Talk:Epodes (Horace)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ffranc (talk · contribs) 11:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that these poems finally have their own article. I will probably post a full review tomorrow. Ffranc (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

There's a weird hit on Earwig's Copyvio Detector which thankfully is complete nonsense. It had me confused for a couple of minutes, but it even credits Wikipedia at the bottom. It's just some site that has copied text from this article.

OK, now the actual review. I have no doubt that the article can reach GA status without too much effort. Most of my concerns are minor, but a few in the Coverage section below will demand a bit of work.

Coverage

 * A product of the turbulent final years of the Roman Republic, the collection has been noted for its striking depiction of Rome's socio-political ills in a time of great upheaval.[1] The second part of the sentence is about critical reception, but this particular angle isn't explicit anywhere in the article body. I suggest you move the reference to Harrison to the reception section and use it to write something there, perhaps after the part about the increased interest during the 20th century, where it would be nice to have something about what it is scholars find interesting about the work. The wording in the lead is good, but everything in the lead should be a summary of something from the article body.


 * Horace himself referred to his poems as Iambi. According to Watson 2007, things are a bit more complicated. Horace did use "the generic descriptor iambi", but "it is perhaps most judicious to leave open the question of whether Horace labelled his book Iambi or Epodi" (p. 94). I'm open for other solutions, but perhaps it would be best to restructure the "Names" section to make it begin with Pomponius Porphyrion and Epodes, and then go into everything else. I can see a chronological reason for starting with Iambi, but if we're not sure if Horace really used it as a title, it's probably less confusing for readers to start with the clear facts about Epodes.
 * This still needs to be addressed. The problem is that it's not certain if Horace used iambi as a name (note the lower-case "i" in Watson). How about something like this: "Horace himself referred to his poems as iambi on several occasions, but it is uncertain if this was intended as a title or as a generic descriptor, derived from the dominant metre used in the collection: the iamb."
 * Thanks for following up on this. I've added your suggestion to the article.
 * Thanks for following up on this. I've added your suggestion to the article.


 * Archilochus of Paros was the most important influence on Horace's iambic poetry. According to Watson 2003, pp. 4-5, this is not necessarily true. "Critics are sharply divided" about who influenced Horace the most: Archilochus or Callimachus. And Watson himself rejects the dichotomy and talks about a "confluence of Archilochean and Callimachean influences". Watson 2007 doesn't talk about a divide, but makes sure to attribute every statement to someone, and seems to be at least somewhat sceptical: "As we have just seen, in his account of his literary models for the Epodes, Horace privileges Archilochus. Recent criticism has taken the poet at his word. Hence it will be convenient to examine the epodes through the lens of the archaic Greek poet, while simultaneously holding up to scrutiny the poet's claim to be a Roman Archilochus." (p. 95) You don't need to elaborate on this for GA, but at least attribute the claim about Archilochus to Horace, something like: "Horace wrote that Archilochus of Paros was the most important influence on his iambic poetry."
 * ✅ I've made sure to present the relative influence of Archilochus as an opinion of Horace's. I thought the rest of the section was about right. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I also think Archilochus should be introduced before the quote from Epistles, which talks about Horace's debt to him.


 * The article on French Wikipedia has a fairly long section about Canidia and the portrayal of women in the poems, supported by Oliensis 2009 (which appears to be the same text as Oliensis 1991 cited here, or at least a version of it). Watson 2007 also treats the subject of women as somewhat prominent (pp. 98, 102). The discussion on victimhood under Themes ties into the subject but doesn't address it explicitly. You don't have to write a full section about it, but I do think it needs to be addressed.
 * ✅ Having re-read Oliensis 1991 and the French section, I found it hard to do the topic justice within the current article structure. I've fleshed out the themes section and added a clause about the general depiction of women, but I didn't include Oliensis' theory about the Dog Star. While I think it's interesting, I believe it would be better to create a stand-alone article about Canidia and include it there. Perhaps I'll get to it after finishing this review. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The list of editions could use some basic information about each volume. Is it the original Latin text, an English translation, or a bilingual edition? Does the translation have some kind of poetic ambition, or is it more literal, perhaps even prose? Is there an extensive commentary included?
 * ✅, I have added some detail to the editions but I'm not quite happy with the formatting yet. Please feel free to change the format of the "selected editions" section if you have ideas on how to improve it. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good. An alternative would be to change the section into prose and merge it with "Reception", like in Duino Elegies, or a mix, like in Guillaume de Dole, but that's up to you. I'm fine with the way it looks now. What I do think is missing though is to name at least one English verse translation. I don't know if it's the best one, but while reviewing the article I've been reading the one from Penguin Classics, by W. G. Shepherd (ISBN 978-0-14-044422-3). Perhaps you could include that one, or some other translation you might prefer, or some that just is historically significant. Ffranc (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've included the one by Shepherd given that it appeared in a major series. My apologies for being slow with this review. I've been busier than I'd anticipated. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarity and style

 * The poem and its opening line (Quo, quo scelesti ruitis?) are famous for their desperate attempt to prevent renewed civil warfare. Please include an English translation of the opening line.


