Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/R. A. B. Mynors/archive1

R. A. B. Mynors

 * Nominator(s): Modussiccandi (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Those who have read the Aeneid or the poems of Catullus in Latin will probably have come across the name of Roger Mynors. He wrote the standard editions of these works and it is through them that I got interested in him as a person. Though he's mostly known for those books, he did interesting work on manuscripts and catalogued several library collections. What's more, he is unique for having been the senior chair of Latin at both Oxford and Cambridge.

I found this article as a start class last August and made it into my first Good Article with a very instructive GA review by. In the meantime, I left the article to work on similar topics but I returned to make Mynors my first FA candidate. The article has been improved via peer review comments from, and, again, Amitchell125. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Gen. Quon

 * “Mynors' academic career spanned most of the 20th century and straddled both of England's two oldest universities.” I think it would be best to explicitly state what these institutions are for folks not in the know. Right now it kind of feels WP:EASTEREGGy.
 * Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * “Sharing the college with the literary critic…” ‘sharing’ seems like a weird word to use here; maybe something like “He attended college at the same time as…”
 * Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * “Mynors became well placed to exhibit the virtues of both the British and the German tradition in his academic work” I feel like this could be said simpler. “exhibit the virtues” seems a little POVy to me.
 * Done. Thank you for raising this, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * “Though he cultivated leisurely pursuits, such as…” Maybe changed this to “In addition to more leisurely pursuits, such as…”
 * Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * “Latinist Harold states that he was 'an extraordinary scholar’,” Is this a direct quote? If so, I think double-quotes should be used, unless I’m mistaken.
 * Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Can any of the other publications be linked in the “Publications” section?
 * I feel like the title case of “Publications” is a bit wonky. Some are in title case, others in sentences case
 * They should now be in title case, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That's it for my first pass. Let me know if there are any question.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  14:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your comments so far, . The only one I wasn't sure about was the links in the "Publications" section. The version that was passed for GA had links for all his publications. All but one of them were to subscription-only websites. I decided to remove them when this was criticised by another reviewer. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. My thought would be that including them would be better than not. Right now, folks would have to hunt around for links, but with the links, they could at least purchase access (WP:PAYWALL). Either way, it's not a big issue.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  21:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll take a peeky at some of the sources in a bit if that's OK.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  00:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Source checks

 * Article: "Among his four siblings was his identical twin brother Humphrey Mynors, who went on to become Deputy Governor of the Bank of England."
 * Source: "...his twin brother Humphrey. ... Sir Ernest Musgrave Harvey, Bt, who held, as Humphrey later did, the post of Deputy Governor of the Bank of England."


 * Article: "'He told me he was glad that he had translated for the Oxford Medieval Texts the account of Bede's death, and that Bede had not ceased in what he saw as his work for God until the very end.'"
 * Source: "'He told me he was glad that he had translated for the Oxford Medieval Texts the account of Bede's death, and that Bede had not ceased in what he saw as his work for God until the very end.'"


 * Article: "His mentorship contributed to Mynors' transformation from an amateur scholar to a professional critic of Latin texts. The two men maintained a close friendship..."
 * Source: "Although Mynors was already established as a personality and a scholar, he immediately saw that some- thing had been missing. And he himself dated the beginning of his scholarly life to his meeting with the man he called 'Uncle Ed.' ... It was by no means certain that the edgy foreigner and the impeccably mannered Englishman would hit it off. It is, I think, a tribute to both that they did."


