the sources and more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having finally gone through the rest of the citations, here are some more comments:

Summary: Everything in the References list are books held by academic libraries or articles in academic journals. Everything in the "notes" section looks reliable and primary sources are used appropriately, with the exceptions noted in individual comments above. There are a lot of works from Hahn's lifetime by people in his life, which makes me wary, but I'm willing to accept the reasoning you stated above in reply to one of my earlier comments on that topic. There certainly is a wide breadth of sources included here. With the exception of a few cases addressed in my above comments, the citations are consistently formatted. This article represents a lot of work and I can appreciate it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dugan Murphy, have your queries been satisfactorily addressed? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking in! There are a number of unaddressed comments. One of them is about the Hahn Meitner Strassmann May 1937 citation and another about Defence News. I also have a standing question about who publishes www.friedhofguide.de (trying to establish its reliability), which might be made moot if Hawkeye7 decides to replace that source with one of the scholarly print sources, as per the discussion above. Another standing question regards "the major newspapers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland". All of my other comments have been been satisfactorily addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I have moved the Sime reference to make the source of the quotation clearer.
  2. The print sources on Hahn did not give me the burial place. I have added another reference, from a brochure put out by the City of Göttingen.
  3. I changed the text to read: "The Max Planck Society published the following obituary notice"
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you also replaced the primary newspaper citations for the obituary quote with an academic source that supports the same quote. I see no other issues keeping this source review from passing. Thanks for your work on improving this article! I have my own FAC nomination that is still in need of reviews. If you are able to take a look, I would appreciate the input. You'll find that nomination here. Thanks in advance! Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye7, my comments:

More to come tomorrow. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, my next set of comments:
That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding my support, all the issues I had raised have been addressed. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

Had a read of Lise Meitner last week; found it most illuminating. Very nice article this too. A few points (as always, suggestions not demands):

@AirshipJungleman29: All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 November 2024 [7].

John Wick (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2014 action film John Wick, or John Vick as some of the Russian gangsters may say. This has had two previous nominations: the first had some good responses and improvements added/suggested by TheJoebro64, Piotrus, Pamzeis, TompaDompa, zmbro, and The Corvette ZR1, although the second sadly failed due to a general lack of responses. Since the first nomination in 2023, new books have been released which has allowed me to significantly beef up the Thematic Analysis section which was a common criticism as I had struggled to identify sources that specifically discussed the first time as they were more focused on evolutions in its sequels, particularly the lore around the High Table and underworld which is only really touched on briefly in John Wick. It is also the tenth anniversary of the film this year, so it would be nice to get it to FA status before the end of the year if possible. Your feedback is greatly appreciated, thanks. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Paleface Jack

[edit]

Looking over this, the article is strong. My only (minor) highlights for improvement would be having the writing and development sub-sections reversed as I find them slightly confusing. The "Retrospective assessments", while short is ok, though I will leave that up to others to offer their thoughts. Since you struggled on finding some good sources, I took a look around and found a couple with some (minor) info pertaining to this film. You can add or not add them.

Paleface Jack (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Paleface Jack. I did check the references you've provided but they seem to relate more to the stunt company and one of their stuntwoman respectively. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thought so. Was worth a look. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot to reply to your comment on the DEvelopment and Writing sub sections. Typically on films this would be the other way around, but in this case the development section can't happen without the writing section since all the writing happened first as an independent script rather than as part of a planned project. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It just occurred to me, if you are having trouble with information on some sections, there are behind the scenes videos that you could possibly include if you are still having problems. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not having any trouble with sections, it was just the Thematic Analysis section was fairly brief because noone really discussed the first film, they focus on the later ones which have a great deal more lore around the High Table and the assassins. But I've rectified that now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It seems improved from last year, and it was pretty much good enough back then. Well done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I never had any issue with the article to begin with: DWB writes some of the best articles on WP. But I do agree the analysis section in particular looks better this time around. My only critique would be that the picture of Ian McShane in reception (as of this revision), does not appear relevant to the section itself (compared to the image of Lance Reddick in analysis). I'd advise making the McShane caption more relevant to the section or remove it. Other than that I support. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zmbro, fixed the caption, the image was there since he was singled out by a few critics but I too felt the caption made it look like a weak addition. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a well-done article; I like the organization of the meta and reception of the movie. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support A really good read, thoroughly enjoyed it and happy to support. Lankyant (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Draken Bowser

[edit]

It was very interesting to read the analysis on the memetic mythologization of Mr. Reeves, having grown up on the internet and watched the process first hand. This looks like a quality piece, so I'll just leave a few short comments:

  • Baba Yaga - is this a personal nick-name invoking the old slavic legend? If so we might want to surround it with quotation marks.
  • experienced actor rather than an elderly one. - considering we've just mentioned Eastwood and Ford the contrast doesn't fully make sense. Sure, they're old, but also experienced.
  • Variety praised the idea for targeting the same male audience as John Wick without the cost of making a full game based on it. - maybe I'm overly sensitive, but could we rephrase their analysis of the merits of this marketing campaign to not use the word "praised"?
  • There seems to be some confusion on the internet about Ballerina being John Wick 5. Should we clarify also, if that is indeed still true, that 5 hasn't begun filming as of 2024?

And with that, I'm all out of ideas. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Draken Bowser, good notes, this is how I found out there is a planned spin off starring Donnie Yen. I've made the changes you've suggested. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • Typical fair-use cover art, no worries there.
  • All other photos are appropriate CC licenses.

The photos in "multiple image" templates don't have alt-text, although that is not an FA requirement, it'd just be nice to have. The photos all seem relevant to the film. Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Generalissima, I think the alt text may be a technical issue as they do have alt text included per the template for Template:Multiple image, but it doesn't show for me on Microsoft Edge when hovering over the image. The images under the Production section had "alt_fotter" but I've added individual alt text as well. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh interesting! Scratch that then. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

It doesn't seem like the sourcing notably changed from the review I gave this article last year. There are a bunch of naked URLs though that need fixing. Is a spotcheck needed? My usual caveat about this not being a topic I know well applies, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know a few bare links had snuck in but I've sorted them, thanks for spotting. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for that. No, a spot check is not required. Let me know if you consider the source review is now a pass. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa

[edit]

In the interest of not making it necessary to read through the entire article, I'll re-ask the question asked by AirshipJungleman29 in the second nomination: Can you give specific examples of how you have addressed the issues I raised in the first nomination? TompaDompa (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The context section was removed, the article was copyedited for tone, effort was made to remove as many quotes as possible and turn the content into prose, the thematic analysis section has expanded by about three times, and the commentary on best action film lists was reduced down to the mildest and vaguest of mentions despite the support of its inclusion by other editors. There have been a lot of changes, but these areas seemed to be the biggest bugbears for you last time around.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging TompaDompa Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a look at parts of the article, and it looks much better than it did the first time around. I unfortunately do not anticipate finding the time to give this a full review, but I will state for the record that my oppose from the first nomination should be treated as being out of date. TompaDompa (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe

[edit]

I'll take a look today and tomorrow, looks like the article's improved a lot since I last reviewed it JOEBRO64 13:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is personal preference and you're free to ignore this, but you're using false titles—for instance, writing "Producer Basil Iwanyk" instead of "The producer Basil Iwanyk". This is discouraged by some style guides and the WP:FALSETITLE essay makes a decent argument that it should be avoided on Wikipedia as we're an encyclopedia rather than a news source. Again, up to you—just some food for thought!
  • the inspiration for which came from two 'terrible revenge movies' he had watched Any information out there on which films in question he was referring to?
  • I'd try to ensure you're using the active voice as much as possible, like in the reception section. Example: The directors' decades of experience in stunt work was seen as a major benefit to the action sequences → Reviewers saw the directors' decades of experience in stunt work as a major benefit to the action sequences
  • I don't think you really need subsections in the Legacy section; it's just four paragraphs and I think the first paragraph actually leads into the second one nicely
  • Some of the refbundles are a little confusing, to highlight two instances in particular that stand out to me:
    • The third paragraph of the critical response section has four sentences (beginning with "Reviews commended the fluidity...") with a lot of generalizations about specific aspects that critics praised, all cited to a single refbundle with a whopping 13 references. It's hard to tell who's being cited for what. I'd go through the references, pick which ones support which statements, and add those to the end of the statements, incorporating them in refbundles if it's necessary.
    • In legacy, you quote Rolling Stone calling John Wick "The Last Great American Action-Movie Franchise", but rather than directly citing the article, I have to open the refbundle and hover over multiple references to find it.
I would go through all of the refbundles in the article to make sure there isn't anything else like these.
  • This is optional and not going to affect my support, but going off the previous point, I think it'd be useful if you identified the references in text in the refbundles. I've been recommended this at my previous FACs and I think it both aids in navigation and makes it a lot easier to identify precisely what's being referenced. (Examples: Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts#Notes, Donkey Kong Land#Notes)
  • Spotchecked statements attributed to references 70, 75, 100, 134, and 166. All backed up the statements I checked.

That's my 2p. Good article. JOEBRO64 19:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheJoebro64, I have done all of these except: No, there is no information on what terrible revenge movies he saw; and your second to last point. I may do that in the future if it won't hold up a support, tbh I've been working on this for so long I kinda want to move on from it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheJoebro64, how is ths looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. nice work. JOEBRO64 18:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • This will probably seem picky picky, but MOS:CAPTITLES needs applying to the titles in the "References" section. Eg, "In" → 'in' etc.
  • "focused on highly choreographed and long single takes". Entirely optional, but maybe 'focused on long, highly choreographed single takes'?
  • "Reeves's recent films had underperformed." I think this needs unpacking a little. What does "underperformed" mean? Attracted poor reviews? Made a financial loss? Something else?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done the latter two Gog the Mild, on a previous nomination I was led to believe that you either capitalized them all or capitalize some, as long as its consistent, so at present I think everything is in Proper Case, at least from what Case Converter outputs. Is that not the case? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean title case versus sentence case. Someone has tweaked the MoS so they need to be in title case - makes sense, given that they are all titles. MOS:CAPTITLES lays out the rules, with MOS:5 listing the do's and don't's. Note "Other styles exist with regard to prepositions, including three- or even two-letter rules in news and entertainment journalism, and many academic publishers call for capitalization of no prepositions at all. These styles are not used on Wikipedia, including for titles of pop-culture or academic works." which is why I used In/in as an example. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Gog the Mild Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 November 2024 [8].

Gao Qifeng

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Chinese painter, one of several who sought to introduce a "new national style" of painting that blended traditional approaches with Japanese and European ones, as part of a broader aspiration to create a new China. If this is promoted, it will be my first FA in... eight and a half years. I would like to thank Rollinginhisgrave and SchroCat for their comments at the GA and Peer reviews, respectively. The article is looking in really good shape! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor thing, but can the caption for the lead image say roughly when it was taken? If that information exists in sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

[edit]

I'll get back to it as soon as possible. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda late to the party but it seems like most of the issues I found before were already resolved below. After reading it again, I found no issues (for me) at all. Support 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]

Good to see something about China here.

  • The lead section seems to assume that the reader knows many things already, and could be improved by making some things clearer:
    • You could state "older brother" instead of just "brother", to give a hint why he was following this brother.
    • Gao joined the Tongmenghui – You explain this term in the main text but not in the lead; since the lead should be as accessible as possible, it makes sense to explain it there too.
    • where he established the Tianfang Studio – I had no idea what this "Tianfang Studio" is supposed to be. Perhaps add that he teached students there, which gives the reader a good impression.
  • In the lead: he published The True Record to challenge the Qing dynasty – the main text does not state this fact; instead it seems to say that the Qing dynasty has already ended at that point.
  • Lead: later, the Beiyang government. Although offered a position in the new Republic of China, – The chronology seems wrong here, which is confusing. He was offered that position before he criticised the Beiyang government, but this sentence seem to imply it was the other way around, which makes little sense.
  • You sometimes provide translations, or the originals of translations, and sometimes not. For example, the "Chinesische Malerei der Gegenwart" lacks a translation (it should be "Contemporary Chinese Painting"). Also, you have the Chinese original in explanatory note e, but not in m.
  • I'll get a bit of a footnote ready for the German exhibition. I've been unable to obtain the original Chinese for [m]; Chu does quote the passage in her 1981 publication, which was bilingual, but I only requested the English at REFEXCHANGE. I could nix the original from [e] to standardize. Thoughts? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing for the Southern Metropolis Daily, Wang Jingjing notes that Gao favoured vigorous yet delicate brushwork and vivid images. – This is supposed to be in source 8, the Guandong Museum site, but I can't find it there (which might be because I can't really read Chinese, so I'm just checking here).
    • It's cited to [15]. I see that I did misattribute the quote, however. It should be attributed to Li Gongming of the Guangzhou Academy of Arts, as he was the one being interviewed and who mentioned a "vigorous yet elegant" style. Fixed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • But cite [15] is in the middle of a sentence; from my understanding, it would only support that particular part of the sentence, not the preceding sentences? It should be behind the sentence (behind the dot) to imply that it supports multiple sentences? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've always understood citations as supporting all preceding materials in the same paragraph, which is how the ref is used here. Referring to WP:CITETYPE, an in-line citation is "close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote;" it doesn't specify a leapfrog effect. That being said, since there is an attributed statement here, there is definitely an argument to duplicate the reference, which I have done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that is the case, my inline citations are incorrect in all my FAs. What about a case like this: who has been described as his goddaughter[36] or adopted daughter,[9], would cite [36] also support all preceding sentences of the paragraph, even if the sentence would be at the end of the paragraph? I always assumed it would, in such cases, only support this particular fact, since it is provided within the sentence, not at the end of it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, it's been a long day. I meant to say "all preceding materials in the same paragraph up to the previous reference." I certainly did not mean to imply that there were errors in any previous FAs.
            • This is how all of my previous FAs have been written. As an example, the section #Release and reception at Panggilan Darah starts with "Panggilan Darah debuted at the Orion Theatre in Batavia on 30 June 1941. It was reported as a modest success," It cites two references, both of which are used to support the information. The next clause, "making most of its money from lower class audiences." is supported entirely by Biran. Likewise, Jacobus Anthonie Meessen cites everything from "He was one of the few photographers" through "opened a studio" to the same reference. The Encyclopedia of Jakarta reference is used exclusively to support what sort of materials were being sold at Meessen's studio/shop. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • used as settings for animal subjects – dot missing.
  • Otherwise, reads very well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Jens. I believe I have addressed everything.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima review

[edit]

Since it seems you're good on prose supports, I'll do a source review.

  • Publishers are wikilinked inconsistently; the museums have links, but the university presses are not. The same is true for websites, where you wikilink Sina.com but not Grove Art Online.
  • Shouldn't it be just "Urban Council" or "Urban Council of Hong Kong" as the publisher? And see above.
    • The book uses Urban Council, Hong Kong. I've trimmed it to Urban Council for ease.
  • The translated title for Chen 2009 isn't capitalized the same as the others.
  • You give the location for Brill, but none of the other publishers. Again, choose one or the other, but be consistent.
  • For sources without authors, you give the SFN as the name of the work in two instances and the name of the author in the other; I'd cite The Art of Gao Qifeng as "Urban Council Hong Kong 1981" to resolve this.
  • I'm a bit confused why there's shortened footnotes like "Guangdong Museum, Gao Qifeng", "HKHM, The Heavenly Breeze", and "Ou, Gao Qifeng" (the former of which doesn't include a date). Why not just "Guangdong Museum 2017", "HKHM", and "Ou"? It wouldn't be ambiguous.
    • I've changed Guangdong Museum to {{sfn}}. The other two are a vestige from when I write articles with multiple newspaper sources. I can go either way, but I think as long as it's consistent it should be okay.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why no page number on Floriani 2023?

Moving on to the good part: These are good quality sources that seem fitting for the topic and seem to cover it quite well. It's a suitably in-depth article. @Crisco 1492: Just a bunch of stylistic and formatting tweaks and we're golden. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Image review & spot-check

[edit]

File:Tomb of Gao Qifeng 2010-11.jpg needs a note about the copyright of the structure (e.g a freedom of panorama note). File:高奇峰 鹿.jpg has a broken bare URL as a source. Image placement and ALT text seem fine.

Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for the spot check. Have the image issues above been resolved to your satisfaction? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they have. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check: * 4 Can I have a copy of these sources?

Spotcheck passed - several minor issues (now resolved), not enough to call the unchecked cites into question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Lead

  • give founding of school a year
    • The Lingnan School was more of a movement than a proper school, and thus cannot readily be given a specific year.
  • give a footnote explaining that - due to the brothers often being mentioned, together and individually - that they will be referred to sometimes by first name, and that Gao alone means Qifeng?
    • I think it's implied, as standard practice for articles with people who share names. Furthermore, in writing about Chinese artists, there is a tendency to repeat both names where clarity is needed (viz Croizier, etc.) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • his older brother" - unclear at this point that there were more brothers, and that here Jianfu is meant
  • give travel to Tokyo a year

Early ...

  • "One of six brothers": I suggest to be at this point - instead of close to the end - more explicit about other brothers' names and age, especially how much older Jianfu was, and which "number" Qifeng was
    • The sources don't really provide ages for most of the brothers. I have added "ten years his elder" for Jianfu. — Chris Woodrich (talk)
  • I suggest to first mention school, then art specifics
    • In most cases, I'd agree with you. In this case, the sources basically say that he had the techniques, but his attendance at the school cannot be confirmed. As such, the priority is the techniques. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should his art name be mentioned in the lead, bold as a redirect?
  • "Gao Qifeng studied directly"- by footnote suggested above, Gao would be sufficient. (will not mention this all occasions)
  • Ralph Croizier - when a person mentioned has no article, I suggest to give a short explanation about why we should listen to them. Same for other scholars cited later, without extra mentioning.

Artistic ...

Later ...

  • "Before his death, he asked" - "Before his death, he had asked", unless you mention it before his death which may be better
  • "He died on 2 November 1933" - I commonly see the sentence about death being a new paragraph, with the name and also the location, for people who don't read the whole thing. (I come from the - few - composers' articles without infobox, where this is the only way to determine the POD.)
  • perhaps offer the word "legacy" in the section header?
  • I am not sure that the history of road naming is of encyclopedic value
  • A conversion of the government cnntrib to a better-known currency might be of more help
    • Yes and no. I agree that it would be nice to have, but it runs the risk of overfilling the article with numbers. I know SC generally has his currency in footnotes, and that may allow for more detail, but at this point we already have quite a few footnotes. Thoughts, other reviewers? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relation...

  • Together with his brother Jianfu and fellow Ju Lian student Chen Shuren, Gao is recognized - how about "Gao is recognized, together with his brother Jianfu and fellow Ju Lian student Chen Shuren,"?
  • How about mentioning the names of the (later) 7 when the studio is first mentioned? Then we coud see better who is linked and who is not.
  • I think that the wife deserves a new para however short
  • "after he became ill she tended to Gao" - better: "to him", - as clear from the context (or use Gao the first time in this sentence)

Analysis

  • other section headers could be Art, or Work - I don't believe that the value comparisons fit "Analysis"
  • please find a way for the left image not displacing the next section header, - easiest to have it right, others to make it much smaller with less caption, or place in the following section, or combine the two sections
  • the prices fetched might be lead material to give the ignorants (like me) a rough idea
  • "Gao's angry lions and roaring tigers evoke a "bold and unyielding spirit" + "depictions of animals to reflect a revolutionary spirit" - some of that might also be lead material
  • I'd first mention the rare landscapes and figures (now at the very end), and end instead with the quote , on "charms" ;)

General: I miss a link to the commonscat.

Thank you for an interesting life and work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 November 2024 [9].

Littlehampton libels

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Littlehampton libels are one of those footnotes to footnotes of history. Some mildly insulting letters were sent round a small town, and it resulted in four trials and two appeals, and involved the Director of Public Prosecutions, the senior Treasury Counsel, a senior Scotland Yard detective and the Lord Chief Justice. The culprit, Edith Swan, fooled three juries and two judges, had another woman sent to prison twice and was declared not guilty before finally being convicted. And then Olivia Coleman played her in a film. This is a new article and I look forward to any constructive comments. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Saving a space for now. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would advise putting "England" somewhere in the first sentence, per the bit of WP:FIRST which can be summarised as "state the blindingly obvious in the first sentence".
  • The letters were sent from Edith Swan: sent by is the usual idiom, isn't it -- but why not written by, which seems to be the more important thing?
  • two notebooks were found in Littlehampton. They contained further libels: being very picky, is it a libel if it hasn't been sent/published? We're in meteor/meteorite or lava/magma territory here, perhaps.
  • A similar case of libellous letters ... which drew parallels: I think a person draws parallels (between X and Y), and therefore we need some kind of different phrasing that uses some group of people as its subject (or else "parallels were observed..."). I'm not immediately coming up with a good one, but will think on it if helpful.
  • It is based on England's south coast : Any reason not to cut based? I think that only really applies to e.g. an institution in this context.
  • She had a child, Dorothy, from a previous relationship. The couple married in Lewes in 1913 when she was twenty-two and he was thirty-four: I would clarify the second she as Rose rather than Dorothy.
  • they moved to Littlehampton in 1916: as you touch on in the footnote: is it accurate to talk about them as if that includes Bill, or was he away at sea for this period? What did he do after the sinking of the Nigel?
  • Information on their early lives is a bit scant. However, I think that as he would have spent recuperation time and shore leave with his wife, it's fair to say that "they" moved (and the source uses "they" too). There's also nothing about his post-Nigel work (during the war, at least). - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Ruth's children had been born out of wedlock, she called herself "Mrs Russell",: this is not, strictly speaking, a contradiction: we need to clarify that Ruth never married the father.
  • Bill accused Rose of having an affair with another man while he was away at sea, and she had to stay at a neighbour's house for several days, after he had hit her and thrown her out of the family home: slightly ambiguous whether this is Bill or the unnamed Casanova.
  • The couple argued occasionally and there was, according to Hilliard, "a persistent hum of conflict" between the two.: the word occasionally reads as "only rarely" to me, which makes the "persistent hum of conflict" an odd match. Can we find a word that gives more of a sense of this being a running if sporadic theme?
    I think so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • lived in a rented cottage at 45 Western Road ... The Swan family were natives of Littlehampton and had lived at number 47 Western Road: there's an inconsistency here: would personally leave out the "number" in these and similar addresses.
  • Edith Swan was one of thirteen children of Edward and Mary Ann Swan: the thirteen children?
  • In May 1920 Swan wrote to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), falsely accusing Gooding of maltreating one of Russell's children on Easter Sunday: can we clarify the date of Easter Sunday to make the gap evident to readers? Appreciate it might take a little digging.
  • Is it worth clarifying what the NSPCC is? The way we write about it, it sounds like a government agency, rather than a charity.
  • and the impact they had on Rose's name: perhaps reputation for name as a more international and comprehensible term?
  • Bill went to many of those who received letters and pleaded her innocence: I think you can only plead your own innocence, but perhaps asserted?
  • Wikilink bail, if we're doing so for solicitor? I think we have it on second mention.
  • Superintendent Peel of Littlehampton police: he would have been of [West?] Sussex police, surely? Was he in command of the Littlehampton station?
  • Nicholls interviewed twenty-nine people connected to case: connected to the case?
  • Note e: we give the impression here that Wells was arrested for breaking the bank; suggest clarifying what his crime was, and that it happened much later.
  • Frederick Peel, the former superintendent, but by then the deputy chief constable of West Sussex, was present at the case and Bill Gooding overheard him saying that he still believed Rose was responsible for the letters: why not Gooding?
    • Both for clarity and to avoid "Bill Gooding overheard him saying that he still believed Gooding was responsible", with the close repetition
  • she petitioned the Home Office for both a reduction in sentence and on the basis she was innocent: I think we need to swap both and for to make this grammatical.
  • Is "eye-witness" better as eyewitness? I notice that we've not hyphenated "blotting paper", which seems oddly hyphen-averse given our hyphen-happiness here.
  • Swan died in a home: I think this is quite BrE: can we clarify that it's a nursing home (or an old people's home) rather than just a dwelling?
    • Tricky one to phrase this. The source has "Edith died at her last place of residence, the North View Home in Littlehampton. The building had been the town workhouse". I've done some general searches, but the only references to the place are in unreliable sources, half of which are about Swan living there. It's not clear what sort of "home" it was, or of what standard. (I was going for the blandest description so as not to point the reader toward any type of "home".) Any thoughts? - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we can't find anything else, I'd give its name: "in the North View Home", which at least makes clear that it's some kind of institution. We do have this local news article calling it a council-run residential home: I know we don't normally consider local news to be RS, but this does seem to be exactly the sort of thing that local news would be able to get right, especially as here they're reporting on a local museum exhibition. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Found something better: it's referred to on the National Archives page. - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • age sixty-eight: either aged or at the age of.
  • many of the houses on Western Road—including numbers 45, 47 and 49—were all designated: need to lose the all here, I think: it's a minor contradiction at the moment.
  • the letters had been sent for over two years: does this mean "it was over two years since the letters were sent" or "the letters were sent over a period of two years"?

Support from Crisco 1492

[edit]
  • Lede feels a bit hefty - any chance of simplifying a bit?
  • "Two women in the thirties, both with black hair. " - In their 30s, or in the 1930s? Given that the source is dated 1921, I'm thinking the former, but I wanted to confirm. I think a less ambiguous phrasing would help.
  • in December 1920 she was found guilty and imprisoned for two weeks - Subject in this sentence was "Swan". Might need to be reworked
  • It is based on England south coast - Is this correct in BrE? I know I want to add an 's after England.
  • Kent - Might be worth a link for non-British readers.
  • by several neighbours - probably as explicit as the source gives, but "several neighbours" feels weasel-y.
    That's as good as I can frame it, based on the source. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • although had been dismissed - Same question, is this correct in BrE? I'd normally go "though she had been"
  • At my current resolution (4k, 200%+125% zoom) the two maps are stacking, resulting in the prose having a "finger gun" shape. Is there a way to break the text a bit more gracefully?
    I don't think so (trying to format based on image placement is a way to madness, I feel). I have a wide screen and it doesn't cause issues, and improves with narrower screens. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • pretending Rose was still in the house, to try and trick the Swans into thinking she was still in Littlehampton - still ... still
  • National Registration forms - worth a redlink?
    I don't think so (caveat: that's based on a web search alone, rather than any major digging_. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swans and Goodings houses - as these are possessives, should they have apostrophes?
  • that Gooding and Russell had both borrowed blotting paper from her. Bill Gooding and Russell both denied ever having borrowed it from her - Feels like we're repeating the names here.
    It's trying to clarify that it was Rose in the first instance and Bill in the second. I've tried to be consistent by referring to Rose as "Gooding" and then flagging up when I'm talking about Bill. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In July 1921 an appeal was heard before the Court of Criminal Appeal; Travers Humphreys was the barrister appearing on behalf of Gooding; he told the court that he was appearing having been personally instructed by the Attorney General and that the appeal had the approval of the Home Secretary, the court quashed both of Gooding's convictions without hearing any of the evidence. - This is a bit of a run-on. Aside from the two semi-colons (IIRC, outside of a list with commas, the prescription is a maximum of two sentences joined by a semi-colon), it feels like there is a verb missing between "the approval of the Home Secretary" and "the court quashed both"
  • To fucking old whore May, 49, Western Rd, Local - Comma after 49 in the original? (judging from the spelling neybor, I suspect so... and speaking of neybor, it may warrant a {{sic}} based on WP:SIC)
    The comma is there. It's the way I was I taught to address envelopes way back when, although the etiquette has now changed on the point. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • they recommenced in early 1923. ... By October 1922 - Feels like there's a typo in one of these years
  • two sureties of £25 - each, or combined?
    It's not clarified in the source, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The small matter of insulting letters - "small matter" sounds like a judgment call, and thus likely needs attribution.

