Talk:Volcacius Sedigitus

Cleanup/Wikify
Re my posting of the cleanup and wikification templates here, Algorithme wanted to know specifics of what I was referring to -- which I ought to have given initially. The primary issues with the article are:
 * Lack of a well-defined lead section (see MOS:INTRO for a complete overview of Wikipedia guidelines on this). In the case of this article's subject, I doubt it will be possible to give an introduction beyond 2-4 sentences, but it must give a summary of who Volcatius Sedigitus was, and why he is notable. (Note that some editors might question his notability, given that we appear to know so little about him, but I tend to be more liberal about such things.)


 * The text of the article could use some cleanup for clarification. Of particular note:


 * Some run-on sentences (e.g., "nothing is known about Sedigitus beyond that Pliny (nh ii.214), who calls him an ilustris poeta, states that he got his cognomen, as the Romans were not "shy in expressing blemishes and personal infirmities in their names",[2] because he was born with six fingers on each hand,[3] a rare state known as polydactyly, caused by a dominant gene."). It would be easier on the reader to break this up into a few distinct sentences for clarity. For example, part of it could be rephrased to say "Pliny states that Sedigitus got his cognomen because he was born with six fingers on each hand, a condition known as polydactyly. This method of acquiring names was apparently not uncommon at the time, as Pliny says that the Romans were not 'shy in expressing blemishes and personal infirmities in their names'.")


 * Other points where clarification is in order. For example, the final paragraph could use work: "Suetonius' work Vita Terentii (Life of Terence) quotes "Vulcacius" as having given a few details about Terence's leaving Rome and consequent ly disappearing. Viz., Sedigitus said that he was going to Asia, i.e., Pergamum, and was never seen again (Vita 5 = fr. 2)." The last sentence is slightly unclear. I assume that "he was going to Asia" refers to Terence, and not Sedigitus (or Pergamum, as a careless reader might infer from your use of i.e. [[Image:Smile.png|16px]]), but it would be good to state this with absolute clarity. I would also avoid using too many Latin abbreviations (such as i.e., viz., e.g., etc.), because they are regrettably not familiar to all readers, and might be confused.

There are other very minor things, but these are the most glaring ones that prompted me to put in the cleanup templates. WP:COPYEDIT may be of use to you.

And on a side note: it is especially nice to see a new stub (on an obscure topic, no less) that is so very well referenced. My only suggestion would be to make the references to Pliny's, Gellius's, and Suetonius's works numbered like the other ones (perhaps put them in a separate "Notes" section), rather than using parenthetical citations. Articles should generally use one or the other. – The Fiddly Leprechaun ·  Catch Me!  17:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to be specific. I found your critic comments very useful.
 * I add that, given the circumstances of what is known about Sedigitus, the entry is not a stub. --Algorithme (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

construction of sentences and words

 * A literary critic, maybe his origin was foreign to the Roman Empire or poor, because 'six fingers, toes' is in Latin sex digitī — digitus is singular.

But it's an epithet for one man. I'm not sure, but I think the compound would normally conform to the purpose to which it's to be put, in this case a singular noun.

Meanwhile, what has "a literary critic" to do with anything? One sees this kind of kitchen-sinkery in hasty journalism — "A keen golfer, he began his experiments with moth pheromones in 1968" — which we, with time to reconsider, need not imitate. —Tamfang (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)