Talk:Philomela/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 04:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Good job with this article! A delightful collection of allusions from a broad range of literature - I learned a lot. My main concern is that the reference style makes some of your statements look like original research. Here are a few issues I noticed:


 * Variations on the myth: The first two paragraphs don't seemed to be backed up by anything except Pope's notes to the Odyssey, which appears to speak only to the information on Eustathius. Are there other sources on this?
 * Tereus: The paragraph on Tereus' transformation references only two primary sources, so I'm not sure where the information about "a number of retellings and other works" inlcuding a hoopoe comes from. Similarly, the statement in the next paragraph that, "many later sources omit the Tereus' tongue-cutting mutilation of Philomela altogether" seems like original research.
 * Nymph's Reply: It is not obvious (to me, at least) that the Philomela reference here is being used to relay consolation, so a source to substantiate this interpretation would be helpful.
 * Shakespeare: The information on Shakepeare is cited only to a contemporary's poem.
 * Coleridge: The idea that Coleridge tried "to move away from associations that the nightingale's song was one of melancholy and identified it with the joyous experience of nature" is no doubt true, but as an opinion it should be cited.
 * Translation: This is unrelated, but you say what translation the quote of Philomela's speech is from? It couldn't tell from the citation given.

I hate to nitpick such an impressive work of scholarship, but things that are obvious to you are not to me and other readers, so more references are needed to avoid the appearance of original research. Those are the only real problems I saw, though. The prose is good, the images are awesome, and the breadth of coverage is astounding. I'm placing the article on hold for seven days, and I'll promote as soon as those issues are fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Cerebellum, for taking the time to review the article. I'll had a chance to briefly look over your concerns raised above and I'm sure in a day or two the citation issues will be remedied. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I believe that tonight I have addressed the citation issues raised above, regarding Variations, Tereus, Nymph, Shakespeare, Coleridge, and Translation. Are there any issues that you see still unaddressed? --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome, great job! I am happy to pass this as a GA.  --Cerebellum (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)