Image review

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I reviewed the draft a little while ago (on the article talk page), and my few quibbles were satisfactorily dealt with then. On rereading I find the text clear and very readable, the tone neutral and balanced, and the sourcing wide and apparently sound: there are, it is true, fifty citations to the main source, but they're balanced by multiple citations to four other important sources. You've done surprisingly well for illustrations, too. Meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I'm happy to add my support. – Tim riley talk 14:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim. Your help in the process was much appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source check from PMC

[edit]

Just did the GAN, so won't have much to add prose-wise; I'll do a source review since I already tackled some of them at the GAN. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, a solid mix of contemporary sources and later publications. No concerns with reliability; historical sources are used sparingly and generally supported by modern sources. As a nitpick, for refs where the date is unavailable (mainly some of the internet ones), you can use |date=n.d.. Otherwise I don't see any formatting problems. A few things I noticed when skimming:

  • I've added |date=n.d., but really dislike the outcome, which just looks odd and confusing in the citations. It doesn't work with one of the templates used, but I've added it. - SchroCat (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 43 and 44 don't seem to support the content. Hilliard p 47 does not seem to discuss correspondence between Blackwell and Williams, although it does get into the police believing Swan over Gooding because of her respectability. Ref 44 is a listicle summary of Cockayne's book, it also doesn't mention Blackwell or Williams. It briefly mentions the same respectability issue, but in such a broad way that it doesn't really add much here. Honestly, I might chuck it entirely.
    • [Now refs 44 and 45, not 43]: Oops - I popped in the wrong name. It was between Peel, not Blackwell, and Williams. - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was going to protest that it doesn't mention Williams either, but footnote 33, the citation after the large quote from Peel, mentions that it's a letter to Williams, so fair.
  • The other use of Ref 44 could be replaced with citing Cockayne's book, p 133, which from GBooks preview looks like it supports the content.
  • It was a bit difficult to find how Ref 57 supports the content, although I eventually realised it had to be the Dec 21 one that the "strong language" warning is about. Would you consider putting a location parameter to point directly to the letter that contains the quote? Something like |location=Sussex Autumn assizes indictments 1921 would work.
    • [Now refs 58, not 57]: that's a bit tricky (unless you have a workaround). The NA reference is used to support two different bits in the article. while adding |location=Sussex Autumn assizes indictments 1921 would work for one of them, it wouldn't for the second. Any thoughts? - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article says the film was "based on" Hilliard's history, but it looks like it might have been Cockayne's actually. The source cited in article only says that Hilliard "brought the case back to public notice", while this Guardian article says Cockayne had the film deal and worked as a consultant on it.

That's all, folks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PMC. Mostly dealt with, but there is a query on one of the points. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, happy to do it. I've replied above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PMC. The last point now addressed. If you have any more, I'd be happy to see them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, did another skim and I'm satisfied that this passes the source check :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

feel free to refuse my suggestions (with justification).

lead
  • given the length of this article i doubt it should have five lead paragraphs. I'd merge the third and the fourth paras.
background
  • several days, after Bill
  • although she was dismissed after she was accused ==> "although she was dismissed after being accused"
events
  • Some of the post was in the form of a letter ==> "Some of the posts were in the form of a letter"
    I think the original is slightly stronger, grammatically speaking. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • was in the house, to try and trick is this comma necessary?
  • to "Bloody buggering old Russell", the other to "Bloody old whore Miss Swan". i'd add "and" before "the". personal suggestion.
    It sounds odd to me with the 'and' - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • who came to the conclusion that, with ==> "who concluded that, with"
  • The same week a red i'd change "The" to "that". sounds a bit weird to me. personal opinion though.
  • all of them, and obtained their remove the comma
  • sheets of blotting-paper i think "blotting paper" without the hyphen is more common.
  • had both borrowed blotting-paper from her ditto
  • Gooding's handwriting or spelling i'd use "nor" instead of "or".
    I think I'll stick with or, which sounds more natural. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • cottage was let to Violet and Constable George should it be "let" or "lent"/"left"?
    'Let' is right. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the writing, then threw it ==> "the writing, and then threw it"
  • with invisible ink which they add a comma before "which"
  • shown to her; she replied add a comma after "replied".
    Not needed in BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • assumptions made on the basis of the ==> "assumptions made based on the"
aftermath and legacy
  • was released 2023 ==> "was released in 2023"
  • MOS:GEOLINK: [[Shiptonthorpe]], [[East Yorkshire (district)|East Yorkshire]] ==> [[Shiptonthorpe|Shiptonthorpe, East Yorkshire]]
    I don't think GEOLINK supports that: it seems to suggest leaving the second location unlinked (with the example [[Quothquan]], South Lanarkshire, Scotland), so I've changed to that format. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's all I got @SchroCat:! thanks for the article. 750h+ 03:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks 750 - all sorted in these edits. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. 750h+ 10:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • Hope I'm not queue-jumping, 750h.
  • Would it be possible to mention in the first paragraph the general timeframe and/or subject matter of the libels?
  • "who lived with her parents" This is worth mentioning in the lead paragraph?
  • "libel" (linking to "defamation") This should probably pipe to criminal libel, the crime (whereas defamation is a civil matter), or arguably defamatory libel (but that article is in terrible shape).
  • "Swan sued again" Can a private prosecution be referred to as "suing"?
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bill accused Rose ..." I might split this sentence somewhere, the "he, Bill" has the feeling of awkwardness.
  • "the bruises he caused." Perhaps "the bruises he inflicted."
  • "meaning the recipients had to pay for the delivery of the messages" I think they had the option of refusing, and if they accepted, they had to pay double the postage rate, see here. To add injury to insult, postage rates apparently went up about then!
  • "Hillard notes ..." perhaps this could be a footnote?
  • You have blotting-paper red-linked. Is it worth it?
  • "In December 1923 she petitioned the Home Office both for a reduction in sentence and on the basis she was innocent." Perhaps the end, ...and for her release on the ground she was innocent."
That's it. Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All done, bar the postage rate one. I'm trying to find a stronger source than the local paper, which isn't the clearest description of the 'double penalty' charge. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Wehwalt. All done in these edits. Many thanks for your eagle eye, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 November 2024 [10].

Ferrari FF

[edit]
Nominator(s): 750h+ 02:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a stunning station wagon built by the prominent Italian automaker Ferrari. This article recently underwent a good article review by Arconning for which I am very grateful. At 1,300 words long it is the second-shortest article I've brought here, after the Lagonda Taraf. Thanks for all reviews received, and they will be responded to in a timely manner. Best, 750h+ 02:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hi 750h+, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

The first three are own works published under CC BY-SA 3.0, the last one is from Flickr published under CC BY 2.0. All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They all have alt texts and the images in the body of the article have captions. I think the caption of "2013_Ferrari_FF,_Blu_TdF,_rear_left.jpg" should name the model to avoid confusion since we also have images of other models. Otherwise, I didn't spot any issues. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the review Phlsph! 750h+ 09:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • " Under the direction of Lowie Vermeersch—former Design Director at Pininfarina—and Flavio Manzoni, work on the shooting brake after the creation of the Pininfarina Sintesi, a concept car." I'm struggling to understand this sentence.
  • "wanted the car developed": which car? The FF or the Pininfarina?
  • "at the facility in" "their facility"?
  • "manage airflow over and around its body efficiently" might work a shade better as "manage airflow efficiently over and around its body"
  • "helping minimize lift and drag": "minimize" should be "minimise"
  • The review section is a bit repetitive in the formatting, with 'John Smith of The Paper said...' appearing for every review – a little variety in the structure would be beneficial

It's quite short for a Ferrari than was produced for five years, but I guess you've squeezed every drop out of every source you can. That's my lot on the comments. - SchroCat (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the review SC (also five years of production in the car industry, believe it or not, isn't very long [but that may depend on model). 750h+ 09:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

[edit]

I'll pick up this while I'm here too. - SchroCat (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Coming to a topic I know nothing about, with thanks for Bach cantata GA reviews! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • I think that Italy is default for the production of an Italian car.
  • I'll look at the lead again after reading, but find a bit confusing that first comes debut then design.
  • Is the successor lead material?
    yep, Elizabeth II has it too

History

  • I'm not sure that the predecessor has to be pictured. This particular photo doesn't only sandwich the text but also "looks" the wrong direction ;)
  • "Official manufacture of the FF began" - do we really need "of the FF", - I mean: of what else?
  • "Italy" as in lead
  • I'd have expected a higher number compared to the prediction, - worth a comment?
    yes, it is a luxury car, and luxury cars usually have lower production outputs with a higher price.
    small, sure, but I expected 5*800 = 4,000 based on the prediction --GA

Design ...

  • I didn't get "four-wheel" from the name in the lead, - should it perhaps be mentioned there?
  • "wheel wells" - no idea what that is but I may be the only one. (I learned an estimated 15 words already but those were linked.)

Reception

  • The Los Angeles Times' David Undercoffler - I'd prefer a construction without "Times'" which I'd have problems pronouncing, and which makes the paper's name similar to "The New York Times". The NY paper: I remember rules requesting that the "the" be lower case. Wrong?
    i don't see why. "times" is part of the name?
    We have two papers, The New York Times and Los Angeles Times. The placement of the LA one makes it look as if "The" was part of their name. I also dislike a possessive, for a long term, for a term ending on "s", and for the description of the relationship between paper and person. - For the NY one, I believe there's a rule to have lc in prose, or was that changed since I saw that we have to say "the Beatles", not "The Beatles"? --GA
    I have fixed the Los Angeles Times one. "The" in The New York Times should be capitalized, as "The" is part of the newspapers' official name, per this, this, and this
  • Hannah Elliot, writing for Forbes, claimed that the FF was "the most perfectly balanced car I can ever remember driving". - I am no friend of a construction that has a third-person subject and then suddenly "I", - that could be helped by a colon before the quote, no?
    nothing wrong with the current one i don't think, i changed it to [she]
  • no idea what "rakish" means but understand that you can't link from a quote.
    linked to wiktionary
  • Patrick Hoey of Motor Trend called the FF "docile" and "user-friendly" and appreciated its light steering. Hoey, however, criticised ..." - by the time I reached the second "Hoey" I had forgotten the first, - how about simply: "Patrick Hoey ... appreciated its light steering, but criticised ...". One "however" less ;)
  • general: I think that there's a lot of quotes in the reception, - could that be summarized, there or in the lead? Some of the quotes read to me as if the author wanted to be unique, at the cost of clarity, but again: that could just be me.
  • "That year, the magazine Top Gear gave the FF the Estate Car of the Year 2011." - Isn't 2011 redundant, after "that year"?

How pleasant not to need five nights for a review! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed these, with some responses. Thoughts now @Gerda Arendt:? 750h+ 06:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for changes and explanations, - all understood, two comments above. I missed that FF compares to royalty ;) - I'd like one sentence in the lead about reception that is more qualified than "mixed", and would prefer that summary (if length is a concern) to knowing the exact name of the successor which can be easily found in the informative infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: thoughts? 750h+ 07:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the lead again: I don't need the predecessor either, at least not before I even learnt what FF stands for. (In other words: that sentence got too complex when the 4-wheel was added.) How about a sentence of summary about reception? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: predecessor is necessary, in fact i've included it in the lead of every one of my FAs, and Elizabeth II also has it too. I added a sentence about the reception. 750h+ 08:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, but still hope you will have the capability to split that sentence in two ;) - Support for FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Generalissima

[edit]

Will get back to this posthaste. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: just checking in. 750h+ 01:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, I came down with a nasty bug.

  • Use template:Lang when you have the italicized Italian text.
  • Make sure the footnote is cited; cite #19 should be fine.
  • "even suggesting that "Kia" I think this would be better without the "even", as to come off less editorializing.
  • The reception section falls into a lot of common pitfalls, with a lot of X said "Y" statements. I'd recommend giving WP:RECEPTION a look-through. Is there a way we can summarize some of this coverage instead of relying on quotes? The two Dan Neil quotes could def. be paraphrased in favor of direct quotes, and could likely be combined into a single thought.

@750h+: That's all I see. Thank you very much for your work! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: what do you think now? 750h+ 02:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks 750h+ 03:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ord query

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: could i start a new nomination? this nomination has three supports, and a completed source and image review. 750h+ 03:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. FrB.TG (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 4 November 2024 [11].

It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water

[edit]
Nominator(s): — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the turn of the century, Phil Elverum of the Microphones released the folk album It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water. Although frequently overlooked in the following years (overshadowed by its younger sibling), the album still received critical acclaim, going on to be "widely regarded as [an] indie pop classic" and inspire "weirdo singer/songwriter[s]" everywhere. Thanks to @Gen. Quon: for mentorship on this nomination. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Will review. 750h+ 14:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead
  • make the lead two paragraphs (per MOS:LEADLENGTH)
  • The album was recorded on analogue tape ==> "The album was recorded on analog tape" (AmEng)
  • The album was recorded on analog tape, and Elverum embraced the medium's technical imperfections. ==> "Recorded on analog tape, Elverum embraced the medium's technical imperfections"
background and recording
  • came to increasingly trust his musical abilities. ==> "came to trust his musical abilities increasingly."
  • Prior to It Was Hot's release ==> "Before It Was Hot's release" (conciseness)
  • between September 24, 1999, and March 6, 2000 at Dub add a comma after "2000"
  • on analogue tape, which ==> "on analog tape, which"
music and themes
  • merge the first paragraph and second paragraph (single-sentence paragraphs are generally unfavorable)
release and reception
  • droning, distorted guitars and organs" ==> "droning, distorted guitars[,] and organs"

That's all i got. Fine work on the article! 750h+ 08:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: Thank you for the review! All comments implemented. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 750h+ 00:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • ""The Glow" acts as the album's climax and introduces the concept of the "glow", which was explored in more depth on 2001's The Glow Pt. 2." - this reads a tiny bit oddly, as you refer to this album in the present tense but then a later album in past tense. Maybe this could be dodged by saying "which would be explored".......?
  • "as well as the extended play Window:." - is that colon part of the title, rather than a typo.....?
  • Check for overlinking - drones is linked multiple times, as are K Records, Phil Elverum, the Microphones, PopMatters, and more....
  • That's all I got. Great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comments! "was" changed to "would be". The colon is intentional.
    Per MOS:REPEATLINK, repeat links are allowed if in different sections. I don't think removing many of the links you mentioned would be beneficial to the reader, although I removed some. Let me know your thoughts. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review and spotcheck

[edit]

Images seem well-placed. File:ItWasHotWeStayedInTheWaterCover.jpg has a broken source URL. Where on the source for File:Will Oldham 2017.jpg is the licence? File:The Pull - The Microphones.ogg's rationale probably needs to describe a bit more why a sample is needed. File:Eric'striplive.jpg from which one file is derived has a broken source. I don't see ALT text anywhere. Source-wise (spot-check contained therein):

Thanks for the review: will reply to each point in order. Source URL fixed; per diario.madrid.es website, "With few exceptions expressly indicated, the contents of the daily website.madrid.es are published under Creative Commons CC by 4.0 license" (google translate); file rationale expanded; can't find the Eric's trip file anywhere else, not sure what else I can do, deadlinked content doesnt necessitate removal; alt text added. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • #1 doesn't mention "The Pull" anywhere. It also doesn't say that "The Glow" is the climax or that it has segments.
    • It Was Hot opens with lightly-strummed acoustic guitar switching rhythmically from the right to left channel of your speaker. Don't need to cite that the opener is "The Pull".
    • leading up perfectly to the album's climax, the laid-back yet riveting charms of the Microphones' otherworldly cover of Eric's Trip's "Sand," and the epic "The Glow." [...] The latter [...] weaves several loosely connected segments together into a disjointed, yet brilliantly self-referential epic.— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
  • Where does #2 speak of liner notes?
    • It's kind of a WP:BLUE. The liner notes not giving individual contributions is an obvious fact and is used to introduce the following quote. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
  • In #3, the article text resembles the source's "It was his first LP in a streak to revolve around an element of nature – here, of course, water — before 2001’s The Glow pt. II captured fire and air and 2003’s Mount Eerie did rock. " a bit much. Is the "B" in the sidebar supposed to source the 4 out of 5 star thing?
    • 4/5 changed to B. For the wording, honestly, I disagree. The parts that are similar are mostly the parts that are facts and have to be kept— the albums, the element names, use of the word "element". I don't see ways to reword without making the sentence less clear but open to ideas. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
      • Let's see if anyone else has input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would be more than happy to provide an additional opinion on this as I have worked on several music-related FACs in the past. Apologies for being dense, but @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, could you please clarify the question for me? I just want to make sure that I am looking at and providing an opinion about the right thing. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          The question is whether the text in the source is too similar to that in the article, to be a problem per WP:CLOP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Thank you for the clarification. I can understand the WP:CLOP concern as the sentence structure in the article is quite similar to the one used in the citation. I agree that with certain word choices being kept, (i.e. the albums, the element names, the word "element"), but I wonder if there is a way to structure this differently. Maybe start with saying that It Was Hot's central theme is water and then go into saying that this would become a continuing theme for the next two albums, and then end with The Glow, Pt. 2 and Mount Eerie being themed around fire and rock respectively. This is of course just a suggestion. Jo-Jo Eumerus may have (and likely has) better ideas. Again, I think it is more about the structure, and less about the word choice, which I do agree will be similar as those words would need to be carried over into the article. I hope that this helps, and apologies in advance if it does not. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Thanks for your insight, and sorry for the delayed response. I've taken your suggestion to introduce It Was Hot's theme first. See this [12]. Pinging @Aoba47 and Jo-Jo Eumerus: what do you think? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Thank you for the response and the ping. No need to apologize. I think that the edit addresses the concern with close paraphrasing, but that is my opinion and I would of course respect what Jo-Jo Eumerus has to say about it. For me, I would say that the current wording is appropriate. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          This edit seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • #4's "because even though he collaborated with other musicians on the project throughout the years, the Microphones name is really synonymous with Elverum himself. " might resemble "Although the project has involved many collaborations with other musicians, it is considered synonymous with Elverum" too much.
  • #6 Again sentence structure very similar to source. What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • #8 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
  • #9 Does Johnson still own the studio?
  • #10 What makes this podcast a reliable source?
  • #11 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
  • #12 What makes this website a reliable source?
  • #13 Archive is broken.
    • So, that's odd. I keep trying to archive this and it isn't going through. I'll remove the broken link for now. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
  • #15 says "chaos", not "noise"
  • #16 What makes Heather Phares a reliable source? "presents delicate, almost folky melodies wrapped up in and surrounded by waves of droning, distorted guitars" isn't there, either.
  • #17 where does it say that The Breeze has experimental bits?
  • #18 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
  • #20 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
  • #21 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented, but the URL may not be working.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the formatting of the bullet points, hope you don't mind. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for taking the time to review! All comments have received replies — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Could you confirm if this is a pass on the reviews you've conducted here or are there any outstanding issues? FrB.TG (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only the question under #3 needs input. And if someone can access #18-#21 that would be great. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So #3 is resolved. I am still AGFing on #18-#21 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Are you able to provide support, given the outstanding 2 sources are 00s magazines and don't exist anywhere online (as far as I can tell)? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Support", no, but a "Pass", yes, that I can do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco 1492

[edit]
  • Given the brevity of the article, is the K Records link in the release and reception section necessary?
  • shipped alongside extras - I was going to ask if this was worth linking to feelies (to use the term at TV Tropes), but apparently we don't have an article on the concept of physical goods shipped alongside media releases. :/ I may need to rectify that at some point.
  • from four publications - feels a bit overly specific, given that there could have been zines or other media that covered the release but have never been digitized.
  • [,] - I believe MOS:PMC would allow the Oxford comma to be added without the square brackets.
  • None of the listed personnel are discussed in the article. Have they never gone on record to discuss it?
  • I've made a few edits, almost exclusively commas. Please review

Overall, this is a tight little article that I'm basically already ready to support, aside from the personnel question and the "four publications". Most of this is nitpicks.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the review! Your comma edits look good. I've removed the first K Records link but feel like the release section is far down enough that readers may miss the lead link. Let me know thoughts. Re: personnel, I couldn't find really anything just on google. I did find a description of Mirah's contributions to "Ice", which have been added. I also found that Karl Blau re-recorded the album in 2004 [14] however I can't find reliable sources talking about it, and not sure how it fits into the scope of this article. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "frontman Phil Elverum recorded It Was Hot at Dub Narcotic Studio in Olympia, Washington". What do you mean by "recorded"? I took the opening sentence of the lead to mean that it was "recorded" by the Microphones.
    • Per a lower footnote, "Despite involvement with many collaborators, the project is considered synonymous with Elverum". Maybe the explanatory footnote could be also placed there, would that help? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
No, but the change to the opening sentence does. :-)
Sorry, I'm not sure what this means. Your original comment doesn't suggest a specific change. I can't see a good way to clear this up without adding clunky text; I feel like a footnote would work the best here. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
"No, but the change to the opening sentence does. :-)" means that you have already fixed it; the smiley means I am happy with your fix. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elverum embraced the medium's technical imperfections>" What does this mean? (If it is meant literally, why did he?)
    • I'm not sure what the non-literal interpretation is— he embraced the lo-fidelty of analogue tape rather than trying to avoid it. For the reasons why, I think it was a necessity due to the recording studio, but later became part of his musical style. From Don't Wake Me Up (album): " The studios in which Don't Wake Me Up was recorded lacked high-fidelity recording equipment. Johnson said, [Elverum] didn't have the attitude that this wasn't a real studio. He was more like, 'Hey, this is fun.'" I've added a sentence to help clarify this, sourced from the book: The equipment at Dub Narcotic was modest and relatively primitive compared to what was housed in the Northwest studios that had emerged during the grunge boom of the previous ten years, but it was far beyond what was available to Phil in Anacortes. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
  • "which would be explored in more depth on 2001's The Glow Pt. 2." Which is what?
    Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. What does "what" refer to? Thanks — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
Introduce "2001's The Glow Pt. 2" properly. Tell a reader what it is, else they won't know.
Intro added — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
  • Lead: "It was released by K Records on September 26, 2000."; main article: "Microphones frontman Phil Elverum released Don't Wake Me Up in 1999." Which?
    Clarified that Don't Wake Me Up was released under K as well. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
  • Note a "Despite involvement with many collaborators, the project is considered synonymous with Elverum." This does not make grammatical sense. Who had "involvement with many collaborators"?
  • "The review was published prior to the album's 2013 reissue, per this archive; Phares has been writing for AllMusic since before the album's release, per here." It is not necessary to cite in line. Just write in Wikipedia's voice and cite normally.
  • "setting "a new precedent" for K Records". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named '''in article text''' if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
  • "was also used for Elverum's previous albums." Assuming you mean 'was also used to record Elverum's previous albums' could you say so.
  • "Elverum's previous albums." Albums plural, although only one has been mentioned so far. Have I miscounted or are there other unmentioned albums?
  • "Initially, when Elverum began working". I would suggest that one of "Initially" or "when Elverum began" is redundant.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the album's lyrics were inspired by the poetic nature and mysteriousness of Will Oldham's work." Cold Oldhan and/or their work be briefly introduced.
  • "The Gleam" and "(Something)" use drones similar to "The Glow", and the two-minute interlude "The Breeze" uses experimental elements. "Between Your Ear and the Other Ear" uses elements of freak folk and audio feedback. The album's closer, "Organs", uses a swell of guitars and keyboards". Could we cut the four uses of "use" or "uses" by using a synonym or two?
  • "Sputnikmusic's joshuatree reviewed the album in 2008, praising the "unpredictable nature of the album", and called it Phil Elverum's second-best album". A synonym for the first use of "album"? (And, ideally, the third.)
  • "Douglas wrote, "Not many artists can say they wrote their masterpiece". Can we avoid using "wrote" twice in eight words?
  • Baumgarten, book titles should be in title case.
  • References: article titles should consistently be in title case, regardless of how they appear in their original.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. Some come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PerfectSoundWhatever, nudge. You want to get back to me on these? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry life (sickness!) got in the way. 1 fixed; 1 needs clarification. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
Sorry to hear that. Hopefully my support will go some way towards cheering you up. Nice article, good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the well wishes, I appreciate the support — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 November 2024 [15].

2003–04 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Did you read and enjoy my last FAC nomination, all about when Gillingham F.C. achieved their highest ever finish in English football? Well, read this one and see how the wheels began to fall off almost immediately! This one's got it all - mobs taking to the streets to protest the colour of the players' shirts, the team going through goalkeepers like they were going out of fashion, the manager getting ejected by the referee and (almost certainly just to make a point) immediately entering the game as a player, a goalkeeper suffering a career-ending injury after managing to collide with the other team's goalkeeper, and a streaker! Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eem dik doun in toene

[edit]
  • In the infobox, Agyemang is said to have been the club's sole top goal scorer in the league with 6, but in the players table, Spiller and Shaw are also shown with 6 goals.
  • For consistency, I would put something like (pictured in ...) in the text under all five photos in the article.
  • "after an error by Brown" ==> Jason or Wayne Brown?
  • I made two small corrections in the article.
  • That's it from me. Excellent read! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eem dik doun in toene: - thanks for your review, all addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "league table, only two positions above the bottom three places in the 24-team league table": duplicate links
  • "More than 20 years later": probably best to say that "As at 2024"

Just two points from me, both minor. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

[edit]
  • I usually focus on grammar/comma issues and everything seems to be alright with regards to that in this article. It is a support from me. Great work!
  • The images are all correctly licensed with alt texts so the image review passes as well.--NØ 19:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass

[edit]

To follow - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure about linking the publishing locations in the Works cited section. Links are supposed to "increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand", and linking Nottingham, Durrington and Stroud doesn't achieve that aim. I'd also suggest the same for publisher names, as these are also fairly useless in giving readers an understanding of the Gillingham season.
  • Check the capitalisation on article titles, which goes awry in places. Most are in sentence case, but for some (FNs 3, 6 and 127) caps have sneaked in there
  • Formatting all OK aside from that.
  • Searches have shown no obvious gaps in the sourcing, and the ones used are appropriate
  • The newspaper sources are used properly and within reason.

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: - all done, I think. Thanks for your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff: this is a pass on the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TRM

[edit]

Back with a bite. Small start on comments, please ping me as I'm only around sporadically right now!

