Talk:CIL 4.5296/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Eritha (talk · contribs) 08:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I plan to review this GAN but may not be able to get to it until later in the month Eritha (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries - I will look forward to seeing your comments when you are ready :) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for your patience, I'm aiming to do the review at my project editing session on the 23rd Eritha (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * well-written, clearly laid out. One suggestion: in note a, provide translation of the CLE since this is not linked.
 * Glossed this as "Latin Verse Inscriptions" Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * References are missing for the statement in the lede that this "may be the only known love poem from one woman to another from the Latin world" (it being a love poem between women is supported, but not it being the only known Latin one), and for the transcription and translation of the poem; otherwise the page is well-referenced to reliable academic sources (one minor correction from spot-checking citations: ref. 31: p.346 not 345). Earwig check: only similarities are with site quoting the poem or this page.
 * Added a mention in the body with a cite for the "only known love poem between women" claim. Added a cite for the text of the poem.  The translation is my own – its accuracy can be checked by comparison to e.g. Kristina Milnor's (pp.197-198) or Luca Graverini's (2012, p.1).  My feeling is that this doesn't require a citation to prove that the translation is accurate, for the same reason that e.g. one can translate an article from another language's wiki into English without needing to provide a source to prove that it means what one says it means. Thanks for spotting the error in the Copley page citation – I have the correct page in my notes, so I think this was simply a typo when writing the article! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Good level of detail of subject and interpretations
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Article covers a range of different interpretations of the subject
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): . b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The first 2 images are appropriately licensed, I am not sure about the third: whether the licence is valid will depend on Italian law relating to photographs of archaeological artefacts/sites taken by members of the public. However this image is not crucial to the article.
 * Italy does have restrictions on the reproduction of cultural heritage assets (see Commons:COM:Italy for some details), but that's a non-copyright restriction (Commons guideline) and so I believe the use is permitted on Wikipedia (and at GA) – Mysteries of Isis is an example of a Featured Article with an image of a Pompeiian fresco in the lead. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Italy does have restrictions on the reproduction of cultural heritage assets (see Commons:COM:Italy for some details), but that's a non-copyright restriction (Commons guideline) and so I believe the use is permitted on Wikipedia (and at GA) – Mysteries of Isis is an example of a Featured Article with an image of a Pompeiian fresco in the lead. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall: only a few small points to address before GA-ready! Thanks for your work on this good page


 * Pass/Fail:


 * thanks for your helpful comments! I have replied inline and hopefully fixed all of the issues you identified Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * great - approved! Eritha (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)