 * Article: "Latinist Harold [Gotoff -- missing, I added] states that he was an 'extraordinary scholar'"
 * Source: "He was an extraordinary scholar"

I did a random selection of five citations. All five of them match up, with no noticeable problems. As such, I have no problem voting Support for this nomination.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  00:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Article: "In spite of its accomplishments, classicist Patricia Johnston has noted that the commentary fails to engage seriously with contemporary scholarship on the text..."
 * Source: "Mynors apparently did not have much use for recent scholarship, particularly that which had a literary orientation. The bibliography contains few works more recent than the early 70’s"

Comments and support from Gerda
Thank you for acting on most of my comments from the peer review, missing only two: Lead
 * read Classics or classics?
 * I believe it's 'Classics' because it refers to the discipline rather than 'classics' as in 'classic books'. I've seen both spellings on and off Wikipedia (Even the Classics article says 'classics') but 'Classics' seems to me preferable. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not the one to tell, English not being my first language. To me, it's strange to see "classicist" but then "Classics", and I believe that in the context it is clear. He would not study Mathematics, but mathematics, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an embarrassing topic. I work in the Classics and haven't yet figured out how to spell the very word. According to this, Southern Illinois University don't seem to be sure either. For what it's worth, 'classicist' is rarely capitalised but 'Classics' sometimes is. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Retirement
 * Do we have to know who Bede is, or does it not matter?
 * I didn't add a proper introduction for Bede because he is mentioned in the "Academic career" section as the author of the Ecclesiastical History. Do you think it should say something like 'the Ecclesiastical History by the Anglo-Saxon historian Bede'? Modussiccandi (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten that he was mentioned, sorry. I may be the only one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

These are minor points, therefore I am ready to support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment
More than three weeks in and this nomination has attracted very little interest. If there is not quite a lot more activity on it in the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice, . Is there anything that can be done to attract additional reviewers? I'm still new to the FAC process, so forgive me if this would be inappropriate. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, no, it is entirely appropriate. There are a number of things you could do. Requesting a review of individuals or on projects where you believe there may be interest is one. (WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome? Who else has ever nominated an article in this general area?) Be careful of your phrasing, keep it neutral. "Could you review my nomination which you may find interesting" is fine. "I need some supports to avoid being archived" is not. If this has gone through PR you could appeal to anyone who contributed there. You could appeal for reviews on the FAC talk page - this goes down best if the editor appealing is known for have done reviews themselves. (Overt quid pro quo is frowned on as it can look like "my support in exchange for your support", but everyone likes an editor who does their hare of reviews and keeps the queue down.) You could call in any favours you are "owed".
 * Hopefully that is enough to give you the idea. [?] If this is archived, don't despair, use the two week wait doing some or all of the above so that next time you hopefully have a reviewer or two lined up straight from the off.
 * Did you go with this bit in the FAC instructions "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination."?
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much indeed, regardless of whether this FAC succeeds or not. Yes, I have sought the assistance of a FAC mentor. I should probably raise this issue with them, too. I'll try some of the measures you proposed and see if they advance things a bit. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I participated in the Peer review, but don't feel qualified in this content area to opine beyond that. Perhaps would have a look? Please ping me again if content-area experts have looked in, and then I will be happy to opine; the article is in good shape. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you all had any thoughts on this article?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  00:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sandy Georgia Thank you for thinking of me, but I am going to decline the honor. I am not qualified to evaluate an FA as I have never had a successful one myself. I don't actually know anything about this individual, and I am currently swamped in both RL and here, on things others have requested that I am already behind on, as well as my own work. I'm sorry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, - I haven't been around wikipedia very much recently, but I will try to have a quick look through the article over the weekend Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, but unfortunately I have very little knowledge of Latin poetry. That said, I haven't seen anything wrong in the article and I think it is of FA standard. T8612  (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I wanted to let you know that has indicated that they might post a review in the coming days. They have written a number of academic biographies, so comments from them might satisfy SandyGeorgia's wish for a subject specific review. I hope this and the above reviews are enough of an indication of movement for the time being. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, will try my hand at a review tomorrow or the following day.  Ergo Sum  23:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Noswall59
I am not a Latinist but I do know a thing or two about British academia, so I will present some general comments here. Firstly, this is a well-written article which does a good job of summarising the key facts about Mynors' life-story. Whether more detail could be teased out of the available sources, I don't know. The main concern I have is with the limited discussion of Mynors' contributions to academia; I think it is commonplace here to split articles about writers/academics/creatives into sections as so: (1) biography; (2) writings; (3) legacy/appraisal. What I think this article is lacking is an equivalent to section (2), where you would explain what Mynors' contributions to scholarship were, how they engaged with existing ideas or debates, how they were received in their own time, and how they continue to be received to this day. This would usually take a thematic approach; sometimes (2) might be split into two sections, one which goes into depth about the major publications, and another with explores their contributions to scholarship. To give some examples, see P. G. Wodehouse, Franz Kafka, Bernard Williams and especially Hilary Putnam and Alasdair Cochrane. I notice that Llywrch made similar comments at the peer review. Now, I don't want to shoot down your nom here; I am not a Latinist and others may feel that you have done a good enough job covering the available discussion about Mynors' work. But I do want to put my reservations on record. I should also say that I very much welcome your efforts to improve articles in this field. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC).
 * Thank you very much for your comments. I have thought about this problem ever since Llywrch's comments at the peer review. I think the problem with Mynors' contributions is that they almost exclusively consist of critical editions which have never been overhauled (i.e. replaced by a rivalling edition). These editions don't interact with other scholarship as much as the publications of, say, a philosopher would. This is why the legacy section focusses on his Georgics commentary: this was his only foray into something other than critical editions.