  • "league season were inconsistent; a run of four consecutive defeats in September and October left the team in 20th place in the First Division league table, only two positions above the bottom three places in the 24-team league table" how many "league" mentions? And double table?
  • "The team's final two games of 2003 both resulted in victories," bit fluffy/passive, repetitive: "The team won their final two games of 2003"...
  • "first time Gillingham had won two consecutive league games during the season, leaving them 15th at the end of the calendar year" perhaps me being subserviant to our American superiors, but do normal readers know that our football season doesn't run per the calendar year?
  • "slightly superior" probably remove "slightly".
  • "two knock-out tournaments" does anyone in the UK ever refer to cup competitions as "knock-out tournaments"? Perhaps stick with British English and link accordingly. I know this will rile up some of the yanks but hey-ho.
  • "defeated Charlton Athletic of the top-tier FA Premier League in the third round before being eliminated in the fourth round." by whom? Someone useless?
  • "eliminated in the fourth round. They were eliminated .... in the third round" jarring repetition.
  • "Gillingham played 51 competitive matches..." You mean "During the 2003-04 season, Gillingham played 51 competitive matches..." start a new para or something here.
  • "for a league" surely "for *the* league*"?
  • Where are home/away colours referenced?
  • " 2003–04 season was Gillingham's 72nd season " season ... season
  • Finding it hard to sequence the first and second sentence of "Background and pre-season"... Maybe it needs some filler to say how the club went from re-election to the 1999/2000 season playoffs?
  • "finished in 13th place.[5] The following season, they bettered this performance, finishing in 12th place,[6] and in the 2002–03 season they finished 11th,[" season ... finished ... season ... finished ... season ... finished. Not brilliant prose for me.
  • "Andy Hessenthaler was the team's" probably need to reiterate this season.
  • "since 2000.[10] Wayne Jones held the post of coach.[11] merge?
  • "the club's promotion in" don't we relink once into the main body?
  • "decision.[22][21] " ref order.
  • "Significant redevelopment took place..." looks better as a new para after all the disquiet about kit.
  • "As of 2024, the new stand has never been" -> maybe "As of November 2024, the new stand has not been...."
    • The ref isn't specifically from November (not least because we are still in October! :-) )
  • "who were in 24th place in the table " most of our yank friends won't know this means dead last.
  • "which left them in 16th place " who is them?
  • "victory, the team's first victory" repetitive.
  • "was broadcast live by Sky Sports" this is insignificant to almost everyone who doesn't support a shit team.... I know it.
  • "past Bertrand Bossu" maybe make it clear he was the goalkeeper?
  • "just five minutes" bit emotive.
  • "final minute and the game finished 2–2.[64] Gillingham beat Stoke City 3–1 in the final game " not in the same context, but final and game repeated here, making for lacklustre flow in the prose.

That's enough for me for now, been a while since I've been here, done this. Happy to continue now the dreadful "oversight" from genuine non-English speakers has dissipated to a degree, let me know if/when you'd like more on the remainder of the article. The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 22:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

  • "promotion-chasing" technically isn't every team promotion-chasing? It just has a feel of journalistic overtones, maybe note what position the Blades were in, or recent form, and let the readers make up their own minds.
  • "game of February;[79] the game " game game.
  • programme - have you linked matchday programme?
  • "with in a long time" can you "quote" this as this statement is very vague.
  • "first appearance in the starting line-up since November.[81] In the same game Brown made his first appearance" first appearance first appearance.
  • "The team ended the month" last team mentioned was Spurs.
  • "12 professionals available" this might be a complex situation for non-Brits to handle, that there's a difference between youth team players not being fully professional and first-team players, in general, being fully pro. Is there a way to cover off the standard non-expert response to this?
  • "the result left them in 21st" last team mentioned was West Brom.
  • "conceded three goals ... but then conceded" conceded conceded.
  • "Stoke's manager, had" shouldn't manager have been linked a few sections back?
  • Bradford and Sunderland are A.F.C., not F.C. but redirects aren't prohibited....
  • "before the half-time interval" probably could add who scored here.
  • "scored an early goal, Gillingham scored" scored scored.
  • "The random draw" is random needed here?
    • People commented in multiple earlier FACs that it was needed, otherwise people not as au fait with British football would think the FA Cup had a pre-determined draw for the whole competition like Wimbledon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they played well in the second half" according to...?
  • Ref 112: p. 621, 623. should be pp.

That's it for now! The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 22:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - thanks for this thorough review. Everything in the second chunk addressed other than where noted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: - thank you, sir :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Drive-by comment

[edit]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 November 2024 [16].

American Writers

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

America's #2 novelist travels to London in 1823 to become #1 and reverse British disdain for US literature. Pretending to be English, he hooks up with a Scottish publisher and becomes a regular contributor for a leading Edinburgh magazine – the first American to do so! One of his submissions is the first attempt anywhere at a history of American literature and the first critical survey of the new nation's authors. British readers appreciate it and American readers go nuts in their hatred, the biggest hater being a young newspaper apprentice named William Lloyd Garrison. In the long run, the words bear influence and the critic is to a degree absolved by scholarship. This is my 9th FA nomination (7th on a John Neal (writer) topic). I very much appreciate reviewers taking the time to read the article and leave comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hello Dugan Murphy, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

They are all in public domain, mainly because the underlying works are not covered by copyright anymore due to their age. All images are relevant to the article and placed at appropriate locations. They all have captions and alt texts. The only minor issue I spotted is that the caption of "John Neal by Sarah Miriam Peale 1823 Portland Museum of Art.jpg" says "1823" but wiki commons page says "circa 1823". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: Thanks for the image review and for picking up on the Peale painting date issue. I just made the recommended change to that image caption. Does the image review pass? Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that takes care of the remaining concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EG comments

[edit]

I'll leave some comments soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • The two lead paragraphs are a bit long, which is not bad in itself. However, for readability, I recommend splitting off the sentence beginning with "The series was well received in the UK and exerted measurable influence over British critics" (currently in paragraph 2) into its own paragraph. This new paragraph seems like it would roughly correspond with the "Contemporary reactions" and "Modern scholarship" sections.
Recommendation accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: The phrasing "later critics decades later" is a bit clunky. I'd reword this, e.g. changing the first "later" to "subsequent"
Great point. I chose "other" instead. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "Moving there from Baltimore, his goals" - This has a dangling modifier. Neal, not his goals, moved to the UK from Baltimore.
I swapped "Moving there from Baltimore" to "Having moved there from Baltimore". Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "That edition remains the most accessible of Neal's literary productions." - Pattee's edition?
Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blackwood engages Neal
  • Para 2: "Neal's resources were running low after living in England with no income for three months." - This also has a dangling modifier (Neal's resources didn't live in England; Neal did).
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "a period in which such periodicals were more influential than ever before" - Should this be "a period when..."?
Yes, I think so. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "The magazine had not, however, published a single piece on an American topic from June 1822 until Neal's first piece in May 1824." - Unless June 1822 was when Blackwood's was first published (which it wasn't), I would rephrase this to "The magazine did not, however, publish a single piece on an American topic from June 1822 until Neal's first piece in May 1824." Otherwise, it may sound like it had never published a single piece on an American topic, ever, and that June 1822 was when its first piece ever was published.
Rephrased. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thank you for noticing all these! I have addressed each comment so far. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll have some more comments on Thursday or Friday. Thanks for getting to these so quickly. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I forgot about this. I will leave comments on Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Hog Farm's review is complete. Feel free to jump back in when you're ready! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll leave some comments shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steady contributorship:
  • Para 1: I might have been missing something, but why would Blackwood reject Neal's articles after learning who Neal was? Was it because Blackwood didn't want to accept an American's submission?
It was Walker, not Blackwood. The rejection was because Neal was American, so I edited the sentence to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "The first installment of the American Writers series came out in the September 1824 issue" - The phrasing "out in" sounds kind of awkward so I would just use "was published" in place of "came out".
Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymity:
  • Para 2: "under the name X.Y.Z." - Technically this would be an initialism or an acronym.
Changed "name" to "initials". Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paras 2 and 3: "most British readers likely knew they were reading the work of an American" ... "Readers on both sides of the Atlantic largely knew they were reading the work of an American" - In light of the second statement, the first seems repetitive. I think you could rephrase this section to only include the second statement ("Readers on both sides of the Atlantic largely knew they were reading the work of an American").
I didn't follow your suggestion exactly, but I changed the first sentence of the last paragraph in that section to remove the reference to British readers. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Content:
  • Para 1: Do any of the sources explain why there is a discrepancy between the quantities of names? (For instance, were there instances in which several people were covered in the same paragraph?)
None that I can find. My understanding of the discrepancy is explained below in answer to one of Hog Farm's comments, but that's not appropriate to include in the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "a proportionality Richards said was "frequently grossly violated"" - Later on in this section, the article mentions that Neal wrote about all of these authors from his own memory. If I'm reading this correctly, was the proportionality of the description of each author based on how much he remembered about them (rather than being based on their importance in the American literary scene)?
I believe Richards in that quote was saying that Cooper (top US novelist at the time) deserved more than half a page if Neal was to give himself 8. None of the sources say that all the authors who got less coverage from Neal got that little because of Neal's poor memory. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "He wrote it all in a style unique to himself" - Do the sources describe this style at all?
I changed "style" to "conversational tone" to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "Richards considered that coverage to be far out of proportion to his role in American literature" - Nothing wrong with this sentence, I just found it funny that he believed himself to be one of the few writers of "truly American literature" and wrote eight pages about himself.
That's John Neal. He was about as shy about praising himself as he was about taking himself down. He did both in American Writers, as the article states. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "Neal's critique of William Cullen Bryant was likely the basis for the section on Bryant in James Russell Lowell's satirical poem A Fable for Critics over twenty years later" - Was this critique parodied for being inaccurate?
Not at all. The source quotes Neal's critique of Bryant and says: "Lowell later put this into metres in his Fable for Critics." Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thanks for these comments! They are all addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing them so quickly, and my apologies for being relatively slow with these comments. I'll leave more feedback this weekend. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
United Kingdom:
  • Para 1: "many used quotes to substantiate" - I'd clarify that they used quotes from American Writers.
Clarified! Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "with ushering a brief period of increased critical attention of his novels among British reviewers" - Would the British Critic review (in the previous sentence) be one such example of increased critical attention?
Yes. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I take it that British periodicals reviewed American Writers much more positively than American periodicals?
Yes, that's what the second sentence of the "United States" section says. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
United States:
  • Para 1: "Neal wrote five novels in Baltimore" - This is referring retrospectively to Neal's authorship of these novels, so I would say "Neal had written five novels in Baltimore...".
Recommendation accepted! Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: Were there any other notable American authors, besides Fairfield, who reviewed the piece positively?
Not that I can find in the sources. Richards introduces that Fairfield quote by saying that Fairfield represented a minority in the US on the matter. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Portland, Maine:
  • I wonder if this section should be retitled to reflect that it's about Neal's return to Portland, Maine. The way the section is currently titled, it gives the impression that this is solely about commentary from people in Portland, Maine.
The parent category is "Contemporary reactions" and this subsection is "Portland, Maine". The way I see it, each of these subsections is thus understood to be "Contemporary reactions in <UK/US/Portland>". It feels beside the point that the contemporary reactions presented in the previous two subsections are all printed in periodicals, versus in Portland, where they were printed on broadsides and communicated with a racist prank and fistfights. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Influence on American writers:
  • "By claiming the US did not yet have a distinct literature, it is possible Neal helped authors of the later American Renaissance" - Did any specific person say this? The text that I've underlined gives the impression that there may be disagreement over whether Neal did help authors of the later American Renaissance.
I don't mean to give an impression of disagreement, so I've reworded to hopefully better reflect the source. This is what it says: "In his essays on American literature as of 1824 in Blackwood's Magazine, he described all American writers—including himself—as failing to imagine or enact a genuinely American literature suited to express the energy, newness, and difference that elsewhere distinguished the new nation from its English forebears. In brief, Neal suggested that Charles Brockden Brown, Washington Irving, and James Fenimore Cooper were little more than transatlantic reproductions of, respectively, William Godwin, Oliver Goldsmith, and Sir Walter Scott. With the decks so cleared, Emerson and his associates could imagine for themselves a fresh start, so disregarding fifty years of American writing since independence." Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have more by Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thank you for the additional comments! I have addressed them all. Looking forward to more. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to finish my review today. Sorry for the delay.
Modern scholarship:
  • I take it that this section is about 20th- and 21st-century scholars. The 20th century isn't exactly modern, so this section is more like "retrospective scholarship".
Fair. I changed it to simply "scholarship". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "Scholars have called American Writers the first history of literature from that country" - I presume you mean "the first history of American literature"?
Definitely. This is my attempt to avoid two Americans so close together. I changed it to "US literature". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "and according to one scholar, his most interesting to a modern audience" - Is it worth mentioning this scholar's name?
Why not? Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "An example of Neal's misinformation and unfairness was captured by the 1930 biographer of Fitz-Greene Halleck, who referred to Neal's critique of Halleck as "difficult to match for hopeless inaccuracy and unabashed egotism." - Nothing really wrong with this per se, I just found it interesting that this critique is wedged in between praise for the publication.
The praise is definitely balanced in other parts of that paragraph, so this sentence doesn't feel like a departure in my reading of it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, were there any other notable retrospective commentaries that criticized the inaccuracies in this series?
The intro to the John Neal section of the DiMercurio book says "Neal's essays favor passion over accuracy, however, and are known to be riddled with factual errors." I ended up not using this item in my notes, which feels fine to me because it is the only notable mention of American Writers in that piece. It is also a very brief piece, as opposed to the lengthier pieces that get cited more in the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Publication history:
  • Para 1: "Their first collection in one publication" - Was this the first time they were all published at once? Or were they published in different issues of the same publication?
American Writers was originally published serially over multiple issues of the same magazine. The first time the separate installments were presented together in one publication was 1937. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "This was the first republication of a substantial work by Neal since his death and the first of a series in the twentieth century that also included Observations on American Art: Selections from the Writings of John Neal in 1943, "Critical Essays and Stories by John Neal" in 1962, Rachel Dyer in 1964, Seventy-Six in 1971, and The Genius of John Neal in 1978, the last of which includes Neal's review of Irving from American Writers and his review of Cooper from "Late American Books"" - This sentence is quite long, and I would recommend splitting it up. For example, "This was the first republication of a substantial work by Neal since his death. It was also the first of a series..."
Suggestion accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it from me. Overall, this is a pretty good article. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments! I have addressed them all. Do you see any other issues with the article worth discussing? Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not. I support this FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll review this once Epicgenius has completed their review. Hog Farm Talk 13:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, feel free to review the article. It might take me a while to get through this page due to real-life work commitments, and I can resume my review once you're done. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here we go. I'm trying to multitask between reviewing this and listening to the KC Royals playoff game, so apologies if some of this doesn't make any sense. Hog Farm Talk 02:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • " The first postmortem republication of any of his works was 1937," - the phrasing in the body says that this was the first republishment of a substantial work by Neal; would it be better to weaken the statement in the lead similar to how it is phrased in the body?
Yes! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal did not publish anything else substantial in Blackwood's until September, however" - how are we defining "substantial" here? Because this would imply what is mostly a gap between February 1825 and September 1825, but we've earlier state that he published an article in every issue between July 1824 and February 1826
Thank you for bringing this up. The Sears book does say he had an article in every issue between July 1824 and February 1826, but checking that against other sources, it seems that Sears has a typo and meant to say Feb 1825, not 1826. I have changed Feb 1826 to Feb 1825 in the first paragraph of that section and left the last sentence of that section alone. By saying he didn't publish anything substantial between Feb 1825 and Sep 1825, I could also say that the only thing he published in Blackwood's between those two issues is what Richards describes as a "short note" on Maximilian Godefroy. I think it's better as it is rather than adding this detail, but let me know if you think otherwise. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it intentional that the minimum number of authors detail in this work is 120, but the list of author critiqued at the end of the article only contains 119 entries?
The list of authors at the end of the article is based on the table of contents for the 1937 edition, which lists out the authors covered in each installment. Your comment gave me reason to double-check for differences between this part of the article and the TOC. I found 3 authors missing from the Wiki article, so now the Wiki list includes 122. There are two cases in which Neal lists one author name, but Pattee clarifies in each case that the name is a pen name shared by two different authors. This is to say that, if I used the pen names in this list instead of the authors' individual real names, there would be exactly 120. For the scholars who count 135, I think they are counting not only the 122 in this Wiki list, but a few authors mentioned briefly by Neal in the 5 core installments who did not make into the 1937 TOC, as well as the extra authors mentioned in "Late American Books", which is often lumped in with the American Authors series and was included in the 1937 edition. However, those authors are not mentioned in the 1937 TOC, so I decided not to include them in the article's list. Thank you for reading all that and let me know if you have any thoughts on it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the page range in the long citation for Strachan et al? The long citation indicates that you are citing the introduction, which is pp. xxii through xx, but you end up citing p. 257 of that work
Good catch! The roman numeral citations are for the introduction to volume 6; the page 257 citation is to the introduction to the chapter on American Writers. I've added a separate entry in the source list for the item on page 257 and edited the inline citations to fit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work here; I fully expect to support. Hog Farm Talk 02:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the compliment! I have addressed all your comments. Do you think any of those comments warrant further discussion or do you have other comments? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good to me; supporting Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • What makes Project Britain a high-quality reliable source?
Now that I'm looking at it critically, I don't think it is. I've replaced that source with Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, which also supports the 21 shillings conversion. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will need formatting to match the other refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the location of publication, which I believe was the change needed to make the formatting match the other refs. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest formatting FN13 as a list
That's the citation that pops up when you use {{Inflation-fn|US}}, so I guess that's a comment for the template design and not this article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brennan publisher is misspelled
Good find! I committed the same typo in two other FAC-approved articles and nobody noticed. I've fixed it in all three. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how locations are formatted
I believe they are consistent now. Some lacked state names and there was a New York vs. New York City discrepancy. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether publishers are linked
Standardized! I went with unlinked. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JSTOR IDs removed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for reviewing the sources! I have addressed all your comments. Does the article now pass or do you see issues that still need to be addressed? Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I see your one reply and I believe it is now addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Neal's disproportionate coverage of many figures and much disinformation about them". "disproportionate" is vague. Does it mean too much on some writers and too little on others in the view of later critics? This should be clarified. "writers" would be better than "figures". "disinformation" means intentionally misleading, which is presumably not what you mean.
I meant to use misinformation instead of disinformation, but I've reworded in such a way to use neither word. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in-person hostility". Why not "personal hostility" I would take in-person to mean with the participation of the person concerned.
How much more in-person can you get than a fistfight? I'm not sure what "personal hostility" would communicate if used in this sentence. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it was republished by the New European" Presumably soon afterwards and it would be helpful to say so.
The cited source (Sears) doesn't give a timeline. Pattee quotes Neal's autobiography without correction that "before six months were over" after his arrival in London, he had published in a number of magazines, including the New European. Adding that Pattee source to the citation, I feel comfortable adding the word "soon". Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal later wrote about this period to indicate he was already on a mission to write about American topics in the UK, but biographer Irving T. Richards argues Neal likely found the opportunity with Blackwood after he arrived." This is unclear. You say above that he wanted to raise the prestige of American writing, so what is the contrast? If you mean that he only decided to write about other US topics when encouraged by Blackwood, then you should clarify this.
The contrast is Neal's version of the story versus Richards's version of the story: at what point did Neal decide to write on American topics. I've reworded that sentence to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal later wrote about this period to indicate he traveled to the UK on a mission to write about American topics". I think "Neal later wrote that he traveled to the UK on a mission to write about American topics" would be clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendation accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He dedicated half a page to James Fenimore Cooper, six pages to Charles Brockden Brown, eight to himself, and ten to Washington Irving—a proportionality Richards said was "frequently grossly violated"." I do not understand this.
I've added "based on their comparative importance" to the end of that sentence to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He dedicated half a page to James Fenimore Cooper, six pages to Charles Brockden Brown, eight to himself, and ten to Washington Irving—a proportionality Richards said was "frequently grossly violated" based on their comparative importance." This seems clumsy to me. How about "Richards said that the coverage of each writer "frequently grossly violated" their comparative importance, such as the half page on James Fenimore Cooper, six pages on Charles Brockden Brown, eight on himself, and ten on Washington Irving."? (Maybe delete Washington Irving if coverage of him is proportional.) Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendation accepted. I left the page numbering in for Irving because it was listed in the source alongside the others and was not labeled as proportional. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attention of his novels" I would say "attention to his novels"
Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal expected this reaction and was aware before he returned to the US." I would say "aware of it", but maybe your usage is AmerEng.
Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We cannot express sufficiently, our Indignation [sic] at this renegade's base attempt to assassinate the reputation of this country" Why sic?
Because "Indignation" would not normally be capitalized. Do you think [sic] isn't warranted? Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading MOS:SIC just now, I agree. This is not a "significant error". I removed the sic tag, but added an invisible note to dissuade future editors from uncapitalizing the word. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is excessive use of the word "likely". I suggest sometimes using other words such as "probably".
There were 14 instances of "likely". I've changed one to "preumably" and four to "probably". Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've removed two more likelies while addressing other comments. We are now down to 7. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinks removed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Thank you very much for reviewing the article! I have addressed all your comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Thank you for following up on a few things. I have accepted those recommendations. Do you see any other issues with this article keeping it from FAC status? Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hawkeye7

[edit]

I have no expertise in this subject. All I know is from reading this article.

  • Spelling:
    • "rioutous" should "riotous"
    • "cleverist" should be "cleverest"
    • "anglophone" should be "Anglophone"
    Good finds! The first two are quotes, but it turns out I transcribed them wrong. All three spelling issues corrected. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have mentioned that I checked the quotes against the original. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The series was well received in the UK and exerted measurable influence over British critics" How do you measure influence?
I this is me wanting to say "considerable", but not feeling super confident that the sources really back that up. I've opted to simply remove "measurable" from the sentence. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blackwood and his editors likely figured out quickly they were dealing with an American" I am not fond of speculation in Wikipedia's voice.
I added "Scholars believe" to the beginning of that sentence and removed "likely". Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, "most British readers likely knew they were reading the work of an American" is not only speculative, but kind of WP:WEASEL-y as well.
Similarly, I've added "Cairns and Pattee believe" and removed "likely". Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a proportionality Richards said was "frequently grossly violated" I have no idea what the point is here.
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If you go in your natural shape, in the true garb of your nation, you will never be laughed at." hahaha. Great line. (Australians find irony very funny.)
I also like this line. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Literature scholars Alfred Fiorelli, Benjamin Lease, and Hans-Joachim Lang counted 120 names among the authors covered by Neal. Both Richards and scholar Alberta Fabris put the number at 135." But you have 122. Please explain.
The list of authors at the end of the article is based on the table of contents for the 1937 edition, which lists out the authors covered in each installment. There are two cases in which Neal lists one author name, but Pattee clarifies in each case that the name is a pen name shared by two different authors. This is to say that, if I used the pen names in this list instead of the authors' individual real names, there would be exactly 120. For the scholars who count 135, I think they are counting not only the 122 in this Wiki list, but a few authors mentioned briefly by Neal in the 5 core installments who did not make into the 1937 TOC, as well as the extra authors mentioned in "Late American Books", which is often lumped in with the American Authors series and was included in the 1937 edition. However, those authors are not mentioned in the 1937 TOC, so I decided not to include them in the article's list. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All looks very good to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thank you for reading the article and writing out comments! I have addressed them all. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Relativity

[edit]
  • Blackwood engages Neal— "After eight years in Baltimore, in late 1823 John Neal sailed to England."— reads better IMO if it's written as "After eight years in Baltimore, John Neal sailed to England in late 1823."
Sure! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blackwood engages Neal— "supplant Washington Irving and James Fenimore Cooper as the leading US literary figure,"— just to clarify, Neal wants to replace Irving and Cooper with himself as leading US literary figure?
Precisely. I've replaced "supplant" with "supersede" to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anonymity—"operation", according to literature scholar Ellen Bufford Welch. "[H]e considered [it] an impenetrable disguise", according to Pattee."— could two consecutive sentences with "according to" in them be avoided?
Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content— "Literature scholars Alfred Fiorelli, Benjamin Lease, and Hans-Joachim Lang counted 120 names among the authors covered by Neal."— link Hans-Joachim Lang
That's the wrong Hans-Joachim Lang, actually. He was 10 or 11 years old when Lang the literature scholar identified Neal as the author of "David Whicher". Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content— "Both Richards and scholar Alberta Fabris put the number at 135."— You may want to explain who Richards is in this sentence again, since the last time he was mentioned was in the steady contributorship section.
Sure. Done.

I'll read through the rest a bit later. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 23:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Relativity: Thanks for the comments! I have addressed them all. Let me know what other issues you see. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have one more question:

  • Content— "As a result, Neal devoted more space in some cases to anecdotes relating to an author than to analysis of their work."— How did Neal not having any notes on the texts or authors result in him talking about the author more than the work itself?
Throwing in one more reply before the bot closes the nomination: Fair question! Neal wrote about what he could remember, which wasn't always the most relevant thing to say about a given author. I'll look into rewording that since you brought it up. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I found the rest of the prose to be understandable and clear. Unfortunately, I am inexperienced with reviewing FAC (I generally deal better with GAN). However, I think that the prose is FA-worthy. Great work. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
@Gog the Mild: Thanks for finding that! There was a claim in the main article that used "measurable" to support this in the lead, but I removed "measurable" from the body per another comment above. I should have removed that word from the lead at the same time. I'll do that right now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 November 2024 [17].

Anactoria

[edit]
Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a figure mentioned in the poetry of Sappho -- though it isn't clear exactly how often, who she was, and even if she existed at all. Anactoria emerges from the fragmentary pages of Sappho with almost no biographical detail, which of course has not prevented scholars, from antiquity to the present, engaging in bold conjecture and outrageous speculation as to who she might have been. She then has an interesting (honest) Nachleben in Roman poetry and in English, where she provided a springboard for Swinburne's "frankly pornographic" "Anactoria", and for Robert Lowell to fill in many of the gaps left by Sappho's account of her. The article underwent a Good Article Review from Simongraham in April, and has recently received extremely helpful pre-FAC comments from Caeciliusinhorto. The inevitable errors and infelicities remain my own. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Author died 1918 (per Wikipedia and a few others) or 1903 (per Sotheby's and a few others); first exhibited at the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition (which is free and public) in 1896, per Sotheby's UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support from caeciliusinhorto

Nice to see another Sappho-related article at FAC (I'll finish up Sappho herself one day, I swear)! A few remaining textual comments from me, though you've cleared up my Sappho-related nitpicking already...

  • "Ancient Greek poet" – is "Ancient Greek" a proper noun here or should it be "ancient Greek"?
  • The lead says that Anactoria has been suggested as a pseudonym for Anagora of Miletus; the body says that Page suggested that Anagora was the pseudonym. Which? (Or has it been suggested both ways?)
  • "The digamma (Ϝ) written at the start of Anactoria's name, with a sound value similar to the English w, is unlikely to have been pronounced in Sappho's dialect." The Greek spelling given for Anactoria in the lead is without an initial digamma, and Neri's edition of Sappho 16 doesn't say anything about a digamma; it may be worth noting where the digamma comes from. (I'm not a linguist, but I presume because Anactoria is related to anax? Did Aeolic retain the digamma there after it was dropped from Ionic dialects?)