 * The poem contains a well-known pun on Horace's cognomen (nam si quid in Flacco viri est). Please provide a translation and an explanation of the pun, to make it comprehensible for non-Latin speakers.


 * The final Epode (17) serves as a palinode, wherein the poet retracts his defamations of Canidia in poem 5. A very brief explanation of what a palinode is would be helpful here.


 * I'm not convinced that the subheadings in the Themes section are necessary at this point. Each subsection is very short; only one of them has more than one paragraph, and in total length it's not significantly longer than the other two. With a few adjustments to the prose, to ensure it's still clear when a new theme begins, the subheadings can be dropped. (If the section is expanded at some point, they can of course be added again.)


 * Generally, WP:SAID discourages us from writing that someone has "noted" something. There's no outright ban on the word or anything, but some of the instances here can easily be replaced with "written", "critics have commented" and similar terms.


 * The wish to escape to a simpler, less hostile environment comes to the fore in two lengthy poems (2 and 16) and strikes a tone much like that of Virgil's early work. Why not mention Eclogues and Georgics here instead of having them as "see also" links?


 * A good example of this is Epode 3: in response to an overly garlicky dinner, Horace hopes that Maecenas will suffer from a similar 'garlic overdose'. This could be read as if "garlic overdose" is a quote from the poem, which I don't think it is.

Graphics and media

 * I'm not sure if having graphics for every metre is helpful. Among the FA-rated poetry articles, there is a single visualisation of a iambic pentameter in Ode on Indolence. Otherwise, the articles merely mention the names of the metres, and sometimes describe them briefly (e.g. "...written in Sapphic stanzas, a metre named after Sappho, which is composed of three long lines followed by one shorter line" or "...the poem's insistent iambic pentameter is often interrupted by spondees (metrical feet that consist of two long syllables)...") Consider to just use prose descriptions for some of the variations. They will still have links to their graphical representations at Prosody (Latin), so readers who want to see them can go there.
 * ✅ I agree the section was a bit unwieldy. I have now left a visualisation of the "regular" iambic metre and cut the rest to a prose description. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

✅
 * The caption under the picture of Hipponax could mention something about the origin of the picture, which clearly isn't contemporary.


 * This is optional, but when is the bust of Maecenas from? The main Gaius Maecenas article only says it is in Ireland. It would be nice to have something about the sculpture in the image caption.
 * I did a little research and found this (the section about "Artistic representations" begins a few pages earlier): "The guide to Coole Park states that the colossal bust (four gardeners were needed to move it into its current setting in the garden) was brought to Coole House from Italy by Richard Gregory early in the nineteenth century. The Coole Park bust has the name Maecenas inscribed on its plinth. This very fact suggests that it is a later copy, as Roman portrait busts very rarely have names to identify them. There is no further provenance of the bust. It seems very likely, however, that it was produced in the seventeenth or early eighteenth century AD." This is obviously not relevant to delve into in this article, but something short to identify the sculpture would be good. Ffranc (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for this. I've added a brief description of the bust to the image. Feel free to it tweak if you want. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Other than those concerns I think the article is on GA level. It's well written. All the sources are of high quality. There are no copyright issues, just a site that has copied from Wikipedia. Several sections have potential to be expanded further, but the GA criteria only demand that an article "addresses the main aspects of the topic", which I think this one does. It's neutral, stable, and the images are suitable and properly tagged. Ffranc (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the detailed review, ! I will start working on your comments later today. It shouldn't take me too long to improve the article. I'll let you know if I need clarification. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have addressed all the above comments, . Please let me know if there are still bits that need tweaking. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Excellent work! All my concerns have been addressed. As said above, some sections can be expanded further, but it's not necessary for GA. "Names" could for example elaborate on where and when the different names have been used, "The iambic genre" could elaborate on the opposing positions taken by scholars and their respective arguments, "Metre" was cut down but it wouldn't hurt if it still connected each metre to the poem(s) it's used in, most "Themes" could potentially be fleshed out into full-length subsections, "Reception" could go more into the reception from different time periods and cultural areas, and "Selected editions" could be transformed into a prose section with more info about important historical editions. Those are things to consider for further improvement. But everything prominent in the sources is addressed and described accurately. I'm passing this as a good article. Ffranc (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)