Talk:Hypatia/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hrodvarsson (talk · contribs) 23:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I will review this within the next week. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you find any problems with the article, I am able and willing to correct them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A few comments:
 * There is some overlinking: Neoplatonism is linked twice in the first paragraph, for example.
 * I think "AD" is used too much, without contextual importance. The usage beside her birth/death date establishes that the dates are AD. "BC" is not used in the article so most other mentions of AD could be removed. (Discussion of Christian martyrs in the Middle Ages section uses AD. It is unlikely there would be martyrs for Christianity before it existed.)
 * Specific pages should be added for references 36 and 37.
 * Reference 115 mentions that it was not just her murder but also a lack of punishment for the perpetrators that caused a rift between the pagan philosophers and Christians.

The article generally seems to meet the criteria but there may be some other minor issues. I will go through it further and report back if I have more comments. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe I have now fully addressed all of your criticisms. If there is something I have missed or something else you would like to add, just let me know. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Additional comments:
 * References 9, 13, 14, 16, 22, 60 and 177 also do not have page numbers.
 * I have fixed numbers 13, 16 22, and 60 and removed 9 because it was not necessary. Number 177 is a website, so it does not need a page number because it does not have pages. I was using the Google Books editions for all of these and, unfortunately, for some odd reason, the Google Books edition of Charlotte Booth's Hypatia: Mathematician, Philosopher, Mystic (reference #14) does not have any page numbers and, since I do not have a print copy of the book, I cannot give page numbers. The URL to the Google Books edition is in the bibliography, however. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies for 177, I noticed a couple more missing page numbers and skimmed over the references section looking for others.


 * The content in the opening is not likely to be challenged and is a summary of the body so references 5 and 7–13 could be moved to the body or removed altogether, though this is not obligatory and is taken case-by-case as stated at WP:LEADCITE so use your own judgment on that. 4 citations for the "she taught philosophy and astronomy" sentence is excessive however. (Reference 6 is an exception as the description of Hypatia as an inventor is challengeable.)
 * I removed one of the sources that did not have a page number, but I have kept all the others, even though they may be slightly unnecessary, because I generally think it is best to have as many reliable sources as possible. If others find them obtrusive they may remove them. I actually opted to remove the word "inventor" form the first sentence because, while we have record of her studying and building mechanical devices, we do not have any definitive records of her actually inventing any. You could make a case for her as an inventor, but it is a tenuous claim that I do not think belongs in the first sentence. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On the topic of the first sentence, is "Hellenistic" used as commonly as "Greek" is in the sources? Also, her Britannica entry, written by Deakin, mentions that she "is the earliest female mathematician of whose life and work reasonably detailed knowledge exists" but there is no specific mention of this in the opening here. Would it be appropriate to have a similar line? Her sex seems to be an important detail regarding her notability.
 * The word "Hellenistic" has been in that first sentence since long before I came along, but I believe the reason why it says "Hellenistic" and not "Greek" is because the words have two different meanings. While Hypatia was undiubtedly culturally Greek, we have no means of knowing her actual ethnicity and, since she lived almost her whole life in Egypt, it would be difficult to characterize her as an ethnic "Greek." "Hellenistic" is the better term here since it indicates a person of Greek cultural background, but not necessarily Greek ancestry. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The information that the parabalani were "under the leadership of a lector named Peter" may be undue for the opening. Peter is only briefly mentioned in the body.
 * I would prefer to keep it because Peter the Lector is the man who led the mob that killed Hypatia and he is highly significant in the debate over who was ultimately responsible for Hypatia's death, because the biggest question revolves around whether Peter and his monks acted alone, or if they acted on Cyril's orders. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a brief line on Cyril's involvement/non-involvement is justified in that case, or more detail if you can find any should be added on Peter in the body. In the current state the opening introduces Peter as though he is a key figure but if the reader is intrigued they find nothing more on him in the body.
 * I have added two more sentences to the "Early modern period" section focusing on the debates over whether or not Peter the Lector or Cyril was ultimately responsible for Hypatia's murder. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding "March of 415", I can't find the policy but I believe there is a recommendation to not word dates "[month] of [year]", and instead just use "[month] [year]".
 * "Graeco-Roman" should not be used if American English spellings such as "romanticized", "fictionalized", etc., are used. I think British English may be more appropriate for this article but it is up to you which one you choose.
 * I apologize. I did not realize there were two different spellings of the word and I assumed "Graeco-Roman" was the only spelling. I could probably imitate British spelling if I really tried, but I know nothing of British grammar, which apparently has totally different rules regarding commas and conjunctions. I will just correct the word "Graeco-Roman." Unfortunately, I forget where I used it in the article. Could you be more specific? --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "Damascius claims" should be changed to says, states or some similar verb, per WP:CLAIM.
 * "The second variety was the more tolerant, intellectual, and less explicitly pagan" is not a great reflection of the source. Watts says "the teaching championed by Hypatia and Theon seems to have the choice of the intellectual establishment of the city" but does not offer a qualitative assessment of which teaching was more/less intellectual. He uses "moderate philosophy ... non-polemical". I think sticking close to the source is better in this case.
 * "occasional displays of public violence that sometimes occurred in Roman cities". It is redundant to have both occasional and sometimes here.
 * An en dash should be used for date ranges instead of a hyphen. 414–415 not "414-415".
 * Sometimes it is [word] century and sometimes it is [number] century, I think there should be consistency in the use of "century" throughout the article.
 * Supposedly is not needed in "a supposedly "long medieval decline"" as the quote is attributed and "claim" is used.

That is about all I can find. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I have now fully addressed all of these except for the "Graeco-Roman" gaffe, which I cannot correct right now because I cannot find where I used it in the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's in the career section. You could also Ctrl+F and find it that way. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I figured there was probably some way to search the article for specific words, but I had no idea what it was. I am not the most tech-savvy person in the world in case you have not figured that out. --Katolophyromai (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe I have now addressed all of the new criticisms you have brought forward. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I still think the first paragraph should have a similar line to Deakin's "She is the earliest female mathematician of whose life and work reasonably detailed knowledge exists" in Britannica, maybe just use the quote and attribute it to Michael A. B. Deakin.

I do not have any other suggestions beyond this and should be able to give a final assessment soon. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have inserted the statement as you have requested. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Actually, one more suggestion. Since there is no other notable Hypatia to distinguish this Hypatia from, is there a need to refer to her as "Hypatia of Alexandria" in the first sentence? Also, I think the comma after the parentheses containing her DOB/DOD is misplaced. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now implemented both of these changes. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I now believe the article meets the GA criteria. Nice work! Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for taking the time to review this article. I really appreciate it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)