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much more for me to say except to offer my support. I spot-checked a couple of sources I had on hand and everything looked fine; the ancient literature part of this article is certainly pretty comprehensive and while I'm less confident on proclaiming with certainty on the post-classical receptions there's nothing missing that I would expect to see. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- for this and your advice beforehand. Looking forward to seeing Sappho (surely an FA-in-waiting if there ever was one) here in due course! UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Not much from me. My few comments are all on the prose rather than the content (adolescent boys in the 1960s were not exposed to Sappho's verse in their Greek lessons).

  • "It has also been speculated…" – I am not one of those absolutists who think using the passive voice is the sin against the Holy Ghost, but the passive leaves us a bit short-changed here, I think. "X, Y and Z speculate …" or some such would have more impact.
  • "written to another of Sappho's female companions" – "companions" seems to me rather a woolly, even evasive, term. Does it mean lover? Good friend? Colleague?
  • "the tenth-century Byzantine encyclopaedia known as the Suda" – it's mentioned in the previous para, where the link and probably the description oughter be.
  • "Glenn Most points out that …" – rather a loaded term, perhaps implying Wikipedia's endorsement rather than a neutral report of his comments.
    • I think we do want to endorse this -- it's self-evidently true from looking at the poem. I'd agree if we were saying e.g. "Glen Most believes [this statement of opinion], but Most hasn't actually come up with this -- he's just read the text. However, I think it would be SYNTHy to just come in and say, in Wikivoice without giving a name, that all the aforementioned scholars are speculating wildly (on which see the article's Talk page). UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Socrates and his male acolytes such as Alcibiades" – Order, order! I think "acolyte" is much too condescending a term for Alcibiades. The OED defines the word in this non-Christian context as "an attendant or assistant in some ceremony, operation, or the like; (also) a devoted follower or admirer; a novice or neophyte". A devoted admirer, I grant you (I know, or rather used to know, my Symposium) and I think "admirer" rather than "acolyte" would be the right word here.
    • Hm -- here I dissent slightly: the point is that these weren't just detached admirers, but actually his students, followers, entourage and intellectual descendants -- these are the people that the court were talking about when they executed Socrates for "corrupting the youth of Athens". I think "admirer" is a little weak for that, and implies far greater distance than we're talking about with a very close-knit (in various senses) group. Conversely, I think a devoted follower or admirer; a novice or neophyte is right on the money. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still think "acolytes" is generally a pejorative word when used in this sense (as opposed to its original meaning of "altar boys", from the Greek ἀκόλουθος). If anyone referred to me as an acolyte of anyone I should feel I had been slighted. If you're talking about "students, followers, entourage and intellectual descendants" why not say so? But I shan't press the point. Tim riley talk 09:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, I see -- I'm not sure I'd share that pejorative reading; you certainly hear people describe themselves as "acolytes" of distinguished professors, particularly in obituaries of the latter. But I'll keep thinking on it -- there may well be a better phrasing that gets the point across more effectively. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find to quibble about. It would be a work of supererogation to praise the pithy and readable prose or the admirably wide-ranging sourcing (no book cited more than three times). We expect no less from this editor. Tim riley talk 15:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Shall look again tomorrow. I'm not going to oppose or withhold support on any of the above points, but meanwhile I don't rule out a spirited brawl before I sign on the dotted line. Tim riley talk 17:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concluding comments, above, are not of such gravity as to prevent my supporting the elevation of this article to FA. The sources look admirable to my layman's eye, the text is clear and a pleasure to read, and I'm sure you have had no alternative to the ghastly Victorian paintings, which are undeniably relevant. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 09:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tim -- as ever, wise and thought-provoking. I'll keep thinking on the points you've raised above: hopefully, better solutions will present themselves. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • I wonder why a complete translation of Sappho 31 is provided but no quote of Sappho 16, even though much of the discussion is about the latter, and it was described as "the finest lines in all Sappho's poetry"? Having the original as reference could help with appreciating the article.
    • It's a length issue -- the problem is that she only refers to Anactoria halfway through, but you need the first half to make sense of it, and quoting the whole poem would, I thought, be a bit long. A version is here -- what do you think? I worry that it would make the infobox/illustration outsizedly big. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a reader, I personally would much prefer the Sappho 16 quote, which is the one that actually mentions Anactoria. It is slightly longer, but I don't think that is a big problem. Without it, the article feels a bit like the discussion of a painting that you can't see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I agree. There's another issue here, however, which is finding a good PD translation -- Storer didn't do 16. The one I linked isn't PD, so we can't include it here: so far, the only ones I can find are here and here (search "Anactoria" in either case). Honestly, I don't think either of them are great, and if the translation we offer can't do at least most of the job of showing why people like Robinson admire it so much, it's not going to do a whole lot of good. Pinging @Caeciliusinhorto: do you know of a good translation of Sappho 16 that will be usable (ie, published before 1929, probably by an author died before 1954?) UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Most of the pre-1929 translations of Sappho 16 which I am aware of are based on John Maxwell Edmonds' edition, which I don't love. It both differs in a few key places from modern readings (in the second stanza Edmonds' Loeb, for instance, has "Helen surveyed much mortal beauty" whereas the modern Loeb has "she who far surpassed mankind in beauty, Helen,") and has some of Edmonds' characteristic reconstructions, including e.g. adding "for woman is very easy to be bent" at the beginning of the fourth stanza (not translated in the modern Loeb; Rayor 2014 has "... [un]bending ... mind".
        The papyrus was initially published in vol.X of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, and I think Grenfell and Hunt were still doing exempli gratia translations at that point so you might try checking that, but I don't have access while archive.org is still down until the next time I drag myself to a library which has it so I can't comment on that for certain. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks -- I'll see if I can dig anything out when Archive.org comes back. I did wonder if there was some suitable equivalent of Template:External media that would work here, but I don't think there is for a purely text source. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Pardon me for butting in. I agree that if you're going to quote a fragment of Sappho here, it should be frag. 16, not frag. 31. There is no evidence to suggest that the latter has anything at all to do with Anactoria (whether you consider her a real person or a poetic construct). The fact that Victorian readers associated frag. 31 with Anactoria is an aspect of Sappho's reception, but it has nothing to do with Sappho herself, or with the text as we have it, and it really shouldn't appear in a section headed "In Sappho". Since frag. 16 contains the only surviving instance of the name Anactoria in the wreckage of Sappho's poetry, it seems to me the only rational choice for this particular article.
        As for translation, I agree with Caecilius that Edmonds should be avoided. His Loeb editions of Greek poets (not just lyric but also elegy and bucolic) are among the worst Loebs ever published. But I don't understand why you need a PD translation at all. Quoting a translation of a single fragment of 15-20 lines, with proper attribution, out of an entire volume devoted to translations of Sappho in particular (like Barnard's or Barnstone's) or Greek lyric in general (like Lattimore's or West's), is a textbook example of fair use, at least according to US law. So pick any modern translation you like and use it. There is no copyright problem here. Choliamb (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        If the article is going to quote a modern translation, I would be inclined to go with Rayor 2014. IIRC the 2014 discoveries improved our text of Sappho 16 very slightly, so earlier translations are now a little outdated. If we're not concerned about going with an out-of-copyright translation there's no reason not to use the most up-to-date version Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a good point. I don't think I knew that the text of 16 had been improved by the Obbink papyrus, or if I did I had forgotten. I just took a look at the edition in The Newest Sappho (Bierl and Lardinois 2016), and unfortunately "very slightly" is an accurate description. The gains are small and the fourth stanza (the one that contains Anactoria's name) is still terribly lacunose, so any English version that offers more than a few words in the first part of the sentence is going to be a hypothetical modern restoration rather than an actual translation. (Not saying that Rayor does this; I haven't seen her translation, so my comments are based solely on the new Greek text.) Happily, the standard interpretation of the end of the stanza (≈ "reminds me now of Anactoria in her absence") is not in any doubt, even if the subject of the verb remains unclear. Choliamb (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks, both -- I've added Rayor's translation of 16. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "In other classical literature" a subsection of "In Sappho"? It does not seem to fit there; in the section "In Sappho", I would expect content about Sapphos literature only.
    • Another one where I felt between a rock and a hard place: we could change the L2 heading to "In classical literature", but that would seem not to give Sappho her due weight: it would elide that writing about Anactoria in classical literature is, fundamentally, writing about Sappho. On the other hand, those other mentions in classical literature are direct derivatives of Sappho's portrayal, whereas the modern ones have at least a tenuous claim to be adapting (e.g.) Ovid. I had a bit of an idea here -- brought the classical subsection down into an expanded "Reception". How does that look? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reference in the tenth-century Byzantine encyclopaedia known as the Suda to "Anagora" – I found this a bit difficult to read, and it is not entirely clear if "known as the Suda" refers to the encyclopaedia or the reference. Maybe "A reference in the Suda, a tenth-century Byzantine encyclopaedia, to Anagora"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as ever, Jens. Replies above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi UndercoverClassicist, my comments:

  • Link to Glenn Most in the body and biblio?
  • Why have we not linked to Denys Page in the biblio when we have done so in the body?
  • Link to Ilja Leonard Pfeijffer in note 1 and the biblio?
  • Link to Richard Aldington in the biblio, if he was indeed the translator along with Storer?
  • Link to Patrick J. Finglass in Purves 2021?
  • Link to William Smith (lexicographer) in the biblio?
  • Link to Garry Wills in the body and biblio?

I could also do the source review if needed. That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choliamb

[edit]

I'm traveling right now and I'm terrible at typing with one finger on a tiny mobile keyboard, so I'll confine myself to two quick comments about the authenticity of the Ep. Sapph. (Her. 15):

  • It's fine to cite Rosati and Rimell (neither of whom I have read), but you really should give credit to Tarrant's article in Harvard Studies for 1981 (this one) , which single-handedly turned the ship of critical opinion around and tilted the consensus against authenticity. If a majority of scholars now believes that the poem is not Ovid's (and I think that is probably true), it's largely due to Tarrant.
  • I think the note as it stands slightly misrepresents Murgia's view of the probable date of the poem. On the page cited (p. 472) he says "a poet of the next generation", which is not quite the same thing as "a poet around a generation later", which is what the article now says. What Murgia actually means by that phrase is explained on p. 466, note 24. It could have been written any time after the Epistulae ex Ponto and before Seneca's tragedies, but Murgia thinks the most likely time was shortly after Ovid's death, not a generation later.

- Choliamb (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Choliamb -- all done. I've added Tarrant to the relevant footnote (has anyone put it like that in print, to give him a bit more credit?) and expanded the Murgia note. It's now a bit closer to what Murgia actually wrote, but I think here the close paraphrasing is justified by the need for precision: Murgia wrote something that's difficult to express in other words without (as I did previously) changing the meaning. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

A marker for now - SchroCat (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC) Just two comments from me:[reply]

  • You begin with "Anactoria is named by Sappho, who wrote in the late seventh and early sixth centuries BCE": maybe just a few words to explain Sappho was a poet – and one who wrote mostly about love? Not every reader will have heard of them and will need a little help there. And maybe a link for Sappho, as it's the first reference in the body?
  • "in fragment 16". Some may think this is an odd name for a poem, or just be confused by it. Maybe something (even if a footnote) to explain that nearly all her work only survives in fragments which have subsequently been numbered?

That's my lot - the rest is a delight to read. - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both very wise and done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was it a conscious decision to have "See Gordon 2002, pp. v–vii, and Goff & Harloe 2021, p. 396." inline, rather than as a citation? - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was, as they're discussing the topic in general: you'll get all of that information from reading them, and a lot more besides, but you won't find it phrased as such a neat sentence. However, it's not a decision I'm particularly wedded to. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine: I thought it may have been, but felt I needed to check. Some other reviewer may disagree, but I think it's a good way to show what you're trying to - particularly in a footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passing comment

[edit]
  • The first image. What is the relevance of the second sentence of the caption to the image? And what is the connection of the image to the article, if any? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Gog -- the point (of both) is that this is a painting of Sappho's disciples, and Anactoria (if we believe Sappho, anyway) was one of those. They're not labelled or individually identifiable in the painting, but this is essentially a visualisation of who Anactoria would have been, and it's reasonably likely that Spence would have identified one of the figures in white as Anactoria. Compare the Alma-Tadema painting further down, which has a seat labelled as Anactoria's, and again is almost certainly a depiction of how LA-T imagined her or people like her, even if we can't point at an individual figure as her. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So how's about "Disciples of Sappho (1896) by Thomas Ralph Spence is [a 19th-century?] reconstruction of Sappho delivering some of her verse, with Anactoria in the audience" or similar. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would be a great caption, but unless we can somehow find a published source who cares equally about a) Spence and b) Anactoria (and there aren't a great many who care all that much about either, as far as I can tell), would need a CN tag. I think the second sentence of the caption gestures readers that way without actually having to say "Spence intended to paint Anactoria here", which is going to be a tricky one to get past WP:V. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UC, the current second sentence is truly naff. Why not just say what you can cite? "Disciples of Sappho (1896) by Thomas Ralph Spence is [a 19th-century?] reconstruction of Sappho [publicly?] delivering some of her verse" would be fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well: changed more-or-less as you suggest -- I wouldn't want to be accused of spreading naffness around here! UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass

[edit]

Will pick this one up shortly - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Formatting. Just the one comment on this, and it’s minor and petty: you could use the ISBN Converter to ensure you use a consistent format. Aside from that, all good on this point.
  • Coverage. A review of the available sources (from the point of view of a non-specialist) shows no obvious gaps or missing works that I can see.
  • Sources used are all high quality and reliable, with no concerns. - SchroCat (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Schro. Unless I've missed something, we do have a consistent format: ISBNs are hyphenated and written as displayed on the book (essentially, this means ISBN-10 pre 2007, ISBN-13 thereafter, or OCLC where no ISBN exists). Per WP:ISBN: if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... interesting: I think that goes entirely against all the practice I've seen on WP! I've been nagged for years by several source reviewers to have them all in either one format or another, as long as they are consistent. Anyway, given your version is in line with the guidelines, pass for the source review. - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 November 2024 [18].

Apocalypse of Peter

[edit]
Nominator(s): SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you flip to the back of a Christian Bible these days, you'll find the Book of Revelation as the final book in the New Testament. But did you know that over in some rather plausible alternate timelines, there would be TWO books of Revelation in the back - the Revelation of John, and the Revelation of Peter? It took centuries to come up with a consensus New Testament; the contents weren't obvious. Our oldest surviving list that is close-ish to the New Testament, the Muratorian fragment, actually includes the Revelation of Peter as part of its canon! Some other early Christian writers seem to have thought it deserved canonical status, too. That didn't happen, of course, but it's interesting. (Although given some of the content, Christianity may have dodged a bullet here...)

This article includes the latest scholarship, as there's been decent interest lately - Eric Beck wrote a 2019 book on it (the thesis it's based on is open-access, link in the article), Bart Ehrman covered it pretty heavily in a 2022 book on katabases in general, and a monograph collection on the topic just dropped just a few months ago, also free & open-access (link in article). I ran the article past Beck over email and he didn't have any complaints, so hopefully a good sign. SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I don't know that I'll be able to do a full review here, but I do own and have read a copy of Edmon L. Gallagher's and John D. Meade's The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity, published by Oxford University Press (I own the 2019 paperback edition).

  • "Two other short Greek fragments of the work have been discovered: a 5th-century fragment at the Bodleian library that had been discovered in Egypt in 1895, and the Rainer fragment at the Rainer collection in Vienna which perhaps comes from the 3rd or 4th century" - we're presenting these dates as a scholarly consensus (sourced to something from the 1960s?) but I don't know that this is actually the scholarly consensus. Gallagher & Meade refer to these as both fourth-century, and contains the following interesting footnote: These two fragments [Bodleian and Rainer] possibly (definitely, according to Van Minnen 2003: 35) derive from the same manuscript; see Bauckham 1998: 257. The Bauckham citation they are referring to is the Fate of the Dead book cited here and Van Minnen 2003 is "The Greek 'Apocalypse of Peter' which is apparently pp. 15-39 in the Bremmer and Czachesz 2003 source cited in this article.
  • Gallagher and Meade also specificy that the Ethiopic versions are in Ge'ez
  • "The Apocalypse of Peter is listed in the catalog of the 6th-century Codex Claromontanus, which was probably copying a 3rd- or 4th-century source" - this seems to be a bit misleading, per Gallagher & Meade p. 184 There are also some books beyond the traditional New Testament; the list concludes with mention of the Epistle of Barnabas, the Revelation of John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Revelation of Peter, but the first and last three of these titles are preceded by a horizontal stroke that appears to be an obelus, probably indicating their dubious status
  • I do wonder if the text should contain an explicit reference to the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter being a separate work given the similar names and ages. At least in my opinion, there is a greater degree of potential confusion between these two things than what most subjects handled with a simple hatnote would be
  • Is it worth noting that the Akhmim manuscript also contains the Gospel of Peter and I Enoch?
  • A bit more detail on the reception by Eusebius - Eusebius of Caesarea (Hist. eccl. 3.3.2) claims that no ecclesiastical writer ever made use of the Petrine apocrypha, [elsewhere in the work Gallagher & Meade do mention that Eusebius actually attests to usage of the work by Clement] and in his canon list he classifies the Apocalype of Peter as a spurious antilegomenon, but not a heretical work (Hist. eccl. 3.25.4)
  • Lastly (for now) Gallagher & Meade cite Elliott, J.K. 1993 The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation Based on M.R. James by OUP pp. 598-600 as collecting seven patristic citations. This article references all but one set of two citations: Theophilus of Antioch in Ad Autolycum 2.19

I'm not sure how helpful this might be, but that's what I can contribute to this. I've been considering acquiring and reading a copy of Metzger's work on the canon for awhile; I liked his work on the textual history. Hog Farm Talk 01:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy feedback!

  • The Maurer 1965 write-up is a good one IMO, but it's just there as a supporting chorus and more proof of what goes in the shorter write-ups (one problem that happens sometime when compressing 300 page books into Wikipedia articles is that it isn't obvious it is the "most important" stuff; citing some shorter articles helps cut against that). (Side note, on age of references... similarly, all of the citations to M. R. James generally are "extras" that are conveniently available online, except when citing opinions attributed to James, as a little too dated; there's a "real" current-scholarship citation next to all of them. But I figured he was good to throw in thanks to Wikisource scans for easy verifiability on a few, along with general historic flavor.) Van Minnen 2003 is definitely cited in the article (ref 3 in the version of Aug 29), although annoyingly enough I don't own a copy and my interlibrary loan long since expired for easily re-checking it - was a good article though. Yes, I've read the theory that Rainer & Bodleian are from the same manuscript, but my thought at the time was I didn't want to stick in every bit of scholarly speculation. That said, checking... it looks like both Beck 2019 and Dochhorn 2024 buy it, and so does Kraus/Nicklas 2004, the most recent full book-length treatment of just the Greek. So it seems you're right that most recent scholars have switched over - updated the phrasing. (A little annoying since various other sources refer to the Rainer fragment as the "oldest" which wouldn't be quite true if Rainer = Bodleian is accurate, but oh well.)
  • Ethiopic and Ge'ez are the same thing (see Geʽez). For reasons that I do not know, scholarship on the Apocalypse of Peter calls the language of the d'Abaddie / Lake Tana manuscripts "Ethiopic" 99% of the time - perhaps there's some technical distinction that makes Ethiopic correct and Ge'ez incorrect? I figured I should honor that and just use Ethiopic everywhere as well. (And even if they're pure synonyms, it's one less term for a reader to keep track of.)
  • Hmm, what's misleading here? That Gallagher & Meade sentence sounds like what is trying to be communicated. If you meant "in the codex itself" I'd argue that's already implicitly indicated by specifying that it was (only) in the "catalog" (if a copy of ApocPeter was in it, that'd have made the scholarship way easier!). If you meant the "dubious" part, the topic of that paragraph is "indications ApocPeter was used, but disputed", so that's keeping with the general sense of examples the paragraph is trying to provide. Open to suggestions for rephrasing if that isn't being communicated as well as it could be.
    • Side note: Now, there IS something that I'd like to go into more detail if this was really scholarly-paper certified... specifically, that the idea that the Catalog was copying a 3rd- or 4th- century document is circular. That is, we think that's true precisely because we think the Apoc Peter would still have been current at the time (and 2nd century is too early for such a full catalog of the New Testament), but would have been unlikely in the 5th century... basically it's scholarship on ApocPeter informing the dating of the Codex, not the other way around. But I figure that point is too minor for a general audience (and besides, this isn't the "Date of authorship" section so it's not being used as faux-evidence there).
  • On the Gnostic Apocalypse: Hmm. I did include two sentences in Gnostic_Apocalypse_of_Peter#Literary_influences, because this text preceded that one and an obvious question is if the Gnostic Apoc. Peter author read "this" ApocPeter. But since most scholars think "no", it feels a little artificial to include here... "there's another work with the same title written later that has nothing to do with this?" Especially since the Gnostic work appears to have been obscure - until it was dug up, we had no idea it existed. I'd prefer not to add it, but can add a similar statement if really desired - I just have no idea where it won't stand out as irrelevant. ("Later influence"? Except about a work it didn't influence?)
  • On Akhmim & Eusebius: Same answer here for both - I was just trying to keep the length of the article under control, and be a summary and not a total deep dive. The Akhmim manuscript including the Gospel of Peter is mentioned indirectly in "Manuscript History" when it's relevant for how the Akhmim version was probably rewritten, but I don't think including Enoch is that relevant (the Ethiopic manuscripts include a bunch of other stuff not mentioned here too - see [19] & [20]), just it feels off-topic to mention them. Eusebius is simply wrong when he says nobody else quotes Apoc Peter, but beating up on him for overstating the case seems petty. And I figure people interested in Eusebius dividing books into good; disputed; orthodox-but-spurious (our ApocPeter in this category); and heretical can hit the references for more. I can certainly expand it into a full sentence if desired, just that paragraph is already on the long side, and I thought "dubious" gets the gist of Eusebius's opinion across.
  • On Theophilus: Buchholz deep dives all the patristic references and alleged references, and is rather skeptical of this one (and in the realm of side chatter, so am I, this is a total stretch). Both Theophilus's line and Akhmim Gr. 15 talk about a cool place with both light and beautiful plants, but to quote Buchholz p. 49, "The evidence is not convincing because it was normal at that time to describe paradise with much light and beautiful plants." It'd be an indirect reference at best that suggested Theophilus had read ApocPeter and was loosely quoting it. I suppose I can add it, but I'd rather kick it to a note, similar to the Acts of Paul and Thecla possible reference. (But even then, that one is more "interesting" because it's touching on a theological issue. This one is just vaguely similar flowery descriptions that could have easily happened by chance with no particular significance.)
  • diff changes here. SnowFire (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with your replies above except on two points - as to the mention in the Codex Claromontanus, for the other references here the article is indicating generally how the list or church father viewed the work. For instance, in the next sentence it doesn't just say that Stichometry of Nicephorus lists the work, it states the general classification that it gave it. I don't think much is needed to add here, but it's necessary I think to indicate how this was actually viewed, given that the early canon lists covered a fair bit of ground. Likewise, I think "Eusebius considered the work spurious but not heretical" is more informative and useful to the reader than just a simple statement that he found it dubious. I think there's a way to provide clarification in both of those cases without meaningfully adding to the length. Hog Farm Talk 23:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough; expanded the Eusebius bit into two sentences, but I don't think the overall length was blown up. (I'll also try and get ahold of Gallagher & Meade myself and make sure I didn't miss anything in there.) SnowFire (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unless I'm missing something, I think everything significant in Gallagher & Meade is currently being included. I still think we need a brief clarification for the Codex Claromontanus listing to indicate how exactly this canon list viewed the apocalypse. I'll try to complete a full review after UC finishes their review below. Hog Farm Talk 19:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I added another sentence on Claromontanus. (The ApocPeter-specific sources don't see fit to talk about it - my suspicion is that it's because they're interested in the hypothetical original 4th-century catalog that was being copied that we don't have, which probably had no such mark because why would you even bother including such a work if you already don't fully trust it. But still useful to note that the later scribe marked it up.) It's unfortunate that the sources don't seem to clarify which obelus, presumably because it was obvious to them - I presume the dagger version, but I linked it to the top-level Obelus page since I'm not fully sure. SnowFire (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hog Farm: Do you think you'll be able to perform a fuller review? (No problem if not, just a reminder ping.) SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The author also appears to be familiar with the Gospel of Matthew and no other;" - but yet this is stated to include an account of the ascension, which is not directly found in Matthew. Is the argument here that this reference to the ascension is drawing on independent Christian tradition from outside the Gospels? But how exactly does one confidently demonstrate this and not that the account of the ascension is being taken from another gospel? I'd be interested to see what Bauckham is using to draw this conclusion.
    • It's page 173 of Bauckham, where he's citing himself on 4723-4724 of this article (on Wikipedia library). Checking... "Dependence on Matthew is especially clear in E1-2 (cf. Mt. 24:3-33) and E15—17 (cf. Mt. 17:1—8), with possible further allusions in E3, E5—6, and E14=R" (the R is "Rainer" here, and the E#s are Ethiopic chapter numbers). It does seem to be something of an argument from silence though - that because there aren't direct Lukan literary references, it wasn't used, even if the author knew of some circulating stories that also ended up in Luke. It looks like Bauckham goes into more detail in "The Two Fig Tree Parables in the Apocalypse of Peter" (on Wikipedia library as well)... as mentioned, the author seems to be quoting specifically Matthew's version of the Little Apocalypse. On the Lukan Parable of the barren fig tree, Bauckham says that there are no direct quotes, and further the version quoted seems to have "considerable differences", which suggests knowing of the parable from independent tradition rather than reading Luke. (He doesn't discuss the ascension, but my understanding is that this was thought to be a common piece of Christian tradition in the era, and the literary dependence is clearly Matthew's transfiguration.)
    • I should add that there is at least one scholar who argues against this, but in the reverse direction... Beck brings up Robert C. Helmer arguing that the author wasn't familiar with Matthew, either, and was only working with "Tradition" and lost sources! This was for an unpublished dissertation, though, that is inexplicably listed as "withdrawn" on the website ([21] - maybe only from e-publication?). Considering the high-quality of sources elsewhere, I'm not sure an unpublished view is important enough to discuss. I've repeated Bauckham's Fig Tree journal article as a reference to this line though, since that seems relevant.
  • Is the link to wheel of fire really useful? Besides the fact that that article is currently a mass of OR ranging from Ixion to Frodo, it seems bold to pick a specific link for a topic that the scholars are considering to be unclear
    • The reasoning behind a wheel of fire being involved is unclear, but the punishment being a wheel of fire is clear enough. As is, the link is kinda worthless since the article is worthless, but given that there is an "In mythology" section, it seems potentially relevant? It's not a big deal and I'm happy to remove it, but if hypothetically the wheel of fire article was improved and sourced and continued to have a myth / religion section, I think the wikilink would be fine.
  • "Sinners who perished in the Great Flood are brought back as well: probably a reference to the Nephilim, the children of the Watchers (fallen angels) and mortal women described in the Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, and Genesis." - I don't know that there's an easy way to rephrase this, but I'm not sure that this is the best way to approach this. Yes, the Nephilim are described in Genesis, but they are not described as "children of the Watchers (fallen angels) and mortal women" in Genesis; yes this is how some traditions have interpreted "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them" but we can't say that this is what the Genesis narrative explicitly describes
    • Fair enough. I was worried that not including Genesis might imply that this was entirely an Enochian tradition with no basis in the Torah, but I suppose the Genesis connection is already in the footnote. Removed the mention of Genesis here.
  • One last thought I have with this - from what I've read, there seems to be a fair number of scholars who take the stance that apostolic authorship was part of the criteria for determining the canon in the early church. Does any of the scholarship on the apocalypse bear on this idea? Another angle is whether or not the scholarship gives any thought to considerations of if this work was recognized as pseudepigrapha in the early church, or if there was belief that this was an authentic Petrine revelation.
    • Absolutely! The canonicity section was refactored recently to include " A common criticism of those who opposed the canonicity of these works was to accuse them of lacking apostolic authorship" - hopefully that's enough for casual readers, but can add another line to add the reverse that canonical works had apostolic authorship if you think it'd help. As best we can tell, the number one argument used to buttress the authority of a document was to claim apostolic authorship for it, and the number one argument used against the authority of a document that did claim apostolic authorship was that it wasn't really written by apostles. Eusebius calling the Apocalypse spurious-if-orthodox probably indicates he doubts Peter wrote it, yeah. However, while this was the argument used, few surviving ancient authors approached the question like a modern scholar would - i.e. examining grammar, word choice, attestation. Rather, it was the somewhat circular criterion of "if it speaks the Word of God, then an apostle might have written it, and if it spreads heresy, then an apostle couldn't possibly have written it." Or more cynically, if you disagree with the content, then that means Peter didn't write this. So Apostolic authorship is the criteria, but most writers used theological criteria to decide the matter, rather than literary criteria.
    • Ehrman cites Serapion of Antioch saying as much about the Gospel of Peter - Serapion directly argues that because the Gospel of Peter could be read docetically (not even necessarily advocating docetism outright!), obviously the real Peter couldn't have written it. Ehrman's argument in reasoning by analogy is that if "could be read as promoting heresy" = "no aposotolic authorship", and we have condemnations of Rainer Fragment-ish universal salvation, maybe there was some influential Church figure condemning the Apocalypse of Peter as not apostolically authored, a la the Serapion example.
    • Anyway, any ancient authors positively quoting the Apocalypse should be assumed to think Peter really wrote it (or dictated it, or had some Mark-esque secretary record the story, etc.), and anyone speaking poorly of it should be assumed to think it was pseudepigrapha.