 * The source situation is a related issue: classical scholars tend to be covered scarcely. This is particularly true of Mynors because of his field of activity. Since Mynors wasn't a prolific publisher and his books were "just" critical editions, I did not feel that I could reasonably carve out a detailed section on them in the way the Hilary Putnam article does. Instead, I chose to mention the editions in the biography section and write a more general section about the legacy of his work. Now, it would be possible to gather material for a discursive "publications" section; I'm just not sure it would contain much of interest to the general reader. By that, I mean that such a section is at risk of sliding into obscurity on matters of tetxual criticism. To sum up, I believe that everything the general reader would want to know about the merits of his academic work could be said in the "Legacy" section. Please don't feel that my comments are intended to coax you into supporting. Rather, I felt that I should explain why the article turned out the way it did. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To add to what wrote above, I am puzzled that a discussion of Mynor's contributions weren't more fully fleshed out. I appreciate that current conditions can hamper such research: not everyone has access to resources like JSTOR, & even then that tool does not include in its coverage all of the relevant specialist literature. However, some information can be added. For example, Mynor & Colgrave's edition of Bede's Ecclesiastical History was the first new edition of that work since Plummer's edition some 75 years prior; that fact in itself is noteworthy. (There is a Loeb edition, Latin text with facing English translation, but the goals of the Loeb Library series never included offering serious critical editions of their texts based on direct examination of manuscripts, & in this specific case the author of that Loeb book admits in his preface that the Latin text is a copy of an 1881 critical edition -- itself "practically" identical to the first critical edition published in 1722 -- with some additions taken from Plummer & a few other authorities. IIRC, Mynor & Colgrave was the first fresh comparison of manuscripts since Plummer.) Mynor also prepared texts of at least two major Latin authors -- Vergil & the Younger Pliny -- which mean no only were they reviewed in the specialist literature, experts consulting the texts for their publication would offer their opinions of his editorial readings in their articles & monographs. In short, the material is doubtlessly out there; it may simply be difficult currently to track it down & actually access it. (One would think that an organization that wants to "become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge" would enable such research for its volunteers. But my opinions are often wrong & irrelevant.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Having read Noswall's and Llywrch's thoughts, I will endeavour to write an additional discursive section on Mynors publications. I have institutional access to most resources, so there shouldn't be much of a problem on this front. I shall ping the both of you when the section's been added. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Further coordinator comment
With reluctance I am going to have to say that if that much work needs to be done on a nomination it seems clear that it came to FAC not yet ready and so I am going to call time on it. Can I urge involved editors to continue to work on this together, possibly at PR. If the additional work required is completed rapidly the usual two week wait will be waived. (But don't rush; take your time, get it right, get some additional reviewers lined up.) Gog the Mild (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)