Talk:Christian interpretations of Virgil's Eclogue 4/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jfhutson (talk · contribs) 03:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Should it be "Eclogue 4" in the page name since that's where Eclogue 4 is?
 * Good point. I went ahead and moved it.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * A little short (WP:LEADLENGTH).
 * I've expanded it a bit. How does it look now?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   20:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Mentioning the most notable of the authors you're going to talk about would help draw interest.
 * Good idea. I've included a 'greatest hits' of who was talking about this.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   20:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Virgil had somehow predicted" connotes incredulity. Maybe "prophesied"?
 * Changed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Shy away" seems informal
 * Changed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Background
 * "biographical tradition" I'm unclear on what this phrase means. If you're saying its the scholarly consensus, "tradition" makes it sound like traditional popular wisdom.
 * I went ahead and went with "scholarly consensus".-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The background section doesn't tell me what I need to know in terms of content of the poem. You mention the "puer" but I need to know what this is before you tell me he is equated to Christ.
 * I added a mini-summary of the poem. I think the best way for a reader to really dig into the poem, however, is to read the main article. There's a ton of stuff that I don't feel is really necessary to completely copy.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * History
 * Once again, I think I need to know a little about how the "virgo" and "rex" function in the poem itself before we talk about interpretation.
 * I tried to clarify a bit, especially by adding line numbers.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Need to know who Lanctantius is, what the Cumean Sybil is (and wikilink it), who's Jerome, Fulgentius, Christian Druthmar, Bourne, Du Cange. Not knowing these names makes the text unclear.
 * I've added some descriptions for all of these individuals.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sourcing
 * Using a source published in 1916 for the vast majority of references is questionable when there seem to be many high quality sources published later.
 * I've tried to back-up many of these citations with others.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   20:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Using a tertiary source does not seem appropriate here.
 * Removed and replaced with a better source.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   20:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Images
 * Fine, but I would prefer some variation in medium.
 * Could you put a detail from the Sistine Chapel in here?
 * Good idea! Done!-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a good overview of an interesting topic. Most of the clarity issues could be solved with a few words for each figure not introduced. I'm more concerned about sourcing. I don't have a good grasp of GA criteria yet, so I'm happy to request a second opinion if you disagree that the 1916 source and three references to the Britannica are not reliable. Otherwise I don't think the article would pass without using better sources.
 * I'll try to work on this over the next couple of days. As for the sourcing, normally, I'd agree completely with you. However, the 1916 article is the only one I've found that gives a concise summary of all the authors through the ages who have interpreted this work as Christian. The article honestly just lists individuals and includes quotes that make it clear that they assumed this was a prophecy. In the last 100 or so years, interpreting this as Christian has (understandably) gone out of vogue, and so have the sources. That means that the Google Scholar sources you mentioned above really only shallowly mention things that the 1916 article digs into more deeply. Since this article was published during the golden age of philology, and there's nothing really outdated in it (insofar as the quotes go), I don't really see an issue with it. But then again, I may be biased.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you've done your homework and it seems plausible that the new sources don't say anything new, so I think we're good.--JFH (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool. I did all the 'easy' changes, and I plan on fixing everything else up in the coming days.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How does it all look now?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   20:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good. Thanks for the rapid response. --JFH (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)