SnowFire - I think that's all of my thoughts on this. I guess as full disclosure, I'm approaching this from an evangelical Christian perspective, although I think I've kept my personal religious beliefs out of this. Hog Farm Talk 02:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]
Resolved
  • A small issue throughout -- AD dates are given as e.g. AD 120 (AD before the number), while CE dates are given as e.g. 120 CE. We have quite a lot of 120 AD in the article.
    • I used to enforce this myself, but I gave up that fight since English usage seems to have shifted here. MOS:ERA says "AD appears before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD)," i.e. both are valid. Since most Wikipedia uses seem to place it after, I figured I might as well do so as well.
  • The Apocalypse of Peter is influenced by both Jewish apocalyptic literature and Hellenistic philosophy from Greek culture: Hellenistic philosophy from Greek culture doesn't quite sit right with me as a phrase -- Hellenistic, after all, means "Greek (with some asterisks)", and of course much of what we know as Hellenistic literature, philosophy etc was being done in places like Egypt and Syria by people whose cultural affiliation was complicated. Personally, I'd cut after philosophy, but I can see the argument for the current framing.
    • To be clear, it means "Greek" culturally, not "from the place Greece." But yes, since this is the lead, this is really hinting at what "Hellenistic" is to casual readers, many of whom won't know that already means (mostly) "Greek". I agree with your phrasing if this was deeper in the article, but I figure giving a glossary clue here is important. Casual readers already have to deal with a blizzard of unfamiliar terms.
  • The (pseudepigraphia) is a bit unclear -- how does that word fit into what preceded it, especially given that few readers will know it? I'd try to work it into the the text -- something like The text is pseudepigraphical; it purports to be written by the disciple Peter, but its real author is unknown.
    • I agree few readers will know it; I was trying to make the lede accessible by avoiding scary, unfamiliar Greek words, explaining in simple English, and hiding the technical term in a gloss. That said... done, I'm just worried about keeping accessibility high in the lede, and think it needs to be the friendliest of all the sections.
  • The article makes heavy use of false titles, such as French explorer Antoine d'Abbadie, English scholar M. R. James, and so on. These aren't considered wrong in AmE as they are in BrE, but they do strike a journalistic (rather than academic) tone, particularly when used so frequently. Would advise The French explorer... and so on.
    • Yeah, obviously an American here, and adding "The" reads a touch "fancy" to me ("Look at me, I'm The Wikipedia Editor SnowFire!"). That said, done, changed (most? all?) of these, tell me if I missed any.
  • I would advise swapping around the first two body sections, remembering that the body is meant to be able to stand apart from the lead. We currently start with From the medieval era to 1886, leaving us in the dark about the text's life before the medieval period until quite a lot further down. I might even be tempted to put "Manuscript history" quite a lot later -- down after "Debate over canonicity". Most readers, I imagine, will want to start with what the text is, then what it says, then why it matters, and only then to get into the weeds of manuscripts and philologists -- plus, this arrangement makes things a bit more chronological.
    • On swapping the first two body sections: Done. There is a problem with doing so though, which is that now the "map" which is intended to go with the "Date of Authorship" section won't display next to it on desktop because the giant New Testament Apocrypha sidebar pushes it down. So if others feel strongly, happy to swap them back, but will presume that this is just a price to pay for the moment.
    • On moving manuscript history even further down: In most articles, I would agree (I've hidden the boring "Manuscripts" section at the end of Arabic Apocalypse of Peter#Later_manuscript_history for example). Unfortunately, I believe we're stuck with doing it first for this topic, because Akhmim & Ethiopic & Rainer all differ, and readers will be totally confused if we're saying "Akhmim says X, Ethiopic says Y, Rainer says Z" before what that means is explained.
  • Double quotes on "an eye for an eye" and similar.
    • Done. (This one is a little odd because it's more setting off a phrase than being a true quote, but sure.)
  • from Arabic, which itself was translated from the lost Greek original: we're missing a noun in the first clause here -- something like an Arabic version (or some other noun to avoid repetition).
    • Done.
  • Jesus, Moses, and Elijah: suggest explaining who these other two people were.
    • I've added "the prophets", but I don't really want to add much more detail for something not really that relevant (these were sorta just name-drops that only appear in one version of the text). Explaining messianic expectations around Moses & Elijah would be an entire separate article - I think if readers are interested in more, they can find it in the Transfiguration article wikilink, or the links to them.
  • The Apocalypse of Peter fits snugly into the genre: MOS:IDIOM applies here, I think.
    • Hmm, is this even an idiom? I guess "fit" is metaphorical, but that's not uncommon. Changed regardless, went with "is a predecessor of and has similarities with" instead.
  • We should put a date on Eusebius.
    • Done.
  • The Apocalypse is quoted in Book 2 of the Sibylline Oracles (c. 150): how confident are we (and our sources) on that date? My limited understanding is that the dating of the Sibylline Oracles is extremely tricky.
    • It is tricky, but my understanding is that the dating of just Book 2 is somewhat more secure. It looks like a recent work on this isn't on WP Library (JJ Lightfoot's "The Sibylline Oracles" is 335 dollars on Oxford Academic!), but JJ Collins in 1983 wrote "the Christian redaction should probably be dated no later than A.D. 150." As this is providing a later bound, using the latest reasonable time is valid. For an older source, Alfons Kurfess in NT Apocrypha (the same 1960s book the Christian Maurer writeup on ApocPeter is in) was apparently pretty confident in 150 too. Sources only on ApocPeter just seem to mention 150, footnote it to Kurfess or the like, and move on.
  • "The Mystery of the Judgment of Sinners.": period outside quotes. Likewise, later, within "an eye for an eye." and a rare word meaning "care-taking [one]." (MOS:LQ)
    • Switched. (I was thinking that these aren't, strictly speaking, quotes, and that LQ only applies to [Bob said "Oh no"] type deals, but no big deal either way.)
  • In general, most scholars: this is tautology, unless those scholars frequently change their minds.
    • Cut.
  • Most famously, Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy would become extremely popular and celebrated in the 14th century and beyond: See above re. Most famously.
    • Cut.
  • Mirror Punishment: decapitalise, I think, per MOS:CAPS (Wikipedia generally errs on the side of few capitalisations, relative to other publications)
    • Done.
  • for both divine justice as well as divine mercy: a tautology -- either both .. and or just justice as well as ...
    • I don't follow the concern here with the old phrasing, but your phrasing is fine too, so switched to "and".
  • God's Commandments: decap commandments unless in a phrase like the Ten Commandments.
    • Done.
  • gives evil spirits that inhabited idols and led people astray physical bodies: I found the object here a bit unclear: suggest gives physical bodies to evil spirits that...
    • Switched.
  • "Nephilim" is capitalised.
    • Done.
  • a rare word meaning "care-taking [one]." : see MOS:LQ point above, but also -- which language?
    • Greek. (As for why it was romanized "Temelouchus" in sources on ApocPeter yet our Wikipedia article on the named angel is at "Temeluchus", I don't know. Probably just random chance. Not a fan at how it's probably suggesting a phantom distinction, but that's what the sources seem to use...)
  • involving going up to a high fiery place (perhaps a volcano?): the last bit of this reads as an editorial note, which isn't right for an article -- could do a high fiery place, perhaps a volcano, or even attribute this: a high fiery place, which Smith conjectures to be a volcano.
    • Switched.
  • a popular 4th-century work: if popular here means "widely beloved", it's a tautology -- we've established that in the preceding clause.
    • I don't think we have? We established that ApocPaul became more popular than ApocPeter, but eclipsing #28,742 on the Amazon "religious apocalypses" bestseller list could mean you're #27,458, or it could mean you were #2. ApocPaul was absolutely a top 3 apocalypse for centuries, and indicating that is important IMO (since unlike Dante, most people aren't familiar with ApocPaul now). This is backed by the sources which call out this special prominence: "very popular and widespread" (p. 66 of Buchholz), "the most popular medieval apocryphal Apocalypse" (p. 302 of Bremmer 2009), etc. There are a decent number of other Christian works name-dropped in this article that might have been a Random Book in the library of one monastery that lucked out and happened to be preserved, but Apoc Paul is qualitatively different from them.
  • The Apocalypse of Peter is an early example of the same genre as the famous Divine Comedy of Dante: two things here -- one, we've established earlier that it might be a relatively early katabasis, but there are/were also plenty of earlier examples, usually inset into longer works like the Odyssey and the Aeneid. Secondly, famous is WP:PUFFERY and should be consigned to Limbo, at the very least.
    • Well, many readers probably already know Dante at least, but for those who don't, I think it's relevant to indicate that Dante is a Big Deal. This isn't being included to puff up Dante, but rather just to indicate that the Divine Comedy is a cultural touchstone, a work in the literary canon of vast influence. Open to suggestions here, but this is relevant IMO, and if anything "famous" is an understatement.
    • As far as earlier examples, I would definitely say that Dante is way closer to ApocPeter than he is to Odysseus, most obviously in the vibes of Inferno which aren't really that close to "shades attracted by blood who want to dump some backstory". So don't think it's unreasonable to call it out as a forerunner.
      • I would strongly advocate for cutting famous -- I can't see a reading of the relevant PAGs (WP:V, WP:PUFFERY and WP:WEASELWORDS in particular) that allows it. if you want to demonstrate that Dante is a Big Deal, do so in a way that is verifiable -- "Dante's Inferno, described as "the most important work of Christian poetry ever" by Scholar McScholarson". However, even then I'm not sure it's important to do that here -- readers will, I think, naturally infer from the prominent presence given to the work in the lead that it's particularly important, even if they've never heard of it, and can of course click on the link to find out precisely how important it is. On the other comment -- I don't see that naming it as a forerunner (which is fine) requires the specific phrasing of "an early example" -- why not do precisely what you've suggested and call it an important influence upon/forerunner of the poem? I think my issue is with the word "early", which has slippage between "earlier than Dante" and "early in absolute terms, relative to other examples of the same genre". UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed to "is a forerunner" if you prefer that over "early example" if it's not worth qualifying exactly how early in comparison to what.
        • I guess the dispute here is that I don't see "famous" as puffery, but rather as simply factual in this case. Calling it the "greatest" would be puffery, to me, but "famous" is the equivalent of writing that a blockbuster film sold many tickets at the box office - a measurable and relevant item to discuss, and exactly the kind of thing WP:PUFFERY suggests as a better alternative. For example, Jaws (novel) (a GA) writes "[The film] Jaws is credited as the first summer blockbuster movie and was the highest grossing film in motion picture history up to that time". The fact that the film was a mega-smash is relevant as far as "this novel was the basis of something that's a big deal," and there's no need to qualify this as an opinion because it's measurable. (Presumably you could count quotes, references, book sales, etc. to "prove" that the Divine Comedy was indeed "famous" to a hardcore skeptic). Basically, if it's supported and relevant (i.e. not "an Indie magazine said my garage band was popular"), it's not necessarily puffery to make claims about popularity and influence, especially for works of towering influence. (Side note: not a GA/FA, but our article Divine Comedy writes it is "the pre-eminent work in Italian literature and one of the greatest works of Western literature" as a general consensus opinion in the very first paragraph. That one might be pushing it! But... not wrong, either.)
        • You also write on readers "naturally infer"ing from placement - maybe I'm just swayed from working on some articles on other old works of literature, but many of them also have statements like "X influenced Y" but sotto voce the "Y" is obscure, so a reader assuming that Y was particularly important would be incorrect in so doing. This topic is a rare case where, even if the original work became obscure, its influence resonated indirectly via something raised to the Western canon.
        • I don't think WP:WEASEL is violated here either. All of the sources in the section in the body on the topic support the weak claim that the Divine Comedy was famous. It's WEASEL if you claim people say it but it's never referenced who is saying it, but that's checkable in the sources. You can make very bold claims as long as they're backed - checking other literature FAs, Uncle Tom's Cabin writes it "had a profound effect on attitudes toward African Americans and slavery", not as a quote or attribution to one scholar. Which is true! Similarly, I think it's true and verifiable that The Divine Comedy was famous.
        • Of course, this is an article on an entirely different work, so I don't want to sidetrack with an attributed quote about The Divine Comedy: was it important or not. The word "famous" is there for a reason though: it's explaining why we're bringing this centuries-later connection up at all. We haven't discussed The Divine Comedy at all before here, and we're suddenly bringing it up: why? Because it's famous. I could obviously rephrase a number of ways, but presumably they'd have the same issue if merely acknowledging its influence is inherently puffery. A circular problem here because that influence is exactly what needs to be raised.
        • That was a lot of verbiage on one word. I strongly disagree here per the above valid examples of discussing fame, but I'll remove it anyway, for now. If my above comments convinced UC, or anyone else out there reading this wants to offer a third opinion though, happy to hear it though, whether in favor or against. There has to be some way to differentiate a mega-popular work from an obscure work, and this is a factual enough question that it shouldn't be regarded as mere opinion.... but I've already written way too much on this and don't want to trap people in "DEBATE ME!" loops more than I already have.
  • In Greek (note 1), Πέτρου is a proper noun, so is capitalised. Generally, so too are the first letters of titles, so Ἀποκάλυψει. Are you absolutely certain that Ἀποκάλυψει is intended, however, rather than Ἀποκάλυψις? The latter is the usual form in Ancient Greek; in modern Greek, it's Αποκάλυψη, but that's very much a post-1453 spelling. In the Romanisation, we've given the stress on Petrou, but not on the Apocalypse word.
    • The tricky thing is that Akhmim, which is in Greek, doesn't ever call itself the Apocalypse of Peter, so we're stuck with old Greek quotations. I picked one from Macarius Magnes - p. 30 of Buchholz indeed uses "ει". I double-checked this wasn't a transcription error, and it wasn't - 4,6 of Magnes is in a 2013 edition on De Gruyter on the Wikipedia library (link), and has "1. Περιουσίας δ’ ἕνεκεν λελέχθω κἀκεῖνο τὸ λελεγμένον ἐν τῇ Ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ Πέτρου." (I suspect the capitals & accents are from brushing up the raw version - those aren't in Buchholz's which uses lowercase alpha, lowercase pi, etc.) But I'm not a Greek expert so I'm flying blind here. If this was a modified form or just a scribe being bad at spelling, happy to switch to the "usual" version; otherwise switched to the 2013 transcription. (Also threw that into G Translate and grabbed a transliteration there, which threw an accent on the y, added it in - but I will defer to you over trusting the machine if that's incorrect. Or just flat removing all the accent marks.)
    • Ah -- your quotation has it in the dative case -- that writer would have put it as Ἀποκάλυψις if writing it in the context you have. We should do likewise (there's a grammatical explanation here, which I'm happy to go into if you want, but we can think of it as a routine calculation as described by WP:OR) UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Thanks!
  • that the punishment may fit the crime: is may fit the right word here -- should fit, surely? This isn't exactly the lex talionis, which is much more about reciprocation/compensation (that the perpetrator should experience the same suffering that they have inflicted upon others, and no more), but I think the framing here is fine.
    • Switched.
  • parchment leaves claimed to be deposited in the grave of a Christian monk: claimed by whom?
    • A chain of two claims I believe - Maspero claimed that the unnamed Egyptian guy he got it from told him this. It's... possible... but also what Maspero would have wanted to hear. Also some archaeologists of this era just lied all the time to disguise when they stole stuff or dressed up the provenance as more compelling than it really was - "found in a tomb of a monk" sounds more valuable than "bought from a shady guy". The methodology was awful by modern standards - they basically told the local Egyptian population to go grab what they could as document mercenaries, and then lots of it ended up on the antiques market. But I think going into the weeds loses focus here - "claimed" is a hint that we aren't really confident that this story is true, which is enough. See p. 25-27 from Nicklas/Kraus 2004 for more - features words like "Unfortunately" and "everyone keeps citing Bouraint as if it were given facts, but..." and "used with caution" as far as the "tomb of a monk" story. Do you think it's worth adding a Note on this? I'm a little worried about the number of side notes creeping up, but happy to add it the source of the skepticism there.
      • I think we need to be clear about whether Maspero claimed this, or whether (as it sounds) he claimed that someone else claimed it -- personally, I'd include a footnote, but I'm not shy about including silly numbers of efns and quite like a good archaeological story. It does sound like this is a particularly dubious claim, and I think readers should be given a sense of that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added. (And yes, he claimed someone else claimed it, so there's two places where someone could have possibly made stuff up.)
  • In a bulleted list, the MoS (MOS:CITE?) would like each citation no later than the end of the corresponding bullet.
    • This would be crazy overkill, though? I picked three lists of the punishments and they're the same references for each line in the list. I'm happy to ask for clarification on the talk page of Wikipedia:Citing sources if desired, but my presumption is that if there's a Wikipedia list but there's a single cite for every entry, it's okay to throw the citations at the end of the list. If nothing else, IAR suggests that 21 copies of the same 3 citations in a row is off, and an IAR case.
      • Personally, I find it weirder to come to the end of a sentence/paragraph and not see a little blue number (if you're using SFN templates, those would all link to a single footnote). I think the MoS is pretty clear here -- it's not a huge matter, as readers can tell where the material comes from with the current framing, but I do think it would be more bomb-proof for WP:TSI (imagine, for example, that a future editor adds another bullet point) if done by the book. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • If another bullet point is added, either it's getting reverted, or we've found another manuscript and need to re-source the whole thing anyway!
        • I went ahead and replicated the citations, but still suspect this is a case of citation overkill. I'll bring it up on the Citing Sources talk page later but not tie it to this particular article and we'll see if anyone bites on an opinion, as this is a general issue not specific to this article that probably just needs a standard.
  • the Apocalypse of Peter was the parent and grandparent of these influential visions of the afterlife: I think this whole sentence can be cut, but if it stays, we need to do away with the metaphor and probably the word influential.
    • See above - I think this is a "summing up" statement on what is the other half of why people still write / care about ApocPeter (half are interested in the theology of salvation, half are interested in depictions of hell that would lead to Dante). This is another case where it might be a metaphor, but it's a metaphor used all the time, even in academia - Himmelfarb has got a bunch of fancy graphs & maps of parent works that influenced other daughter works that went on to influence yet other works. I now wonder if changing "important" to "influential" even helped above if you object to influential as well, but this is one of those "writing for a general audience" matters IMO - this is where I'm trying to say "this is the part that mattered!" And per above, "influential" is already a vast understatement on Dante.
      • I do sympathise with "this is how it is done in academia", but Wikipedia isn't an academic chapter -- for one thing, it's written for people with a whole range of linguistic abilities and educational backgrounds, whereas academic works are invariably written for people with an extremely strong command of English and an almost excessive level of erudition. There are quite a few PAGs (e.g. WP:MTAU) to the effect that our articles should not always look like our sources, and I think this is one case where that applies -- an academic journal article has different aims to a Wikipedia article, and we should expect the writing style to diverge accordingly (in this case, because catering for non-experts and second-language speakers is far more important to us than it is to them). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • In this I fully agree! I just think that second-language speakers are exactly who I have in mind (similar to the above discussion on who would need to be told that Dante was "popular"), hence the recap sentence at all (for an academic audience, I would consider cutting the sentence entirely, as you suggest, as mildly redundant). I just don't think these general audience folk will be at all confused by "parent" here - to the extent it's a metaphor, it's an obvious, helpful one. That said, I cut it and went with attributed quotes to Fiori / Bremmer instead. (Which make the passage slightly longer, so maybe we're going in the wrong direction here since you suggested an outright cut of the entire sentence, but hopefully won't have the other issues at least.)
        • Anyway, changes so far are here. SnowFire (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • one of the borderline works that came closest to being included: does borderline add anything here -- surely a work that came close to being included is, by definition, borderline?
    • It could be removed, but I'd argue it reads better with it? i.e. imagine a sentence like "TITLE is an apocalypse, an (insert description of apocalypse here)." You could technically either just say "it's an apocalypse" or "it's (description of what an apocalypse is)" but combining them makes a little definition for a casual reader so they know to connect the two, and can now use one word to think of many. Or it wouldn't be odd to read "[SPORTS TEAM] was on the cusp, the highest-ranked team to still be relegated" even though "on the cusp" could be similarly cut. That said, removed anyway since we don't really discuss other 'borderline' works, but eh, I still think it made it a slightly easier read.
  • More generally, I don't understand the relationship between the bibliography and the references section -- what's the logic as to what makes it into the bibliography, and what is only cited as a reference? Given how long the references section is, the overall effect is confusing -- it is very difficult to get a sense of how this article's sourcing is constructed.
    • The citation style I use is that sources that are cited a lot over multiple page ranges go in the Bibliography, and everything else is a normal reference. There is a method to the madness here - when seeing the reference previews from hover (desktop) or press (mobile), the strict page ranges are a little less helpful than a full reference. So if everything can fit in a single reference (say JK Elliot's Apocryphal New Testament writeup, or Maurer / Mueller's, or random journal articles), I stick it there. I personally consider it an antipattern that if there's a source only used in one spot, a strict "everything in the bibliography, short references only" style forces a secondary lookup / hover to track it down when it could have just been connected at the start. This also has the benefit of the Bibliography being a genuine "read these 6 books to learn about ApocPeter" bibliography that cuts to the core, most-used sources recommended to read, rather than a grab-bag.
    • Now, there is one quirk with this article, which is that there's two heavily cited monograph collections in the Bibliography (the 2003 Apocalypse of Peter edited by Bremmer, and the 2024 collection edited by Maier et al). For those, I stuck them there anyway due to their importance, but all of the references are separated out as citations to individual chapters, since the chapters have different authors. And those are usual full citations.

Some impressive scholarship on display here. I think my comments will mostly have to stick with Wikipedia minutiae rather than really getting to grips with the subject matter, but I hope they are useful. If you wouldn't mind, could you answer the points below each one, rather than in a list at the end -- I can see this review getting even longer and more confusing otherwise!

