Talk:Commentary (philology)

Why citation label is under relevant subhead rather than top
It's my feeling that citation labels should be placed where they are most relevant (here, under References). If a label is at the top, it implies that the content of the article is under dispute or questionable, rather than the methods of citation. This is indeed a largely unreferenced article, and suggestions for sources to cite would be welcome. It was created because none of the other articles on forms of commentary adequately addressed the particular thing called a commentary by philologists. I frequently see confusion in Wikipedia articles, particularly those on ancient literature, between philological commentary and literary criticism. If there are factual errors in this article, please do correct them. I believe the article is useful, and my other articles are meticulously footnoted. It is true that as it stands this article is "original" in some sense because it reports common knowledge (among philologists, anyway), but I think it's useful until someone wants to do a proper job of it. Thanks! Cynwolfe (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've started to find some material to cite for this article and hope to incorporate it soon. I don't know what "soon" might mean at the moment. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)