Wikipedia:Peer review/Africa (Petrarch)/archive1

Africa (Petrarch)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring the quality up to that of a Good Article.

Thanks, Doug Coldwell talk 15:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments from Awadewit

Honestly, I think the article needs a lot of work before GA, but I'm so excited that you are taking it on! A Petrarch poem! How wonderful!


 * The "Inspiration" section does not have a coherent structure. The first paragraph discusses when and where the poem was composed (in a disorganized fashion). The second paragraph is an unattributed quotation (that is, it is unattributed in the text - the reader does not who is speaking) - this quote needs to be integrated into a paragraph somehow. The third paragraph attempts to explain why Petrarch wrote about Scipio in particular, but it does not make this purpose explicit - it introduces other figures in a confusing fashion. Take the reader through all of this information slowly and connect each thought to the next by showing the logical connections. For example:
 * Current version: The first sections of Africa were written in the valley of Vaucluse after Petrarch's first visit to Rome in 1337. The design of his epic poem and also the De Viris Illustribus were inspired after he visited Rome on his grand tour.
 * Revision: Africa and De Viris Illustribus were partially inspired by Petrarch's visit to Rome in 1337. After returning from his grand tour, the first sections of Africa were written in the valley of Vaucluse."


 * I suggest reworking the the "Inspiration", "History", and "Coronation" sections into a "Background and composition" section (with some subheadings). The current division of the sections does not make all that much sense. For example, the last paragraph of "History" seems like it belongs with the Scipio material, as it address what is in the poem, rather than the circumstances of the writing of the poem.


 * The "Editions" section ends in 1874 - surely there were editions published in the 20th century?


 * I would place sections describing the poem, such as "Allegory", before the "Reviews" - this is the typical structure of literature articles on Wikipedia. It is difficult to comprehend reviews of something one does not know the subject of yet.


 * The "Reviews" section is a long list of quotations - this needs to expanded into a "Reception" section that explains how the book was read over the past 500 years. A summary of the history of that reception would be a better idea than a list of quotes. Sometimes scholars provide this kind of summary in their articles and books.


 * The "Allegory" section needs to explain in much more detail and much more clearly what the different allegorical readings of "Africa" are.


 * I would suggest renaming the "Books" section "Synopsis". It also needs to be dramatically cut down - it should briefly summarize the work. I would suggest not summarizing each book individually but rather the work as a whole.


 * Information from the "Commentaries" section should be threaded throughout the article where it is most useful, not listed in bullet-point form.


 * The article needs the following sections:
 * A section describing the themes of the poem
 * A section describing the structure of the poem - the lead mentions it is an epic, for example, but nowhere in the article is this explained in any detail
 * A section describing the language and meter of the poem - the lead mentions hexameters, for example, but nowhere in the article is this dissected and explained to the reader
 * A section describing the influence this poem had on later literature

I have not commented on the prose, images, or MOS issues, as I feel that these larger issues should be addressed first. I am always willing to rereview articles, by the way! I look forward to seeing this one improved - this is definitely one that we should polish. You might look at some literature FAs, particularly those on poetry, to help you out. See, for example, Ulysses (poem), The Raven, and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Awadewit (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)