    • Thank you so much for the prompt and detailed review! I wouldn't disclaim your subject matter knowledge too much - you clearly know plenty here, and more than me on the matters of Koine Greek itself. (There are a few points I have some pushback, but don't take my whining too seriously - if you feel strongly on it, I'm happy to adjust anyway. Just figured I'd just raise the "other side" first on the ones I disagree on.) SnowFire (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • be pierced by sharp fiery stones as would beggars: not sure what as would beggars means in this context -- do beggars get the same punishment, or is this (apparently) what happens to beggars in the real world?
    • What happens to beggars in the real world, yes. i.e. "clothed in filthy rags and having calloused feet from stones cutting through their bad shoes". The burning part maybe not as much, but that's kinda the standard hell addition in ApocPeter. (Although who knows, the ground can get pretty hot in the Middle East...) Fun fact on the side: I forget where exactly, but someone wrote an article with a long analogy about how this was fore-runner of the medieval Danse Macabre, i.e. in the sense that noble & commoner alike do the dance, and maybe the rich people are being forced to dance into the stones? I didn't really buy the connection, but it was cool anyway.
      • I think that could do with a little bit of clarification -- at the moment, what is written isn't quite compatible with that (very good) explanation. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've expanded this to make the analogy more clear.
          • I'm afraid I still found it a bit unclear in the lead; I've made a tentative edit there to assist. I now don't see anything about mirroring the existence of beggars in the body? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Added a sentence in the "lex talionis" section. I also switched "beggars" to "poor"... I personally think beggars are fine, but the text uses "widows and orphans" which seems to be synecdoche for the poor in general. So beggars might be over-specific.
  • Two other short Greek fragments of the work have been discovered: a 5th-century fragment at the Bodleian library that had been discovered in Egypt in 1895, and the Rainer fragment at the Rainer collection in Vienna: as phrased, this sounds as though the second fragment was discovered in Vienna. Suggest adding "held by..." or similar to the institutions.
    • Rephrased the sentence; take a look.
  • The Rainer fragment was originally dated to the 3rd or 4th century; later analysis: can we put dates on these?
    • For the first, yes, and done. For the second, I'm not so sure there's a clean date when this becomes accepted (there are still recent-ish publications that use the old date), nor do I think it's that relevant - it seems like it started as a hypothesis that got better backing with later close analysis.
      • Right, but are we talking (more or less) about the early medieval period, or more or less about modern academia? I'm not suggesting that we need to pin it down to the 24th of March, 1893, but giving the reader an idea of vaguely what sort of timescale they're imagining would be helpful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Went with "2003" as when Van Minnen published his chapter in "The Apocalypse of Peter," although see disclaimer above. (I'd rather go for either pure hand-waving in this case or one specific event, as I don't think I have a source that says "over the course of the 2000s decade and 2010s...", although that's my personal guess).
  • the Stichometry of Nicephorus: can we explain what this is and why it matters? We sort of introduce it right at the end of the article.
    • I feel that this is off-topic. I agree most readers won't have a clue what this is, but context provides everything that the reader needs to know - there was a source saying the Apoc Peter should have X lines, and the Ethiopic version is pretty close to that, and here's a wikilink to the source if you want to learn what a Stichometry is.
  • Note 2 is long and generally well formed, but I think we should put in the body the fact that Bauckham's views have been challenged.
    • Open to suggestions, but the fact that this is attributed in-line to a specific scholar and uses "argues" (rather than just stating as a fact it's from Palestine) hopefully communicates it's not a scholarly consensus already (along with "Other scholars suggest [something else]"). I feel like that might also make the Egypt theory seem stronger than it really is - Bauckham's views have been challenged because a lot of people buy them, while the Egypt origin view doesn't seem as popular and thus people don't bother to swat it down. (The main competing view, as best I can tell, is flat "we don't know." But I'm not sure we need to write that one out.)
      • I'm not sure I agree -- it sounds like there's a debate with two sides, both of which have equal levels of scholarly acceptance, so WP:DUEWEIGHT says we should present both equally. Putting one in the body text and relegating the other to a footnote places greater weight on the first, which we should not do unless it is clearly the majority position (WP:FRINGE). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • But both are in the body text? Both the possibility of a Egyptian and a Palestinian origin are discussed in the body. Unless you mean the "we don't know" option? That's just some OR from me, nobody publishes a paper arguing "I've unsolved the problem, we have no idea." I've added a brief sentence cited to Bremmer acknowledging that provenance is still a matter of scholarly debate and uncertainty, with Palestine & Egypt the lead two options - does that work? (p. 153 here if curious)
  • File:Near East 0100AD.svg -- political maps like this are a very tricky business. I can't find any sign of the source data for this one, and we definitely need some reliable source to be making claims about territorial boundaries and levels of effective control in this period. A smaller thing, but I'm very unconvinced by some of their Latinisations (like Myos Hormus for Myos Hormos), and they've used a frustrating variety of fonts.
    • I was just doing some basic translation of German from a map and leaving the Latin alone. @Enyavar: who created this series. From looking at the upload, a list of sources are at File:Ancient_Orient_History_Map_basis.de.svg#Beschreibung - anything else to be aware of in using the map?
      • That list seems to be specifically about the Bronze Age -- wherever a page is cited, it's specifically BA material. It does cite books that we would expect to have maps of the Roman period in them, but I don't see a definitive statement that those maps were used in the map we have. Of course, if you can find other sources which verify the information and append them to the Commons page, it doesn't particularly matter whether they were originally consulted, but we do need something for the included claims like, for example, "the Roman Empire had only weak influence over Nabataea in 100 CE". UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I asked Enyavar directly - stay tuned. As for Nabatea itself, it looks like Rome only took over in 106 CE (Nabataean_Kingdom#Roman_annexation), so to the extent the map is "exactly 100 AD", it seems sorta justified as a heavily Roman-influenced but client-y state.
          • I'm not disputing any of the ideas in the map (except possibly that anyone ever called it Myos Hormus), only that we need to cite those claims, just as we would in text. We couldn't write "Nabataea was a Roman client state in 100 CE" without a citation, and it's the same to do so with an image. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry about that! My own maps I try to carefully document (File:BattleofTordesillas.PNG for an old example), but this one was pre-existing, hence it being tricky for me to do directly. Enyavar replied at Benutzer_Diskussion:Enyavar#Question_on_Ancient_Near_East_maps, and I used that to add this addition to the file description. Is that enough information, do you think?
              • As I read it, it's (slightly harshly put) a vague handwave towards "go check the bibliography in the relevant Wikipedia article?" I don't think that's enough, really: one, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, two, that bibliography isn't necessarily stable, three, "it's somewhere in at least some of this huge list of books" isn't really precise enough. Really, we need something at the level of "For the geographical information, see maps on [these pages] of [these books]; see also a discussion of toponyms in [this gazetteer], and I've followed the view of [this book chapter] on the matter of [whatever]". UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (de-indent) Haven't forgotten about this, just was traveling over the weekend and am back at work now. I put in requests at the library for atlases & maps; we'll see what they turn up. Unfortunately the easy-to-access batch was mostly not showing much detail, or was dated like the 1923 Shepherd map. (Side fun fact: did you know that the 2023 Atlas of the Classical World has a "Rome under Trajan" map advertised in its Table of Contents? It's a map of... the city of Rome, specifically, during the reign of Trajan. Sad trombone noises go here.) SnowFire (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. Attempting to make an entirely new map at the level of detail of the original map is way, way too much work, so there's no way that's going to finish "in time" here. I've elected to just use a less detailed map instead. I've uploaded File:Eastern Mediterranean 125 political map eastern med.svg which has the original sources in the original map, and I've adjusted some of the city names to follow Talbert (2023) and verified a few others with other recent atlases. The Arabia Petraea region also follows the more conservative territory seen in most maps of the Roman Empire after 106 than the old 100 AD map. Hopefully this is considered sufficient enough sourcing. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a Greek katabasis or nekyia: how come only the second gets italicised? I don't think katabasis is quite naturalised in English, at least among those who aren't Greek scholars. Smaller, but is a nekyia the right comparison here -- that usually involves, as Odysseus's does, standing more-or-less in the "real" world, being approached by the dead and asking questions of them?
    • I'm mostly mimicking Ehrman 2022 here. He leaves "katabasis" unitalicized (except on the very first introduction of the Greek term) but italicizes nekuia (with a u) everywhere. Bauckham 1998 does italicize katabasis though, and a quick search through the 2024 "In Context" shows two italicizations by Bremmer. I suppose I can switch it over, it's not a big deal. And I don't think there's a firm distinction, it's borderline, but to the extent that Peter & the disciples are tripping on a spiritual vision but while on Earth, you can argue it's a nekyia if your criteria is "happens on Earth" and if your criteria it that a true katabasis would involve actually VISITING a la Dante / ApocPaul, which is of course impossible in this case as it'd involve time travel.
  • The link to Jewish Christians shouldn't cover "and achieve martyrdom", since being a martyr is, thankfully, not necessarily part of being a Jewish Christian.
    • Done, although now I'm a little worried it looks like the shoots are achieving martyrdom (when in the text, it's definitely the Jewish Christians).
  • One theological issue of note: I would rephrase this sentence -- we generally avoid saying that things are notable, or should be noted -- it's taken as read that everything in a Wikipedia article is notable, and we do well to minimise the volume of our editorial voice.
    • I think this is a good general rule of Wikipedia writing, but similar to the concerns on "popular" above, this one I think needs some sort of callout. This is the theological issue and half the reason people are still writing about the Apoc Peter still today. It consumes a huge amount of what Beck, Ehrman, Bauckham, etc. have to say on the work; Ilaria Ramelli wrote a whole book on early Christian universalism that cites ApocPeter as an example for her thesis. Open to suggestions, but I think the importance of this passage needs to be emphasized in some way that makes it distinct from comparatively piddly stuff also discussed, like the names of angels.
      • OK, so let's say as much -- Beck writes that "the central theological issue of the text" is.... If we can't find anyone actually willing to put it in writing that it's so important, it's WP:SYNTH to infer it simply from the volume of scholarly writing on it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • We can, it's just that qualifying it in-text makes it sound like it's just one scholar's take, and it's broader in this case. It also calls even more attention to the matter up front before even describing it, rather than a brief side comment that's promising "read on and you'll find out why." Hence me preferring to simply state it as a fact - it's proven by all the referenced stuff later on to the pages and pages written on it.
        • I've removed it for now, though - the proper person to cite, if anyone, is Ilaria Ramelli here (for all that others think she overstates her case), and the Brill access for the Wikipedia Library is still down. :( If it comes back up, I'll re-check her $405 book to see if there's a suitably saucy quote to use, in the reference if nothing else.
  • The Greek word "apocalypse": technically speaking, apocalypse is not a Greek word: I would transliterate apokalypsis here (and see note above on Greek words).
    • Done. Good idea, agree we should use the raw Romanized Greek here rather than the Latinized version.
  • the work is pseudepigrapha: pseudepigrapha is plural, so I think you're on safer grammatical grounds to make this an adjective: pseudepigraphical.
    • Done.
  • Christian-Jewish: this should be an endash, but I'm not sure what the join is meant to be here. Are we saying that it belongs to Jewish Christianity -- in which case, Jewish-Christian (with hyphen) would be better?
    • Switched to an ndash. And it wasn't restricted to Jewish Christianity, so that wasn't the intent... it's more like it belongs to Christianity, but had major Jewish influences.
  • Plato's Phaedo is often held as a major example of the forerunning Hellenistic beliefs: this needs a bit more supporting material -- Plato's Phaedo is not Hellenistic.
    • It could be misread, but I feel that anyone capable of that misreading also knows enough to know what is "really" meant, that Plato was still current in the Hellenistic era and there were people called Platonists etc.? I switched it to the simple "Greek" though to avoid confusion.
  • Later scholarship by Martha Himmelfarb and others: as before, can we be more specific as to the date?
    • Himmelfarb's book was published in 1983, but "others" is harder to pin down. I suspect picking a date would be problematic though - it's not like everyone instantly agreed Himmelfarb was right (in fact, just as Dieterich was a maximalist "everything was Greek with minor Jewish flavor" that was probably wrong, Himmelfarb's maximalist "this is all based on lost Jewish stuff" hasn't actually found much support at the other end of the spectrum), and the process was probably somewhat gradual as people filtered in the parts of Himmelfarb's argument that were the best supported in the 1980s & 90s. (And I'm sure there were some scholars in the 1960s arguing for more Jewish influence who are annoyed if Himmelfarb took all the credit.) I think this one is best left for "click the wikilink on Himmelfarb, or hit the references, for more."
  • Some scholars get introductions, others don't -- who was Albrecht Dieterich, for example? There are arguments on either side, but I think it's best to pick a lane -- either introduce everyone, or only those who aren't what you'd expect. This essay puts forward one common and very sensible approach -- essentially, if it's (e.g.) a classicist doing a work of classical scholarship, leave out the introduction as obvious, but do introduce them if they aren't' a conventional subject-matter expert -- for example, if a poet or mystic commented on the text.
    • I've usually used the "no intro" style except for very early in the article. I removed "The scholar" before Bauckham - if I missed any others, happy to remove them. The one intro I believe remains is for M. R. James, and that's because I want to mention he was English (but reading French translations of Ethiopic documents for fun, and connecting them to German translations of Greek he read & translated earlier. Just normal stuff).
  • I struggled to get my head around the layout of the Predecessors section -- the chronology and provenance of texts involved seems very mixed, there's a lot of "probably" and "maybe" going on, and a few very short paragraphs. What's the logic at work here?
    • Unfortunately, there isn't really a "story" to tell here past the Greek vs. Jewish influence debate. It's more like "Scholar A detected a claimed influence here. Scholar B detected a claimed influence over here. Scholar C..." And some of these claimed influences really do need a "probable" disclaimer, because it's not like the passage says "As Ezra said in that one Greek book of his work..." Beck writes "It is important to acknowledge the uncertainty of source critical discussions". I've done my best to have something of a "narrative" here, but also want to avoid SYNTH.
    • On short paragraphs, here and elsewhere: My stance favors the "paragraphs should have a topic" writing style. Sometimes this leads to long paragraphs (as in the Canonicity section), but sometimes it leads to short paragraphs if there's just one person making one claim or the like. I'd rather avoid glomming together unrelated thoughts that suggests the Psalm 24 quote is linked with the postmortem baptism or the like. (And looking back, including Matthew in the "Greek katabasis vs. Jewish apocalypses" section is a little loose as is... Matthew does have an apocalyptic section but I don't go into that here.)
  • the Apocalypse of Peter is distinct among extant literature of the period, and may well have been unique at the time: aren't all works of literature unique in some respect? I'm not a fan of the distinction between "being unique" and "adapting earlier writings" -- leaving aside people like Virgil, Dante and so on, we have things like the Cento Vergilianus de laudibus Christi, which is entirely original and unique despite not containing a single original line. Suggest getting to the meaty material as to what's distinctive about it sooner, and ideally offering more than one example.
    • I think Beck would agree with you! ("It is important to recognise the originality of the Apoc Pet"). The reason he's bringing up this seemingly anodyne point is... well, a lot of earlier scholarly literature is obsessed with proving X copied from Y and Y was stealing from Z and the like. He was agreeing with this sentiment, that let the work stand on its own (and implicitly criticizing all of the previous paragraphs of claimed sources).
    • As far as offering more examples - that's a little fraught. Honestly the example that's there is not great, because Beck himself is very much on the "ApocPeter is 80% mercy and 20% judgment" side of the debate, yet I've included an example on the judgment side (it's not sourced to Beck, but it is placed right after his statement). Beck's example is, of course, the extent of post-mortem salvation, that ApocPeter is a unique early proponent of universal-ish salvation. But that's already covered in detail elsewhere, so bringing it up in "Predecessors" too would feel a little odd.
  • it is not known when the Clementine sections of the Ethiopic manuscripts containing the Apocalypse of Peter were originally written. Daniel Maier proposes an Egyptian origin in the 6th–10th centuries as an estimate, while Richard Bauckham suggests the author was familiar with the Arabic Apocalypse of Peter and proposes an origin in the 8th century or later.: this seems like it belongs in the section on manuscripts -- I don't really see its relevance in a section on the work's influence.
    • I'd say it counts. This isn't about the manuscript so much as the content of "The Second Coming of Christ and the Resurrection of the Dead" and "The Mystery of the Judgment of Sinners" - i.e. when were they written (probably before the manuscript itself) and what were they based on? Since it's right next to the ApocPeter and seems to mention it, it seems clear ApocPeter was a huge influence, in the same way that a 2024 sequel to a Shakespeare play is influenced by, well, the Shakespeare play itself it's adding to. That said, this section was called out as a bit confusing in the GAN review too, so maybe there's clearly an issue. Perhaps it could be demoted to a footnote? That feels a little Western-centric though, these Ethiopic additions were the only attention ApocPeter was getting for centuries, even if the Ethiopian church of the 8th-18th centuries isn't well covered in English.
  • Later apocalyptic works inspired by it include the Apocalypse of Thomas in the 2nd–4th century, and more importantly, the Apocalypse of Paul in the 4th century: more importantly reads as pretty strong editorialising to me.
    • See above comments on the lead. I've changed it to "more influentially" to perhaps make less bold claims about Importance with a capital I, but make no mistake, the Apoc Paul was the important one here. It's really hard to understate how weirdly popular ApocPaul was - while most surviving apocrypha involve scholars poring over just 1 or 2 manuscripts carefully, we've got hundreds of surviving ApocPaul manuscripts in a variety of languages. It'd be like writing "The noodle incident inspired a number of early 20th century authors, including Fergus MacForgotten, Bob Irrelevant, and Agatha Christie." For the reader not familiar, there should be some call out that one member of this list is way, way more important the others.
  • One notable tweak that the Apocalypse of Paul makes; see above re. notable, and MOS:IDIOM -- I would just axe this perambulatory clause.
    • While the origin might be as an origin to real-life things, I think a "tweak" as a term for any "small change" is fine? I checked Merriam-Webster, and it has "a small change or adjustment" and its first example is to tweaking a menu (which clearly is more metaphorical than a radio dial). I removed "notable". Can switch "tweak" to "change" if desired, but since this is on ApocPeter's influence on ApocPaul, I think "tweak" hints that ApocPaul was modifying an already-existing framework better, while a change could simply be a difference.
      • To me, "tweak" reads as more informal than we're going for: I think "change" would work. On the other hand, a more direct sentence structure might be even better -- something like The Apocalypse of Paul diverges from that of Peter in describing personal judgments to bliss or torment as happening immediately after death (the bold bit is I think a necessary change for clarity, in any case). UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • medieval monks that copied and preserved manuscripts in the turbulent centuries following the fall of the Western Roman Empire: I would do without turbulent centuries -- the third, fourth and fifth centuries were hardly serene and peaceful by comparison with the sixth, seventh and eighth.
    • Hmm, from the perspective of my armchair, I'm more convinced by the "the Roman Empire's fall was followed by a substantial crash in living conditions and economic disaster" camp. Not trying to imply that the 4th-5th century Western Roman Empire was particularly peaceful (3rd is too early for ApocPaul) of course, but they probably were substantially better for book preservation? My understanding is that these early centuries post-Fall were indeed very rough for manuscript preservation in the West by non-monks, since there were fewer rich nobles, scribes working for government officials, etc. that might have done it otherwise. And even if we take it as accepted that the 4th & 5th centuries were bad, that just means they were also turbulent. Despite the above, I'm happy to cut it if you feel strongly, just don't see the issue with a little bit of context that seems non-controversially true. (Really the best fix would be if we had a term that meant "late antique and Medieval" and we could just apply that modifier to the monks and then say "ever since it was published", but I can't think of any. And my vague understanding is that knowledge of ApocPaul in its first centuries is real vague anyway.)
      • It's really not non-controversially true, though -- it's not that the Early Medieval period was rosy, it's that the Late Roman period was pretty chaotic too. As I've said a few times, if you have a concrete statement in mind, like the idea that this was a particularly bad time for book preservation, it would be a good idea to say and cite that directly -- what we have at the moment is vague and fluffy, so it gives the reader an impression without actually presenting anything that could be falsified, and therefore without saying anything that could really be verified either. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I mean is that this statement, strictly speaking, doesn't say anything about the late Roman period at all, just the periods afterward (and thus does not take a stand on exactly how bad the late Roman period was). It doesn't seem that vague and fluffy to me (it is bringing up the role of monks / monasteries in book preservation, yes), but as this is on a side topic anyway, I'm happy to kick it to the Apoc Paul article and let people click the wikilink. Cut to just "medieval monks".
          • Improved, I think. Now we have Despite this, it would go on to be popular and influential for centuries, possibly due to its popularity: firstly, this is a tautology (it was popular because it was popular -- what attracted monks to it in the first place?); secondly, can we adjust the repetition? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Rephrased to avoid the close repetition.
            • On why it was popular: I was happy to spend some text on explaining why monks mattered more than you'd expect (book copying / preservation), but going into why exactly the monks liked it is getting off-topic IMO. It's in the Apoc Paul article, but the short version is that it's very flattering to monks and spends time on monk interests - like, if you finish your vow of fasting, you will get a super-awesome apartment in the City of God near the center, but if you screw it up, you will be super-punished and thrown in a hole. Clergy & ascetics are the stars and get different fates than vanilla Christians - either much worse if they screw it up because expectations were higher, or much better if they do it well. But I don't think that's the relevant part for a section on ApocPeter's influence. I've tried to focus on the parts of ApocPaul that were clearly modifying existing Peter frameworks, but this aspect was just kinda new. (See Beck's comment elsewhere on Peter perceiving the righteous as a unified group - it's definitely a difference between Peter & Paul, as Paul thinks there's winners & losers even among the saved.)
            • On if it's a tautology: The current passage is describing who the "base" of support was (e.g. the equivalent of the Rocky Horror Picture Show superfans who kept would could have been an obscure commercial failure of a movie alive). Something like "Roger Ebert's strong advocacy of Hoop Dreams helped win the work wider popularity and acclaim." If you have a better suggestion on how to phrase that kind of message, happy to hear it, but as is I think it gets the point across?

More to follow -- greatly enjoying it so far, having just dipped my toe into apocalyptic literature for another (much less impressive) article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The damned themselves admit from their own lips: from their own lips is tautological here, and a bit flowery for an encyclopaedia. This sentence might also be clearer if in a dialogue with the angel Tatirokos, the keeper of Tartarus were moved to the front.
    • Switched the order. And while flowery (in an evil flower kinda way), it's definitely a powerful rhetorical technique still used today (in the same way that, say, political parties love to quote whenever a rival agrees with them, or just make up a quote on Twitter of the other side confessing to being super evil). See? They admitted it themselves, therefore we're right and it's okay.
  • It is possible that where there is no logical correspondence, the punishment has come from the Orphic tradition and has simply been clumsily attached to a vice by a Jewish redactor.: can we give some examples? I also think we could perhaps have done more to introduce Orphism further up.
    • We could, but the problem is that for every example, there will be someone else arguing that no, this one totally makes sense. Fiensy offers "unchaste maidens are clad in darkness and have their flesh torn and sorcerers are tormented on wheels of fire" but we actually introduce proposed explanations for these later (i.e. bodily correspondence in that the skin/flesh that sinned is torn, and mirror punishment for sorcerers). I've seen elsewhere that the punishment for usurers is weirdly lenient compared to the others (up to the... knees in excrement? That's not fun, but it's not nearly as horrible as some of the other stuff.) and is also rather disconnected, but it'd be weird to offer that as an example when Fiensy doesn't. Maybe I just need a better reference for this than Fiensy - will look for one, stay tuned.
    • As for introducing Orphism, I'm not even sure where to start. I'm not sure there's even a consistent canonical Orphism to go over - it'd be like introducing 1st century Judaism, there are entire books written on it. I think we may be stuck with "click on the wikilink for more".
    • SF from the future: I added in a line in Callon's paragraph clarifying that the sorcerers example is one of the ones Fiensy thought made no sense. Still trying to figure out if there's any way to sneak in a better descriptive bit for Orphism that doesn't side-track, but I feel like I'd need to read a book to turn that into a non-contentious, non-distracting adjective other than the existing "er it was Greek-philosophy influenced tradition."
  • contests classifying the ethics of the Apocalypse as being that of lex talionis: those of, since ethics is plural. A short paragraph: can we close it up with something else?
    • I guess we could combine with the Callon paragraph as an "alternative non-lex-talionis views" but I don't think Ehrman and Callon actually agree. Would rather let them stand on their own, but I'm willing to do the merge if you feel strongly.
  • often more symbolic in nature: more symbolic than what?
    • Than simple eye-for-an-eye. In Callon's example, eye-for-an-eye would be sorcerers suffering whatever harm their spells inflicted on others to themselves, while a poetic justice approach is more like the tool they used to gain power is now used to torture them, isn't that ironic.
  • The text also specifies "ten" girls are punished: better to lose the quotes her per MOS:QUOTEPOV.
    • These aren't scare quotes though; it has the number "ten" in the text, it's an actual quote. I'd read it without the quotes as potentially implying that the actual text lists 10 specific women (a la Dante calling out specific people for punishment) but the Wikipedia article isn't bothering to list them. Normally I would fix this by making the quote longer and thus more obviously a quote, but the problem is the text literally says "10 virgins" or "10 maidens" are having premarital sex which I presume reads fine in Ethiopic, but will read confusingly in English where it'll sound illogical/impossible.
      • Well, yes, but "John states that he ate ten apples" also implies that John said the word "ten". If you want to make clear that it's ten fungible women, "a total of ten" would do well. The quotes don't strike the right tone -- they read as scare quotes, even if they aren't (this is the point of MOS:QUOTEPOV). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just went with dropping the quotes - "a total of" seems to draw even more attention to it and raise questions.
  • {{Green|The Apocalypse of Peter is one of the earliest pieces of Christian literature to feature an anti-abortion message}: another very short paragraph.
    • Attaching this to another "thought" seems unwise; it's not really that connected. I'd rather keep it separate.
  • The "Christology" section is very short indeed. Is that really the sum of all that has been written on the topic? If so, suggest rolling it in with another section. Ditto the "Literary merits" section, which could perhaps be repurposed as a sort of introduction to the "Analysis" section, without the subhead, unless there is more to say. Per MOS:FIGURES, don't start a sentence with a numeral.
    • Switched the sentence order.
    • I think placing the Literary Analysis section up front would give too much prominence to James' poison pen, IMO (The Ehrman reference discusses James opinion here only to criticize it as overly the-right-canon-prevailed triumphalist). I used the pre-section bit as an "intro" in Contents / Influences, but there isn't really much of an overall "Analysis" to be had which is already something of a grab-bag for "other stuff scholars talk about." I don't think these are that linked so would rather just have short, one-paragraph sections.
  • which might have partially explained a lack of elite enthusiasm for canonizing it later: we haven't actually talked about this yet, so it comes across as vague and confusing.
    • A bit, but I don't think this is THAT confusing. We did mention already in the lede that it wasn't in the canon, so it's a minor flash-forward. More generally, I think this section is mostly on the "do scholars think this is actually well-written, coherent, etc." with the canonicity bit more a side comment. I think the article has a strong ending currently with the canonicity debate - moving this afterward would add a side "eh and here's another thought" afterward would dull the impact.
  • One of the theological messages of the Apocalypse of Peter is generally considered clear enough: there are a couple of perambulatory phrases and sentences in the article like this one -- as in previous notes, I would advise simply cutting them and getting to the point of what we want to say. If you mean to indicate that most of the other theological points are unclear, state that explicitly.
    • I think you're reading this a bit more harshly than intended. I do describe a scholarly debate later in this paragraph on the "real" intent of the ApocPeter (both in its author and its early readers), but just wanted to set up that there do exist some baseline grounds scholars do agree on. And there's a subtle difference between "unclear" and "there is a scholarly debate" - the scholars on side A say it's very clear and obvious, just side B is wrong, and vice versa. I think it'd be a little bit editorializing to throw my hands up and declare that the problem is the text is unclear. (But yes, there is internal-to-the-text dissension on many of the messages, but the "monitory" message is clear. I'm citing Beck here because he is very much on the "ApocPeter as a scary morality play is overrated, it's not just about scaring people into compliance with the threat of hellfire" 'side', but even he grants that there's something of that in the story, just not the main thrust to him.)
  • how can God allow persecution of the righteous on Earth and still be both sovereign and just?: similarly, in an encyclopaedia article (rather than an essay or an academic book chapter), we generally avoid direct/rhetorical questions in Wikivoice.
    • It's definitely not a rhetorical question, but a very hard one! Open to suggestions, but I cannot think of any other way to explain theodicy that doesn't introduce theology in Wikivoice, which is presumably worse. The article on the problem of evil even introduces the topic as a "question", and older theodicies were often explanations for major practical questions like "Why did God allow (disaster to happen)? Because...". Presumably atheists & Christians alike can agree that this is an issue that the author was trying to address, but elevating it from a question to a statement seems like it'd inherently annoy one side (e.g. simply stating the problem as a fact would annoy atheists as assuming a God did indeed allow anything, while including qualifiers like "so-called" would annoy theists).
      • We should make it an indirect question: "the problem of how God can allow...", to quieten down the authorial voice and make it clear that it isn't a rhetorical question. I'm sure the theodicy article does it a few times. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rephrased as you suggested - take a look.
  • and contains elements of both messages: similarly, this is simply a rephrasing of what was said before -- best cut.
    • Strong disagree here. Your wording is certainly more concise, but concision isn't everything; this one is intentional, for emphasis and clarity, and does indeed add something IMO. It's not as if there's a mercy-o-meter that there's a single setting for consistent across the work; the extra comment is hinting that while passage A might strongly indicate a preference for justice, passage B might do so for mercy, and passage C for both simultaneously. I think it's better writing to include this, and makes the sentence read much better to my eyes. (Side note: I'm not an expert here, but while on the topic of old religious writings, a theme seen in old Hebrew is repetition-for-emphasis as well - random Psalms will say something like "God is [X] and [CLOSE SYNONYM FOR X]". I don't think it's a mistake, and it can read rather well in English too.) I dunno, this might be a weird one to plant my flag on, but this one I feel significantly stronger about than the others - this passage is my writing style and I'd rather keep it like this unless there's an outright error here. We're allowed a few spare words to dress things up, and this particular issue is one of the top most useful places to spend them IMO. (Apologies in advance if I come across as an eccentric on this!)
  • may not have fit the mood: I think this is a bit too informal, and perhaps on the wrong side of MOS:IDIOM.
    • You say "informal", I say "accessible to a general audience." ;-) But more seriously, I could replace with "intellectual milieu" or "zeitgeist" or the like but those seems both less accessible and less accurate, so I'm not super keen on doing so. Do you have any suggestions? It's tricky because Christianity was hardly a monolith in that era, so it needs to be a word indicating a similarly vague current-of-thought.
  • three tabernacles here on Earth: here is best cut for concision -- those few people who read this article on the International Space Station can complain on the Talk page if needed.
    • In a vacuum, I agree, but there's an issue here. The text actually just says "My Lord, do you wish that I make three tabernacles here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah?" In other words, "here" is the word original to the text, and "on Earth" is an in-sentence gloss. I think we'd need to cut "on Earth" first if we wanted to shorten this, but then Jesus's objections would come across as somewhat nonsensical, hence clarifying Peter's proposed tabernacles were in the mortal realm and Jesus's tabernacle was heavenly.
  • Make sure that Latin titles, such as Hypotyposes, are in lang templates.
    • Done.
  • Quite a few of the citation templates used in footnotes are throwing Harvard errors -- use this script to catch them, then add |ref=none to fix them.
    • (I saw this, but will hold off, since it involves installing scripts. To be edited later.)
    • Well, these were warnings not errors, and they're acceptable warnings in this case IMO. Still, I fixed this in the "Bibliography" section. Elsewhere, I'm more inclined to "blame" the script - User_talk:Trappist_the_monk/HarvErrors#Citation_bundles indicates that this is a known quirk, where the script doesn't get that citation bundles shouldn't have such a warning. I can still change it if truly desired, but per above, it doesn't appear to actually be an error in the citation.

