Talk:Theoris of Lemnos/GA1

≈==GA Review==

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 20:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Ill get to this shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay - got home Tuesday from being out on the road with hubby and promptly got sick. Am feeling better today should be able to pick this back up tomorrow. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries – hope you get well soon! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * General:
 * ISBNs for the books lacking them? Not required, but it's a bit odd to see some with and some without.
 * Per MOS:IBID, we generally try to avoid using scholarly abbreviations like "et passim"
 * passim doesn't have the same problems as ibid, but nonetheless removed as potentially confusing to the lay reader.
 * We don't need to use "BC" for every date... we can assume our readers are smart enough to remember that they saw "BC" earlier in the article so it must still be BC.
 * ✅ cut a couple of BCs where the context should make it clear
 * when you define Greek terms - you are inconsisent with how you do it. It's not an issue to do in a phrase such as "as a pharmakis, literally a provider of drugs and potions but in this context" but when you do a parenthetical, you're inconsistent on whether you use quote marks or not (i.e. it's "asebia (impiety)" but "phonos ("homicide")". Pick one and stick with it for the parenthetical definitions.
 * ✅: unless I have missed something, they should all now be in the format Greek term (definition).
 * Accounts:
 * "The prosecution attempts to persuade" ... while "prosecution" is strictly speaking correct here, it's confusing to a modern reader as carries the modern connotation of a prosecutorial team - suggest "speech" or a synonym of "speech"
 * Went with "speaker" – I don't like giving the speech itself agency!
 * "the other is from Plutarch's biography of Demosthenes" - since we give the date for the Philochorus account, we should probably give a date for Plutarch's account.
 * Life:
 * "and supply pharmaka" - suggest using an English word here rather than a Greek word which has to be inferred from the context. Alternatively, introduce a meaning with the first use of the Greek word (I prefer the former, but either works)
 * Crime:
 * Quick description of the Areopagus for the non-specialist so they don't have to click away to figure it out?
 * ✅ in an endnote
 * why do we have "with Βουλευσις (bouleusis, "planning"[31])" but no such thing for the previous possible charge? And why suddenly are we getting Greek words in the Greek alphabet when we've not had that transcription for the previous Greek words?
 * Changed this.
 * Likewise, quickie explanation for "Palladion"?
 * ✅ in an endnote
 * "prosecuted for asebeia (impiety)." ... you've already done a parenthetical on asebeia in the section before, not needed here.
 * Images:
 * Do we have an image of one of the early manuscripts?
 * Fraid not – nothing on commons, and I can't find anything by googling.
 * Sources:
 * Is there anything in this which might be useful? I note that it brings up the fact that we do not know what drugs/poisons were used. It also appears that this says (p. 239) that "In a few cases, a woman is accused, such as the courtesan Theoris of Lemnos in a notorious case of love magic in fourth century Athens"
 * Okay, I've had a look through both of these now. The Scarborough article mentions Theoris only to note that Against Aristogeiton "does not, of course, give precise information on the drugs or toxic substances".  This is true, but given that the article already quotes the entire relevant passage readers should already be able to see this for themselves, and frankly aside from Scarborough no one is really interested in what drugs T. may or may not have had access to.  I can add a line if you really think it's important, but I'm inclined not to bother.  As for the Graf article, there's only a single mention and even that makes basic errors of fact and appears to mix Theoris up with Phryne (and possibly the stepmother from Against the Stepmother for Poisoning). I don't think there's anything useful there.
 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your helpful comments. I have commented on individual points inline, and I think I have now addressed all of them.  Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Sorry for the delay, I caught some crud and it's been absolutely frigid here in Wisconsin, so I've been sluggish. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review! No worries about the delay – I don't think I would deal very well with Wisconsin in winter! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Images:
 * Do we have an image of one of the early manuscripts?
 * Fraid not – nothing on commons, and I can't find anything by googling.
 * Sources:
 * Is there anything in this which might be useful? I note that it brings up the fact that we do not know what drugs/poisons were used. It also appears that this says (p. 239) that "In a few cases, a woman is accused, such as the courtesan Theoris of Lemnos in a notorious case of love magic in fourth century Athens"
 * Okay, I've had a look through both of these now. The Scarborough article mentions Theoris only to note that Against Aristogeiton "does not, of course, give precise information on the drugs or toxic substances".  This is true, but given that the article already quotes the entire relevant passage readers should already be able to see this for themselves, and frankly aside from Scarborough no one is really interested in what drugs T. may or may not have had access to.  I can add a line if you really think it's important, but I'm inclined not to bother.  As for the Graf article, there's only a single mention and even that makes basic errors of fact and appears to mix Theoris up with Phryne (and possibly the stepmother from Against the Stepmother for Poisoning). I don't think there's anything useful there.
 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your helpful comments. I have commented on individual points inline, and I think I have now addressed all of them.  Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Sorry for the delay, I caught some crud and it's been absolutely frigid here in Wisconsin, so I've been sluggish. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review! No worries about the delay – I don't think I would deal very well with Wisconsin in winter! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)