That's my lot on a first pass -- quite a few comments, but please don't take the quantity as a reflection of the quality of the article -- most are very small and will be quickly resolved. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the extensive review! Here's a diff of changes so far (no section swap), and the section order swap separate diff. Will investigate the other comments as well. SnowFire (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt replies -- I haven't got to all of them; most are absolutely find and need no reply, and I've put a few responses above where I think one is needed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I haven't forgotten about this - just had an unexpectedly busy Labor Day weekend & travel + not wanting to do some of these fixes before I could hit the books again. Will hopefully respond soon-ish now that I have a tad more free time. SnowFire (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all -- I still have a few of your replies that I need to get my head around. If they're still below the "Resolved" collapse box, I'm meaning to get to them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies! Did another pass - see diff. SnowFire (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- I'm working my way through; it's going a bit slowly but hopefully steadily. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small one, but we're inconsistent about whether scholarship should be related in the present or past tense. I was taught to use the present for "live" views and the past when discussing the history of scholarship (with the implication that views related in the past tense were no longer considered mainstream), but as ever with these things any consistent system is fine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a tense pass. Here's the tentative rules I applied: Dead scholars get past tense. Scholars who argued a position notably but later changed their mind also get past tense (don't think that ever comes up - maybe Bauckham softening some on 2 Peter vs. ApocPeter timing? That's hidden in a reference anyway.). Living scholars get present tense. Scholarly summations - your system sounds good, so went with past tense for when the vibes are this position is dated, but kept present tense if there are notable scholars still propounding the position. Some constructions not directly about scholarly views remained as is (i.e. "the fragment is dated" where it's talking about something else).
    • Anyway, most recent diff. Also feel free to speak up if I said I did something but then didn't do it - that's probably just an error (I seem to find myself responding to these at 3-4 AM while unable to sleep...). SnowFire (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just gone through looking to close this off -- I've made some copyedit suggestions, including one to the "fit the mood" problem above. One remaining issue: I see considering the reservations various church authors had on the Apocalypse of John (the Book of Revelation), it is possible similar considerations were in play. -- do we ever say what those considerations were? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Your changes look fine to me.
      On Revelation: Unfortunately, I don't think either set of considerations / objections are known (hence the "it is possible" wording). That said, that line was added very early in my expansion and it looks like I was a little loose on sourcing it at the time. I do think it's true but should probably get a direct attribution to scholar XYZ - I've commented it out for now. If I find a good source to restore it, I'll see what it says and if it includes any hypotheses. (Just it's often speculating at gaps - why did writer XYZ not mention it? and why did writer ABC just call it disputed? Very vague.) . SnowFire (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Has nobody taken a stab at it -- or said that it's unknown? I think one or the other would help: as we've phrased it, it sounds like there are known reasons about Revelation, which might apply to ApocPeter. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @UndercoverClassicist: I've reorganized the section and placed in a reference to "The Oxford Handbook of Revelation." It's still mildly sketchy since it's tying together a thought spread across two sources, but I think it's fine given that Nicklas does directly raise the matter of the Apocalypse of Peter's status as being comparable to Revelation.
        • Also, on an earlier note, I've snuck in a reference outside the Hatnote to the Gnostic & Arabic Apocalypses of Peter - in the name footnote, of all places. Added in another 2022 source as well (Batovici) - it's nothing new, but useful as another layer of verification. Also, see above, but I've uploaded a new map and verified it against recent Atlases, and have more pictures of scholarly Atlases if really required. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Support: almost all of this article is well outside my area of expertise, but it certainly has the look, feel and flavour of an FA, and I'm satisfied with all the amendments and fixes made during this (lengthy!) review. Credit to SnowFire for their patience and good humour with the process, and I hope they feel it has been of benefit to the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka

[edit]
  • The citation style of the article is inconsistent. Several sources referred to in the "Reference" section, are not listed in section "Bibliography" (for instance, Metzger). Some references are rather notes (I refer to, for example, references 16 and 43). Do not verify a statement with a note (for instance, this is the case in the two last sentences in section "Date of authorship").
    • I explained my citation style above in discussion with UC, and it's consistent and keeping with WP:CITEVAR. I'll copy-paste what I wrote there:
      • The citation style I use is that sources that are cited a lot over multiple page ranges go in the Bibliography, and everything else is a normal reference. There is a method to the madness here - when seeing the reference previews from hover (desktop) or press (mobile), the strict page ranges are a little less helpful than a full reference. So if everything can fit in a single reference (say JK Elliot's Apocryphal New Testament writeup, or Maurer / Mueller's, or random journal articles), I stick it there. I personally consider it an antipattern that if there's a source only used in one spot, a strict "everything in the bibliography, short references only" style forces a secondary lookup / hover to track it down when it could have just been connected at the start. This also has the benefit of the Bibliography being a genuine "read these 6 books to learn about ApocPeter" bibliography that cuts to the core, most-used sources recommended to read, rather than a grab-bag.
      • Now, there is one quirk with this article, which is that there's two heavily cited monograph collections in the Bibliography (the 2003 Apocalypse of Peter edited by Bremmer, and the 2024 collection edited by Maier et al). For those, I stuck them there anyway due to their importance, but all of the references are separated out as citations to individual chapters, since the chapters have different authors. And those are usual full citations.
    • Metzger is used in more than one spot but it's not mostly on the Apocalypse of Peter, while the sources listed in Bibliography are. I'd rather keep it as is unless you feel this is truly a problem, but I'd be curious why it's a problem - clicking a Metzger page range will show the Metzger book just fine.
    • On long references: 16 isn't really appropriate as a note, IMO. It's a "see these original sources for more" which is exactly what a reference is. I've reserved notes for "prose that a reader might be interested in, but keeping it in the main article would distract the flow on a minor point and it isn't strictly required." A bunch of links to old journal articles is useful IMO, hence including it, but it's clearly a reference. 43 is more borderline, but that is again a reference IMO. I'm trying to avoid the antipattern many articles use of, when there's scholarly dissension, just citing both and letting the reader figure things out by saying up front that you can see different slants at different references. I could see a reverse complaint where if I only had the scholarly references, someone might complain about text-source integrity that actually, this other reference says something slightly different than what the text does. A more fully explained reference fixes the problem IMO. I believe my style is valid per CITEVAR where explaining some references does not automatically qualify something for footnote status. WP:EXPLNOTESECT explicitly says that having a notes section at all is optional, and there are FAs that entirely eschew a notes section and stick everything in references, including detailed note-like references. Given that, I have to assume that there is discretion on the article author to choose what qualifies for a note and what qualifies as a reference.
    • I would not expect explanations in references. I think the present method is not fully in line with WP:CITEHOW
      • A simple "Lastname Year p. 100" is the basic case, sure, but I would say that WP:FOOTQUOTE covers this - "Sometimes, however, it is useful to include additional annotation in the footnote, for example to indicate precisely which information the source is supporting." For ref 43, say, I don't think Lapham's view on the transfiguration parallel is so significant that it merits discussion in a full reader-facing footnote, but that including Lapham as a reference unadorned could create a complaint that it's missing subtleties in the position. There's no perfect fix here, but having a somewhat fuller citation is basically harmless and not at all unusual, and makes a lot of sense for articles with strong references yet sometimes contrasting results.
    • The notes in "Date of Authorship" all have detailed references (5 refs in the Bar-Kokhba note, say). I suppose I can replicate all of them again in-prose, but I really don't see the point, and it makes it harder for a well-meaning reader to actually get sent to the note of approachable prose I want them to read, rather than the reference that they probably don't care about. I checked 3 FAs at random, and all 3 of them were using notes-with-references-in-the-note as well, suggesting this isn't an unknown style (and not just "middle of the paragraph" stuff - I'm talking notes at the end of the paragraph, with the ref in the note).
  • Introduce people when they are first mentioned in the text: Richard Bauckham > the theologian/Biblical scholar Richard Bauckham; Gaston Maspéro > the Egyptologist Gaston Maspéro, etc.
    • Unfortunately, if you read Undercover Classicist above, he recommended doing precisely the reverse of this in his review and not introducing anyone unless it's surprising or out-of-field, and so I just went around removing some of these recently. I can't comply with both requests. If someone wants to offer a third opinion, I'll vary it up with whatever the majority says, as I think this is purely a stylistic preference where both ways can work.
There are a few schools of thought on this -- to me, the overarching principle here would be the FAC mantra that "if it's consistent and it works, it's fine". Personally, I used to be in the school of "introduce everyone", but discussions at some FACs here (from memory, this was prominent at Beulé Gate) have pushed me more towards not generally introducing people where that introduction would be "this person is the sort of expert you'd expect to see quoted here). Some of the reasons for this are:
  • False distinctions -- particularly in a field like this one, there aren't bright lines between e.g. "theologian/religious historian/scholar of Judaism", and choosing one epithet over the other can give a misleading impression that two people are coming at this from very different angles, or else misrepresent the field. Even worse, titles like "scholar" or "writer" sometimes disguise the fact that the person isn't really an expert in this topic at all.
  • False precision -- if we implicitly endorse someone as "the historian X...", we give readers the sense that they are all equally qualified and worth listening to, which isn't often the case. The oft-cited user essay on this point uses the example of David Irving, who would need a lot more context than that.
  • Repetition -- readers will generally assume that we don't quote people who aren't worth listening to, so if the introduction does nothing more than say "this person is worth listening to", it's tautological and adds needless words (and so takes away from the article's clarity). This is a similar argument to why we don't write things like "a notable fact is..." or "it is important that...".
With that said, if the person being quoted is not a run-of-the-mill current expert, there are good arguments for introducing them -- particularly if:
  • The article is very interdisciplinary, and people are coming at it from very different perspectives (see Ove Jørgensen, where I had to introduce practically everyone to be clear if they were a classicist, a ballet scholar or a personal acquaintance of the subject).
  • The view is particularly dated, or otherwise considered obsolete.
  • They are being used as something other than an academic expert: this came up a lot in Homeric Hymns, where classicists/philologists/literary scholars were generally not given epithets, but people like Ezra Pound, who passed judgement on the topic from a different perspective, were introduced to make clear that their expertise was different from that of the (many) academics mentioned elsewhere.
That's quite a lot of verbiage to say "it's really a moot point", but I hope it helps. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I still think that introducing the scholars mentioned in the article is the best method: if a scholar is to be named in an article for whatever reason we should not be forced to make a research for them and a scholar's name itself is not informative. Encyclopedic approach itself leads to simplifications: we are summarising the content of lengthy scholarly studies. I would ignore the "oft-cited user essay" for it has only been visited 41 times this year (5 times on the same day indicating that somebody referred to it in a discussion [22]). Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are not the titles of works/texts italicised?
    • See MOS:NEITHER, where "religious texts" aren't italicized. e.g. Revelation, not Revelation.
  • The first section's title does not reflect the text.
    • I've switched the title to "Authorship and date" if that helps better make clear the scope.
  • The Apocalypse of Peter seems to have been written between 100 AD and 150 AD. 1. Another cited source writes of a different timeframe (Metzger (1987), p. 184). 2. None of the two years mentioned in the sentence are certain. 3. Rephrase to avoid PoV language.
    • For 1, I wasn't citing Metzger there? He's writing a 3-page short summary. I'm trying to use the highest quality sources for the main topic, which means scholars who have dedicated a bit more space to ApocPeter. There is already some dissension here that is already discussed (i.e. Bauckham arguing for a more specific dating); I didn't feel Metzger's narrower range was worth going into because he doesn't explain why at all and he's not an ApocPeter expert. It's just a difference, that happens all the time, it'd blow the article up to 5x the length if every small scholarly difference was discussed. (Metzger is a fantastic source overall on the topic of the formation of the canon, but the scholarly estimates of when precisely ApocPeter was written? Probably not. More sources say 100 as the start date, or even earlier if the 4 Esdras reference is discarded as too weak.)
    • For 2, I absolutely agree, but that's why I wrote "Seems". I guess you're arguing for a "circa"? But having both "seems" and "Circa" would be essentially repeating, and including only "circa" would be too subtle for some casual readers who might not catch the abbreviation.
    • For 3, I don't see anything POV here at all. If this means "seems" again, to be clear, the authors themselves acknowledge a range of possibilities. Text-source integrity requires communicating this uncertainty in text.
  • These Ethiopic versions appear to have been translated from an Arabic version, which itself was translated from the lost Greek original. Who says this and why?
    • First off - I refactored this section during the FAC, and I think the ref to this got shuffled around. I've replaced it; Bauckham p. 162 covers it (as well as p.254, but that's just repeating it). I also threw in a ref to Müller 1991 (Which is a bit more acknowledging of the possibility of it not being accurate.)
    • As for who says it: Everyone, pretty much. Beck writes "if the Ethiopic text of the Apoc Pet was translated from Arabic, as many have suggested" (p. 161 of his thesis) and then cites 7 full sources. While it's not proven (no Arabic manuscript exists; Müller writes "That the Ethiopic translation could be very old, and made directly from the Greek, remains a possibility"), most scholars seem to accept it as the most likely, and it's not controversial to my knowledge. As to why: well most of the scholars don't go into this, just pass by as accepted knowledge. Since I haven't seen any scholars argue against it, I didn't go into detail, but used the weaker verb "Appears" to indicate it wasn't conclusively shown.
    • As for why: This is a frustrating question! Lots of scholars said this as already noted, but the references often go to just other scholars saying it too (and one to a very bum reference... the 2010 paper on Z'RL cites Bratke 1893, who was fruitlessly searching for an Arabic-Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter via mishmash of quotes before d'Abbadie was publicized, i.e. worthless). Well, from SnowFire, Buchholz talks about how essentially many works in Ethiopic came from Arabic translations, so it wouldn't be weird. And the Ezreal thing already mentioned in-article seems like it'd fit with coming from Arabic / Islam. But I'm not seeing a lot here. The best I can say is that C. D. G. Müller was specifically an Ethiopanist and linguist of languages of the region, not a scholar of religion who happened to be interested in an Ethiopic document, and if he thinks that the document was probably a translation from Arabic, I'm fine with deferring to him. (And he's a recent-ish source, writing in the 1980s.)
    • I think the sentence could be rephrased to avoid PoV language: "According to scholarly consensus/Most specialists think that/.... these Ethiopic versions were translated from Arabic rather than from the original Greek text."
        • Done, but I'm not a fan of this as a general principle. Most of the article is an attempt at describing scholarly consensus, and I don't want to imply other sections aren't - that should be the default on Wikipedia when not attributing a fact.
          • As a general principle I am not a fan of this either but if reliable sources verifies the statement we should inform our reader that they are reading a well established theory, not only the assumptions of one single scholar or an editor. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The d'Abbadie manuscript is estimated to have been created ... By whom and why?
  • ...the Lake Tana manuscript is from perhaps the 18th century According to whom?
    • These are both in the reference already given for the sentence. Buchholz cites Carlo Conti Rossini for dating the d'Abbadie manuscript (a 1912 article just ~2 years after Grebaut's publication), and Ernst Hammerschmidt for dating the Lake Tana manuscript (the same 1973 Hammerschmidt paper already mentioned in another reference, actually). I can add these details to the reference if desired but I figured that as an overview article rather than a book, these details are too much in the weeds. In general, the style I've gone for is to only cite people who are arguing for controversial positions, and state uncontroversial stuff as fact with "who said this" in the reference. (The dating of Akhmim was attributed in prose only because there are a wide range of estimates there, so those more specific estimates had to be attributed.)
  • I do not want to read references to have basic info. :) Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. That said, in side chatter, there's already quite a lot of "scholar X said this" in the article (and if you check the page history of the cited scholars, you'll see that I created the Wikipedia articles on them). So it's something I personally am interested in, but my impression is that general readers are only interested if there's actually a nerd fight to be had (e.g. Martha Himmelfarb criticizing the ghost of Albrecht Dietrich), not just simple attributions of who said something noncontroversial first.

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks now without a single support for promotion. I'm afraid it's at the risk of archival if there's no significant progress over the next three days or so. FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod

[edit]
  • Pretty clearly there, after a good going over by others. Just a few nitpicks:
  • Is there a convention that we don't italicize the titles of even apocryphal New Testament texts? New Testament apocrypha is a mess in this respect. Things like The Shepherd of Hermas should certainly have italics.
    • I'm mostly going off MOS:NEITHER which seems to recommend no italics as a Wikipedia convention. As for what the sources do, it's a mess - some italicize, some don't. In general, I think the Wikipedia standard is attempting to draw the line at "did people take this seriously as scripture" vs. works that might have had religious opinions, but nobody took as even an attempt to be "apostolic" (e.g. Dialogue with Trypho for a contemporary example). And if that is indeed the line, than ApocPeter and Shephard of Hermas both don't qualify, as they were indeed taken as scripture. (Even stuff like 1 Clement was in old copies of scriptures!) The expansion under "religious texts" says that "relatively obscure" religious texts can be italicized, but then also talks about books published in modern times - e.g. stuff like The Urantia Book. On balance, I think the current guideline suggests no italics, but happy to discuss a sharper standard on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles of works if desired?
      • I don't really agree with this, though clearly the area is messy. I think the style used at our articles should probably be followed, so The Shepherd of Hermas. Johnbod (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, chose our poison, consistency within this article or consistency with other Wikipedia articles. I'd rather have what's within one article consistent and not italicize, it seems jarring - especially in areas like the lists of works when nobody was sure what later centuries would deem apocryphal and what wasn't yet (e.g. Eusebius does not know that Jude will become canonical but Barnabas won't, so he certainly isn't setting out such a distinction). That said, I have switched it over anyway, but I think it reads weirdly. SnowFire (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Hellenistic philosophy from Greek culture" also sounds very odd to me. There are links for the appropriate "Greek culture", but a reword is also needed, or a cut.
    • On adding a link: Hmm, I'm not so sure! We aren't sure where this was written, so the kind of Greek culture would vary between Egypt, Judea, Christian Rome, etc. I'm open to suggestions - as mentioned to UC above, the idea was to hint to casual readers what "Hellenistic" means (since casuals read the lede but nothing else), but I give up for now and just cut it. Happy to hear any suggestions for alternative ways to sneak in what Hellenistic means.
  • the link from "extant" to Ancient literature seems pretty useless. "Surviving" is often a better word choice than "extant".
    • Removed link (I don't think I was the one who added it). And while I agree in general, I think "surviving" reads a little oddly here - it's used in the next paragraph but with "earliest surviving" which I think provides more context, so I think "extant" hopefully works. (But can still change it if you really feel strongly.)
  • "After inquiring for signs of the Second Coming of Jesus" - is "inquiring" the right word here? Or explain who is inquiring.
    • Expanded to "the disciples." And yeah, they inquire ("And we asked him..."). My only worry is that now we're suddenly introducing the disciples in the lead when they barely matter (they appear as just background flavor as an entourage for Peter), but oh well.
  • "and details both heavenly bliss for the righteous and infernal punishments for the damned" odding phrasing - participles needed and "sets out" or something.
    • Usual "I'm an American" comment goes here, but it sounds fine to me? I ran your comment past a person who once was a professional copyeditor I know and he wasn't sure what the complaint was either. "Details" is an unusual verb but not unheard of.
  • ridiculous imo to object to the Divine Comedy being described as "famous", but whatever.
  • Personally I'd put all or most of notes 2 & 3 into the main text. Maybe n. 4 too
    • Hmm. I'm tempted, but there is a reason I did it this way... for the somewhat-casual reader reading sequentially, the part they're interested in is "Contents". But as mentioned above, the manuscript history is unfortunately necessary to cover first, so that "Ethiopic vs. Akhmim vs. Rainer" debates make sense. As such, I've tried to have those sections be written tightly and concisely so that the general gist is acquired, and why I stuck the deeper scholarly debates in footnotes. It's extra tricky because the scholarly debates on the specifics of authorship require knowing something about the contents, which we haven't read yet if we're a hypothetical reader reading sequentially! If this was a book, it'd be something like "Intro -> Contents -> More about Authorship" but I don't think Wikipedia style is to have an "Authorship, part II" in analysis. As such, moving it into a footnote (I'm using the noisier, longer "Note 1" as well to signify this isn't just a citation) lets the content be in the article in the expected section, but without disrupting the flow. Well, that's my argument at least. Do you think that's good enough reason here, or would you still rather have more info moved out and into prose?
  • link "risen Christ"? Also "Moses and Elijah", "Elysian field" at first mention, "Sibylline Oracles" at 2nd rather than 3rd mention, Clementine literature at 1st, Alexandria,
    • I was trying to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE, but don't feel too strongly about it, so added the Risen Christ & Alexandria link. Moses and Elijah are already linked? Unless you meant them together, but that's just the Transfiguration which is also already linked. Elysian field is linked at first mention in the prose (rather than in the quote, since it's in both the quotes). Sibylline Oracles are linked at first mention in "Authorship and date". They aren't linked in "Prayers for those in hell", but I think you're referring to the link in the quote - but I don't think such links in a quote attribution "count" per usual standards on say image caption links not counting either. Clementine literature is linked at first appearance in "Manuscript history", then linked again in a separate section (in compliance with the updated WP:DUPLINK guidelines) in "Later influence" but again first appearance in that section.
  • "the Apocalypse of Peter is classed as part of apocalyptic literature in genre" reads a bit oddly - "the Apocalypse of Peter is classed as part of the genre of apocalyptic literature" perhaps?
    • Those read identically to me, but I don't feel strongly, so sure, switched.
  • "was on determining its predecessor influences" reads awkwardly imo
    • I'm not a huge fan of the existing phrasing myself, but it's a relevant point - a works "influences" can mean both forward & backward, and I want to specify it was specifically the earlier influences that this scholarship was interested in. But they can't be called "predecessors" directly as that's highly contested and probably not accurate, they're just influences. Open to suggestions, but I think the somewhat awkward "predecessor influences" is at least precise to what is being meant.
  • "possibly a loose callback" - too slangy
    • It's an overloaded word that has other problems, but if you dislike callback, I've switched to "reference" instead. (But I'm somewhat worried about it being misread as the encyclopedia sense rather than the literary/traditional sense.)
  • "with a high Christology" - is this a term often used? Perhaps needs explaining. I doubt the link will help much.
    • This one we're stuck with - it's an academic term, but it's definitely the one used. Both Beck ("The use of such titles in these chapters reveals a high Christology") and Buchholz ("These titles are evidence of a high christology") specifically use the term, so not much to do other than wikilink it for people to look it up. I think the context and the term itself gives a pretty good guess to what it means.
  • "is generally dated to the last quarter of the 2nd century (c. 170–200 AD)" slightly jarring maths failure here. Just use the dates?
    • It's historical guesstimate ranges in this case, was not intended to imply a precise 25-year period nor a precise 30-year period. That said, changed, went with "late 2nd century".
  • You are right not to be pressured to change your citation method.

Btw, if we can get this finished by Thursday it would be good, as then I'm away for 10 days. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "It is the earliest-written extant document depicting a Christian version of heaven and hell in detail." This is clumsy and misleading. I thought at first it meant an original 2C document. Why not " It is the earliest detailed depiction of a Christian version of heaven and hell."
    • Including "extant" is important because at least some scholars think that there indeed might have been preceding versions (Himmelfarb) that have been lost to time.
    • It isn't misleading either, although I will grant that it is a somewhat complex situation (but that's the fault of the situation, not the sentence). All of our most ancient manuscripts of this period long postdate when they were originally written. That said, scholarship is usually more interested in the original date of writing of such works, not the date of the oldest surviving manuscript that happens to include them. Saying "earliest-written extant" is correct because it means that of extant works, it was authored the earliest (regardless of the 5th & 6th century fragments we have from later). Leading with this information is correct and offers due weight to what the sources are most interested in, the date of authorship. I've substituted "document" for "work" if this will make this interpretation less likely, although we have a close repetition of "work" now, so it's not ideal.
    • As for "clumsy", I don't see a significant difference between "depicting" and "depiction". It reads fine to me as is. Switching "in detail" to "detailed" can subtly change the sense, too... "in detail" is a sop that there are some brief depictions of hell elsewhere that are earlier (e.g. in the Revelation of John), but this work goes into detail (i.e. full chapters devoted to it). "Detailed" doesn't portray this as strongly; to me, something can be called "detailed" but only be one or two sentences long, if it's just evocative or the sentences are crowded.
  • "The text is extant in two diverging versions". "diverging" is the wrong word. It means moving apart. Maybe "different"?
    • That's the intended word. If you read further, scholarly speculation is that there was an original ApocPeter (perhaps partially preserved in the Rainer / Bodleian fragments), and it diverged into different "editions" by editor, the Ethiopic version (which made some changes to the hypothesized original) and the Akhmim version (which made a lot of changes to the hypothesized original). So yes, the editions did indeed split and become further apart literarily.
  • "The Apocalypse of Peter is a forerunner of the same genre as the Divine Comedy of Dante". This does not seem fully supported in the main text. You say there that the Apocalypse of Peter influenced the Apocalypse of Paul, which influenced the Divine Comedy, but "forerunner of the same genre as the Divine Comedy of Dante" implies a larger set of medieval works.
    • The body writes that ApocPeter is a "Christian katabasis, a genre of explicit depictions of the realms and fates of the dead", which the Divine Comedy is also. When the word "forerunner" is used, it's mostly as a sop that later journeys to the afterlife would make some significant revisions, but they're both still broadly a katabasis. It's including the full range of later katabases in that statement (e.g. ApocPaul), not just the ones of Dante's day. (Although, as a side note, even if a reader somehow did interpret it as about medieval katabases specifically, then it's still accurate - there were indeed medieval examples, albeit more obscure than Dante - the Legend of the Purgatory of St. Patrick for one. I agree the body doesn't go into detail on specifically medieval katabases, but that would seem off-topic.)
  • "After reading the French translations, the English scholar M. R. James realized in 1910 that there was a strong correspondence with the Akhmim Greek Apocalypse of Peter, and that an Ethiopic version of the same work was within this cache." This needs clarification. What does a "strong correspondence" mean in this context? How could it have told him that there was a version of the Apocalypse in the cache?
    • It means that the passages were very similar, so similar as to suggest it was not a quote but a full translation of the same work. You can read James's 1910 article in the reference if you're interested in more - it's public domain / on Wikipedia library ( JSTOR link). He does a side-by-side of the Akhmim Greek with Grebaut's French translation. I don't think any clarification is required - this is just the normal meaning of correspondence, and James uses that word exactly (e.g. "Here begins the equivalent of the description of Hell which we possess in Greek. The opening words are corrupt in the Ethiopic, but the correspondence is unmistakeable.") James had previously argued in journal articles that he thought it was likely there were some fuller copies of the Apocalypse of Peter (which he'd already studied via patristic quotations & Akhmim), and here's a source that matches patristic quotations very well and Akhmim tolerably, so maybe we've found a translated version of the original Greek Apocalypse of Peter.
  • "the Lake Tana manuscript is estimated by Ernst Hammerschmidt to be from perhaps the 18th century". "from perhaps" is clumsy and ambiguous. Does is mean around 18C or maybe 18C but maybe from a very different period?
    • It sounds ambiguous because it is ambiguous. I'm just reflecting the source here. Here's a fuller quote from Buchholz: "The manuscript is not dated, but its style of letter formation is quite different from that in T (the d'Abaddie manuscript). Hammerschmidt ventures to guess the eighteenth century but follows this with a question mark to indicate how uncertain is the date." Hammerschmidt himself isn't certain, so "perhaps" is required to accurately represent his position.
  • More to follow. Done to end of Later influence. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • Apocalypse of Peter Akhmim Plate vii.png - PD
  • Eastern Mediterranean 125 political map eastern med.svg - CC BY SA
  • File:Bodleian fragment Apocalypse of Peter MS. Gr. th. f. 4 (P).jpg - PD
  • File:Eugène Delacroix - The Barque of Dante.jpg - PD
  • File:Ethiopic Prologue Apocalypse of Peter.jpg - PD
  • File:Rainer fragment Apocalypse Peter 1 and 4 color.png and File:Rainer fragment Apocalypse Peter 2 and 3 color.png - PD

All images are appropriate and captioned. They have alt-text and are formatted correclty. Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by IntentionallyDense

[edit]

I will be doing the source review for this article. I usually do this by filling out a table as I go. I will ping the nominator when I'm done but anyone is welcome to make comments as I work. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
Section Status Sources I couldn't access Comments
Authorship and date Done None Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Manuscript history Done Skipped the ones I couldn't access I spotchecked this section and found no issues. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contents Done None Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Second Coming Done Your eyes will be opened : a study of the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter I wasn't able to access the one source but otherwise everything was verified. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Punishments and rewards Done I just used the Bauckham 1998 ref and that verified everything Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prayers for those in hell Done Spotchecked with sources I had Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Influences, genre, and related works Done none Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Predecessors Not done
Contemporary work Done None Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Later influence Not done
The punishments and lex talionis Not done
Christology Done Your Eyes Will Be Opened: A Study of the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter I was only able to verify about half the sentence because I couldn't access the other source but I'm going to assume in good faith that the other half is verified by the other source. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Angels and demons Not done
Literary merits Done "The Recovery of the Apocalypse of Peter". Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Theology Not done
Debate over canonicity Not done
  • I'm going to take a bit of a break with this source review till the IA is back online since quite a few of the sources appear to be accessible through the archive. If this is a problem or if the IA doesn't come back online in a timely manner I can continue to just download pdfs of the books but that is very time-consuming. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as archived books still are not back up I am going to go ahead and vote Support for the source review. While I didn't source review each section I found absolutely zero issues in any of the other sections which leads me to believe that I would not find issues if I continued to look. If anyone feels my vote is premature let me know but it is very rare that I don't find a single issue when doing source reviews. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec

[edit]

The following are suggestions after a quick read:

  • Like Johnbod, I disagree with MOS:NEITHER and would prefer italics for the titles of works. I don't think extending a convention usually applied to the books of the bible beyond that is clarifying. (Obviously, this won't hold the article back.)
  • From note 1: it is sometimes referred to as the "Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter". Does this mean that it is sometimes referred to as either the Greek Apocalypse of Peter or the Ethiopica Apocalypse of Peter
    • It means exactly what's inside the quotes, parentheses included - so literally "Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter". I think it's weird too.
  • The first line links apocalyptic literature, but shouldn't it be the more specific apocalypse?
    • It could really be either - I think the current distinction between those two articles isn't how I'd distinguish them and they both seem to be talking on the same topic at the moment. But sure, switched to apocalypse, although it's a bit of an easter egg link now.
  • Congratulations on earliest-written extant work. Concise and clear. I'm baffled by the criticism above. Should "version" perhaps be "vision"? Or perhaps "account"?
    • "Account" works - seems mostly synonymous, I think any of version / vision / account are accurate.
  • No link for Jewish apocalyptic literature, but we do have Jewish eschatology.
    • Noted, but not quite the link I'd prefer - ApocPeter is a bit on the "end times", but I wouldn't call it the major focus, while the eschatology article seems to have that be the main concern. It'd be another link to apocalypse or apocalyptic literature.
  • [[Hellenistic philosophy|Greek philosophy]] of the [[Hellenistic period]] looks like it should just be a link to Hellenistic philosophy.
    • This one's changed around a lot in the above back-and-forths, and I would agree with the suggestion deeper into the article. However, it's the lead, the section that casual non-scholarly readers read, and I think it's important to include the word "Greek" somewhere here as a clue for a casual audience who won't recognize "Hellenistic" or know that Greece is "Hellas". I'm fine with other suggestions, but that's the reason for the current longer phrasing.
  • by Peter through Christ. After the disciples inquire about signs of the Second Coming of Jesus I don't think we should switch betwen Christ and Jesus like this in the lead.
    • Was just trying to avoid close repetitions. Changed to spell it out as "risen Jesus Christ".
  • a forerunner of the same genre Somewhat awkward to have a nameless genre.
    • Do you think it's worth repeating "katabasis" here? My assumption was that we should reduce the number of technical Greek words in the lede, as the scholarly name for the genre isn't really the important thing and readers probably know Dante more than they know katabases.
  • No need to use the technical term terminus post quem and then avoid the corresponding terminus ante quem.
    • Wasn't avoided, just the sentence " All of this implies it must have been in existence by around 150 AD." was clear and sufficient already IMO. That said, went and added it.
  • Where there are multiple footnotes, they are not always in numerical order.
    • This one I'll push back on. WP:CITEORDER specifically says that numerical order of references isn't important and there's no consensus that numeric order is even desirable.
      • I was unaware of this.
  • Other scholars suggest Roman Egypt as a possible origin. Redundant to the first sentence in the paragraph. Consider incorporating some of the two long notes in this paragraph into the main text.
    • This section was adjusted some after some back-and-forth above where I put in a direct, substantive statement on the state of scholarly opinions of origin rather than implicit DUEWEIGHT. It is a bit repetitive as a result. I moved a sentence from each of the notes into the main to flesh things out a bit more.
  • when the manuscript was compiled Should this not just say 'copied'?
    • Hard to say! IMO, "compiled" is more vague. At some point, someone made the modifications to the Akhmim ApocPeter, and maybe it was the scribe who created this manuscript, rendering it not exactly a simple "copy." I think being vague is a little better here.
      • To me, "compiled" means "put together", as in when the manuscript came to be bound. This could be long before a particular text was written in it if the text was added to a blank page. Or it could be long after a text was written, if the manuscript is a composite. So to me, the date of compilation is only relevant here if it is the same date as the "copying" of the text. Unless we are dealing with a manuscript that can be called an autograph, I think "copy" is correct.
        • I don't think either of those scenarios are very likely. As the article notes, the Apocalypse is right next to a fragment of the Gospel of Peter, implying the whole manuscript was created as a set, rather than pages being filled in later. I get the impression that for liturgical books, a practice of leaving blank pages to fill in later like a diary or a ledger would be rare. Even if something weird did happen - so what? I don't think very much is lost if it turns out that the papers were written in the 6th century, but they were bound into a new manuscript in the 8th century. The "written" part is the interesting one and what's being referred to from context.
        • As another example, take 2 Maccabees, which openly says it's an epitome of another work. It's not an autograph, but some passages seem to have been copied verbatim from the original, lost history. Yet calling it a "copy" of Jason of Cyrene's history would seem to be more misleading than helpful - the writer of 2 Maccabees was sometimes an author themselves, and sometimes an epitomist compressing other text. Even if we presume that people really into old manuscript creation would agree that there is a sense of "copy" that still applies to heavily modified documents, I think this is where writing for a general audience comes in. The casual reading of "copy" in 2024 for many will assume something a lot closer to "faithful reproduction, perhaps with occasional scribal error" like a copy machine. So why use a word that at least could be read as implying something else when we have a word that doesn't have that implication?
          • I agree that the "written" part is the interesting one, but "compiled" is not a word that implies writing.
            It's not an autograph So it's a copy and "copy" is the right word. Not a copy of Jason of Cyrene, but of 2 Maccabees! It is not works that are copies, but manuscripts.
            • I think we may have gotten side-tracked somewhere here. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm still not sure we're on the same page here. Let me throw the long reply on the word "compiled" and its definition and implications I wrote I had in the trash and offer this: I really, really don't want to use the word "copied" here as I don't think it's necessarily accurate, and might be misleading to casual readers even if it is accurate. And you clearly don't want to use the word "compiled". Is there any other word you'd accept? "Created"? "Written"? "Produced"? (I temporarily threw in "written" as copying is also writing, but am flexible.)
              • "Written" works.. Personally, I am rather zealous about distinguishing between works ('the Bible') and physical objects ('this Bible in my hand'). An alternate rewording acceptable to me would be There are a wide range of estimates for the date of the writing.
            • (Okay that's not quite accurate. The one part of the long reply I'm tossing I'll still include - in the case of 2 Maccabees, it's guaranteed the 1st/2nd century BCE author/epitomist was long dead by the time we have a 5th century CE Septuagint copy. In the case of the Akhmim manuscript, we simply do not know who wrote the combined [Gospel of Peter + Apoc Peter] or when, ergo it is at least possible that the Akhmim manuscript was in fact written by the creator/compiler/author, albeit one duplicating existing sources.)
  • In the form of a Greek katabasis or nekyia I don't like asking the reader to pick a link. Also I'm a little confused. The work as described does not seem to me to fit either category. Specifically, both katabasis and nekyia seem to conflict with a discourse of Jesus to his faithful, unless Jesus is regarded as similar to a spirit in a nekyia.
    • It's less about Jesus and more about the vision / visit to the land of the dead - i.e. it's the people in heaven / hell who are the nekyia equivalents. As far as making a choice, Beck writes "The terms nekyia, katabasis/descent, and tour of hell all apply to different and, at times, overlapping texts that share common features." Maybe I should add that the genres are overlapping to clarify why we're mentioning two to the reference? Would that be enough? Just don't want to side-track too much.
  • hypothesized by many scholars to be later additions In light of what has been said, this clause is redundant. Perhaps it should be stated explicitly in the Most scholars believe that the Ethiopic... paragraph if the Rainer and Bodleian texts are superior to the Ethiopic where they diverge.
    • I think talking about it above in the Manuscripts section with the "Most scholars believe that..." sentence would be a little premature. The Rainer & Bodleian fragments are pretty short, so the ability to compare them only comes up for a few passages, and we might as well discuss those passages in one place rather than flash-forward to it IMO. By discussing it in "Prayers for those in hell", there's context for why these fragments are considered a better fit.
    • As far as redundant, I agree that an attentive reader should be able to take a good guess that this is the case from context, but I don't think we've confirmed it or stated it outright. As in, hypothetically this sentence could have been followed up with "but while the manuscripts differ here, scholars think the Ethiopic is actually original and Akhmim removed these lines". Which would be surprising, but not strictly contradicted by anything above. So it isn't redundant to clarify that isn't the case and it's considered not in the original IMO.
      • I raised this issue because it forced me to go back and check what's what, since I clearly remembered the Ethiopic text be called superior yet here it was being trumped by a Greek text. I think we need to qualify the comment about the Ethiopic text where it is made, is what I'm saying. Not that we have to flesh out the details at that spot.
        • I think it already is qualified, though. The manuscripts section writes Ethiopic is "closer to the original text" - closer doesn't mean "perfect". That said, I've changed it to "usually closer", but think this is double-qualifying.
          • The point is that we have different witnesses of the Greek text that are not treated the same, yet the passage in question ignores one of the Greek texts, leaving its status unclear (until later).
            • I have added a further brief sentence on the matter in the Manuscript history section.
              • Excellent.

That brings me to the influences section. So far so good. Srnec (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec, is there more to come here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding...

  • You really like semicolons.
    • I saw you removed more in your copyedits. To be sure, I too argue for short, simple sentences myself (including above - e.g. I was arguing against some of the extra detail in expansions that have happened) and have split up over-long sentences in other articles, but these semicolons weren't just used randomly. There were a lot of "linked thoughts", and using separate sentences without a "continuing on..." connector can make it read abruptly or unclearly for why we're bringing something up. Neither version is strictly wrong but this comes down to stylistic preferences rather than mistakes, and I'd prefer to keep at least some of it as is. (For example, if we don't use a semicolon, then in the two fragments on the Matthew influence, it can read as a bare assertion followed by randomly talking about a Beatitude quote from Matthew. If we get rid of the semicolon, we'd need a new intro to the split sentence like "As evidence, blah blah Beatitude quote.")
  • Personally, I do not like the mixed citation formats.
  • I think In the form of a Greek katabasis or nekyia should be nixed where it is and dealt with under "Influences, genre, and related works", where katabasis is linked again. I still find the piling up of genre terms a little disconcerting.
    • While this is mostly discussed in the Genre section, I think this is relevant as a summary overview of "Contents" as well. If a novel is both a murder mystery and a spy thriller, I think it's fine to open with that in an overview of the plot as well as discuss it again if reviewers had more detailed opinions on genre. Or for more contemporary examples, articles on epistles in the New Testament will generally state that yes, they're an epistle when summarizing their contents. I don't really see why this is disconcerting, at least to most readers.
  • emphasizes the strong Jewish roots of the Apocalypse of Peter as well I wonder if this is really an "as well" or an "on the other hand"
    • There's nothing contradictory about it deriving from both. Apparently some older scholarship did believe there was a sharp divide where a work was either one or the other, and never-the-twain shall they meet (and by older I mean like "19th century" level older, so applicable to Dietrich but not really others)... i.e. there was some sort of "pure" Judaism untouched by Greek beliefs out there. But the consensus is that this wasn't really true - all Judaism in the era was touched by various Hellenistic beliefs. (And interestingly, there are some who argue that Greeks were influenced by Judaism a bit, too.)
  • cosmological interpretation as a prophecy of Jesus's entry into heaven I do not understand the word "cosmological" in this context
    • I can cut it if desired. It just means "metaphysical"/"spiritual" in this sense, i.e. that it's talking about heavenly gates rather than say Jerusalem's earthly gates.
      • Would cut.
        • Done.
  • predecessor influences reads awkwardly to me, yet is used twice
    • Do you have another suggestion? The problem is "influences" unadorned could mean things that the author was influenced by, or later works that were influenced by it, so some sort of qualifier is necessary.
  • I don't think the link at lost earlier writings is needed.
    • Removed.
  • Why say eternal destruction and link to annihilationism? I would just say "annihilation". I think it's clearer.
    • Jost, the source, uses both "annihilation" and "eternal destruction" in his article, so I think both are fine. To me, "Annihilation" more strongly signifies the scientific meaning, i.e. matter colliding with antimatter, than a theological one. Meanwhile, "eternal" and "destruction" are both common words, so they seem clear enough to me and preferred.
      • It was not clear to me that "eternal destruction" meant annihilation until I saw the link. To me "eternal" implies ongoing, so eternal destruction could refer to the torments of Hell rather than their end.
        • Thanks for the feedback, but I'm hoping / assuming this is a style preference suggestion, not a problem. The two are synonyms. Annihilation isn't "wrong" of course but neither is eternal destruction. (Jost, the source, writes: [Exemplary for this stands the Apocalypse of Peter. This no longer speaks of "eternal destruction" but now explicitly of "eternal punishment"].) It is a valid phrasing. If you found it unclear but were cleared up by the wikilink, then it worked out? Some amount of this is to be expected, I have to click terminology links myself too even in topics I know a lot about. If we changed it the other way around, then someone else could say that they weren't sure what annihilation meant in a theological context and had to click the link to find out, and we'd have endless synonym-swaps. I don't think "eternal destruction" ("they will be destroyed, and the destruction will last forever") is any less clear than "annihilation".
          • Is "annihilation" clear-er?
  • At footnote 65, is Beck the one refuting Adamik? Should be made clear.
    • Correct, Beck says this. Beck is approvingly citing Kraus & Nicklas. I expanded the footnote a tad.
  • One change that the Apocalypse of Paul makes is describing personal judgments to bliss or torment that happen immediately after death, rather than the Apocalypse of Peter being a vision of a future destiny that will take place after the Second Coming of Jesus. I do no think this sentence is grammatical. One does not make "judgements to".
    • I am open to alternative suggestions, but do not agree that the current form isn't grammatical. "The court monitor described judicial sentences to parole or prison that happened immediately after the trial" reads fine to me. "Sentence" and "judgment" are synonymous enough here, so if "a sentence to prison" is grammatical, so is "a judgment to prison."
      • They are not comparable. And is suspect most uses of "sentence to" are verbal.
        • That ngram is conflating "sentence" as a verb with "sentence" as a noun (note the "a" in my examples). Change it to "a sentence to prison" and ngrams still pops up usage. Which suggests that this form is grammatically valid (a valid form should still be valid if we swap in some synonyms).
        • That said, I'm not tied to the current wording either. I've rephrased it to spell it out; take a look.
  • The Apocalypse of Peter thus was the forerunner of these influential visions of the afterlife: Emiliano Fiori wrote that it contains the "embryonic forms" of the heaven and hell of the Apocalypse of Paul, and Jan Bremmer wrote that the Apocalypse of Paul was "the most important step in the direction that would find its apogee in Dante". As written, this sentence has a synth-y feel.
    • I guess, but it isn't actually SYNTH - Fiori writes "just as Dante's divine comedy" and Bremmer's article is titled "From the Apocalypse of Peter to the Apocalypse of Paul", so both Fiori and Bremmer agree that there's something to a Peter->Paul->Dante train and mention all three. The reason why two separate scholars are cited for each half is just to show this isn't a controversial connection and multiple scholars think there's a connection there, not to chain together some SYNTH.
    • (As a side note, this used to say "Directly or indirectly, the Apocalypse of Peter was the parent and grandparent of these influential visions of the afterlife." as I feel that was an accurate summation of scholarly thoughts on the matter. UC's review above felt that this was too opinionated to state in Wikivoice, hence switching to two cited quotations instead, which also works IMO.)
  • The article does not tell us where the chapter and verse numbers come from. Are the chapters original or at least Ethiopic?
    • The chapters and verses are not original, but are constructs of the modern era (same as the normal Bible, actually). Different scholars have used subtly different chapter & versifications of the Ethiopic ApocPeter as well, starting from Grebaut's base. As best I can tell, most later scholars (e.g. Bauckham, Beck) use Buchholz's 1988 versification, but I don't think anyone talks about this directly, not even to state "By the way these verses are not original", perhaps because it's considered obvious to scholars.
  • while girls who do not maintain their virginity before marriage (implicitly also a violation of parental expectations) have their flesh torn apart. This is possibly an instance of mirror punishment or bodily correspondence, where the skin which sinned is itself punished. The text also specifies ten girls are punished – possibly a loose reference to the Parable of the Ten Virgins in the Gospel of Matthew, although not a very accurate one if so, as only five virgins are reprimanded in the parable, and for unrelated reasons. This passage raised more questions than answers for me. Why the shift from "flesh" to "skin"? Why imply inaccuracy in the text on the basis of a parallel drawn by scholars? What does specifies ten girls even mean?
    • On flesh vs. skin: it's just reducing close repetitions.
    • On ten girls: See conversation with UC above. Originally that said The text also specifies "ten" girls are punished with quotation marks to emphasize that the word "ten" is in the actual passage, but UC argued that this will be read as scare quotes even if they aren't scare quotes. I'm not a fan of the current phrasing either and would be happy to put back the quotes if you think that would help clarify the intent.
    • On inaccuracy: To back up a moment - busted references exist, e.g. someone trying to reference Shakespeare or Homer but messing it up and/or changing things. If an author has a notable novel where two characters named Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are sent on a mission to England, an analysis might write "This is a reference to Hamlet, although unlike Hamlet the two are given cushy government jobs and not executed in this story." Also, busted references happen all the time in classical literature from people trying to recall quotes from memory or just vaguely making allusions. So what's going on here is that scholars are puzzled at why the passage says "ten" when other sinners are generally unnumbered, and the best guess they have is that it's a bad reference to the Parable of the Ten Virgins since we think the author knew the Gospel of Matthew. But if I just write "it's a parallel to the Parable of the Ten Virgins" in the Wikipedia article with no further qualification, that will make it sound like an accurate reference, and it really isn't. So that's what the passage is trying to express. Given that, do you think the current wording works?
      • My problem is that we don't know if the author was trying to be accurate and messed up or if he was doing something else. I don't think an author "vaguely making allusions" intentionally can be accused of inaccuracy. I'm wondering if this passage is too much detail for the article to handle, but I leave it to your judgement.
  • M. R. James is linked three times in the text. There are quite a few multiple links but I don't know what the standard is.
MOS:BTW says "Consider including links where readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, at the openings of new sections, in the cells of tables, and in file captions. But as a rule of thumb, link only the first occurrence of a term in the text of the article." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
James is a central figure in all three of those references, so I would prefer to keep those links- he was truly the main English-language scholar of the work for its formative decades. I'm very much on the side of the reform to MOS:DUPLINK that allowed more repeat linking - especially on mobile, people can read whatever section they like first, and aren't guaranteed to read section-by-section in order or to scroll back up. I'd actually repeat link more if I was solely going off my own preferences. (But regardless, think this is within the letter of "once per section".)
  • The last paragraph, Although these references..., is a little long.
    • Hmm, I think that might be an unlucky line-break making two paragraphs blend together? That's the second-to-last paragraph for me - should be a break before "One hypothesis..."
  • It would be nice to replace the Ethiopic transcription with an actual photo of an Ethiopic manuscript.
    • I had similar thoughts myself a few months ago, and you can see I uploaded File:Ethiopien DAbbadie 51 131 recto.png in August. https://www.nasscal.com/manuscripta-apocryphorum/paris-bibliotheque-nationale-de-france-ethiopien-dabbadie-51/ says that ApocPeter starts on "131r" and you can see that the page is clearly marked with "131" in the upper right. However, I don't actually read Ethiopic and can't verify that the Apocalypse of Peter actually starts here. I looked for similar words by sheer shape-matching to what's in Buchholz and couldn't find it either. Whether I'm just really bad at the Ge'ez script, or there's some kind of prologue before it gets to the actual ApocPeter, I don't know, but I'm not comfortable with using it unless I'm sure it's actually right. (Side comment: This article before I took a look at it linked an image of the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, i.e. completely the wrong document, back in 2021 [23] , and this incorrect image had spread to other language wikis. So there's something to the idea of "Don't use an original in a language you don't speak unless you're sure." )
      • I did this at Legend of Hilaria. I sought confirmation from the WikiProject Ethiopia, but to no avail. I think my reading of the Ge'ez is correct...
        • Yours looks fine, although that's a much clearer photograph. FWIW, I do suspect it's just the top left of 131r but that some of the characters were different and taken from the Tannasee 35 manuscript instead, which threw me off. But I'm even worse at reading the Tannasee 35 manuscript and can't find the start of the ApocPeter there either, even when told which page to look. Ugh.
  • Please vet my copyedits and see some replies above.
    • Most of them looked fine - I put back two semicolons per above though. If you feel strongly, I'm happy to separate the sentences again but then would prefer to include a linking introduction per above.
      • Maxim of relevance. I think people understand that two consecutive sentences in a paragraph are linked. How 'bout them Yankees?
        • Grice is another set of things that work better in conversation than in textual form IMO! (I put one of your splits back.)
          • Not knowing whether you are a Yankees fan or watch baseball or are an American, I did not know if my Yankees joke would go over well considering a recent fifth inning...

That's a complete read-through. Srnec (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Srnec: Thanks for the latest batch of comments. I made some changes at diff. For some of your comments above, I'm flexible and happy to change things, but wasn't 100% sure if there was a change that would actually improve things - happy to discuss on any concrete proposals, as firing off a random rephrasing didn't seem like it'd necessarily help. SnowFire (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed you restored original scholarship where I had "early". My reasoning was that there is really only going to be one particular work of scholarship that is the original one, all the rest are just "early".
      • Hmm, while I'd argue "early" is a relative time term that is a bit vague. I think this is too strict a reading of "original" (it's modifying an implicit era that covers the time after the Akhmim discovery) but don't feel deeply about this, so switched back to "early".
    • The author also appears to be familiar with the Gospel of Matthew but no other Other what? This is only clear if you know the gospels situation.
      • "Bob appears to be familiar with the Bondink of Carpaz but no other" means Bob knows no other Bondinks, even though I-the-reader don't know what Bondinks are and will have to click the wikilink to find out. That said since you feel strongly, I put the link to gospels back in even if it makes for a slightly less punchy line.
        • I think the difference is that "[foreign word] of [foreign word]" clearly indicates that "of" is a functional English word, but "[familiar English title of a well known work that happens to include 'of']" doesn't read the same. If I had written the article, I'd have thrown the MOS to the wind and italicized Gospel of Matthew, so perhaps I just read it differently.
    • While both the Apocalypse of Peter and the Apocalypse of John (the Book of Revelation) are apocalypses in genre, the Revelation of Peter puts far more stress on the afterlife and divine rewards and punishments, while the Revelation of John focuses on a cosmic battle between good and evil. Odd switching from "Apocalypse" to "Revelation". Why? Srnec (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am trying to really drive home the point that {Apocalypse of John = "Revelation"} as most people don't know this. Calling it the "Revelation of John" here reinforces the parenthetical gloss earlier and clarifies it. It also more subtly lets us emphasize the alternate "Revelation of Peter" title when appropriate - in Greek, these two works have the same title, while due to linguistic happenstance they have different common names in English. I want to make it unlikely someone reads the article and thinks "Huh, the Apocalypse of Peter is kinda like the Apocalypse of John, which is some obscure work I haven't heard of before."
        • I think this is rather subtle...
  • @Srnec: Thanks for the feedback. Some more edits here. SnowFire (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to this being promoted. Srnec (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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