Wikipedia:Peer review/Dinogad's Smock/archive1

Dinogad's Smock


I've listed this article for peer review because it's the first new article I have written and I want to get it up to standard. I'm interested to see whether it is clear for someone who is less familiar with the subject matter than I am, and whether the reviewer feels the structure is appropriate. Also, obviously, I want to iron out any weakness in the prose.

Thanks, Boynamedsue (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Zetana
Here's some initial prose comments to start off, tomorrow I will take a closer look and try to give more in-depth feedback with regards to structure, comprehensiveness, etc. This is a fascinating read! Zetana (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC) For the "Environmental history and archaeology" section:
 * 1) This suggests that the poem... I recommend changing "This" to something else, like The deposits suggest that.. or The finds suggest that....
 * ✅Done. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Some, such as Ifor Williams and John Koch, believed it to refer to the red fox, Gwyn Williams and T. Conran translated it as "wildcat", whereas still others, such as Alfred Owen Hughes Jarman and Eric Partridge, identified it as the lynx. This is a long sentence. I think you could split it right after the red fox, starting a new one with Gwyn Williams.... Additionally, whereas still others is a bit clunky, maybe something like while others?
 * ✅Done. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) The presence of lynx in 7th-century Britain... The article says ...was previously thought to be... and However, radiocarbon dating... revealed that..., these refer to some time periods/dates but it's not mentioned when exactly. Reading these two sentences, my immediate thought is "when did scholars think it was unlikely? and when did someone conduct radiocarbon dating to disprove the theory?" I also think "extirpated" should be replaced with a different word, I had to go look that one up.
 * ✅Done, with a slight expansion of the explanation. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Reply Thanks for the initial feedback, it's much appreciated. I won't have much time to fix it till the weekend, but I can see your point in each case. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course. It turns out I can't leave any comments today, but I will have time this Saturday/Sunday to provide more detailed feedback. Zetana (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, here's some more comments below. I've taken a couple more reads and, structurally, I think the article is OK, so I will focus mostly on prose. I have a couple of general comments first, the rest are organized by article section. Zetana (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

General comments

 * 1) When was the poem first 'rediscovered' by modern scholars? (if that is even applicable)
 * 2) What's the history of the manuscript itself? Aside from its 13th-century production in a Welsh monastery, is there any information about how the manuscript was stored, or if it changed hands, and where it is today?
 * 3) There is some inconsistency with how you introduce some scholars, for example you have Musicologist Joyce Andrews and Archaeologist Craig Cessford, who has written several articles on Dinogad's Smock... with a name & occupational descriptor, but others have their name only, such as Nicholas Orme and George Monbiot. I prefer having the name + descriptor, alternatively you could just have names only, but it should be consistent across the article.


 * Comment by Boynamedsue: With regards to item 3: I agree, consistency would be better, I am a little unsure on the best procedure, would it be to introduce with their job title the first time the individual is mentioned and then just their name? Or to use their job twice if it is in different sections?
 * Further comment by Boynamedsue: No action yet on 1 + 2: The Gododdin was pretty well known in Welsh antiquarian circles, with the Book of Aneirin's location and owner traceable from the late 15th century. In terms of when Dinogad's Smock was identified as a different poem from Y Gododdin, I'm not sure. I'll have a look in Jackson (cited) to see if there is anything there, if not I would probably have to look at sources in Welsh.
 * I see, if you can find a citation for that information, including it in the article would be great, but if that's not possible i understand. Zetana (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, something like "Musicologist Joyce Andrews" is fine enough, and then you can just refer to them as "Andrews" from that point on. The only person I would consider repeating describing would actually be Andrews, as they're up in "Setting" and then at the bottom in "Modern musical settings". The rest are fine with just being described once. Zetana (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Lede

 * 1) I would prefer that the lede be structured to Dinogad's Smock is an Old Welsh lullaby recounting the hunting prowess of... It is preserved as an interpolation in... the reason being that the descriptor ought to come first, followed by the topic's other contextualizations. I think this groups the content better, as it was confusing upon first read because I was trying to find what Dinogad's Smock was, but didn't see it in the first sentence. I was going to change the lede on my own but I thought to comment here first to see what you think. ✅Done.
 * 2) Some information about the poem's history of being recorded would be nice here, simply a brief mention about its manuscript should suffice.✅Done
 * 3) Dating the poem exactly is... I am confused by this sentence, as I read "The poem is undated" but also "It was written (down) in 7th c." then I look at the infobox which says Date: disputed (5th–11th century). My understanding from reading the article is that it's not known when the poem was composed, but that it was likely written down in a manuscript in the 7th c. I think my confusion is that you use the word "Dating" and the infobox also uses "Date" (though does not have a more descriptive parameter for "Composed") but "Date" is an ambiguous term. I think something like Dating when the poem was composed exactly is difficult, but it was most likely written down on a manuscript during the... sufficiently identifies both Dinogad's Smock's dates of composition and being written down as separate & distinct dates (although my suggested wording is rather clunky).
 * 4) The poem provides insight into the Welsh-speaking culture of Early Medieval... is the capitalization of "Early Medieval" an intentional affect? I do not see that phrase capitalized elsewhere in the article.✅changed
 * response I've done some work on the dating question (point 2), do you want to have a look and see if it makes more sense now? --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the change makes it flow better. You probably don't need the added ...and therefore must have been composed at, or before, that date. as it's implied by the time-of-written-down. Zetana (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've had a little fiddle with it again, it's a bit of a minefield, but I think this might be better? Boynamedsue (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, I think it's slightly improved, but the sentence is still rather long. I've had a think, I prefer something closer to the first alternative you tried: Dating the poem's composition exactly is difficult, but it was likely written down in the second half of the 7th century, in the Kingdom of Strathclyde. Zetana (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that the text we have is not the text that was written down in the 7th century, the spelling will have been different and there is a strong possibility there will have been other differences. How about something like Dating the poem's composition exactly is difficult, but it likely originates in a text written down in the second half of the 7th century, in the Kingdom of Strathclyde. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, that makes for a tricky sentence then. I like your suggestion, perhaps with a semicolon? Dating the poem's composition exactly is difficult; it likely originates in a text written down in the second half of the 7th century, in the Kingdom of Strathclyde. Zetana (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Subject matter

 * 1) There are a number of sentences in this section which seem like they could be spun off into a separate "Analysis" section instead, or simply in its own separate paragraph after the descriptive parts, e.g. It can be assumed that Dinogad's father was..., Nicholas Orme argues that this use of..., In view of this aspect of the poem, George Monbiot...

Setting

 * 1) Place-name evidence as well as... in one of the kingdoms of the Hen Ogledd. Here you wikilink to Hen Ogledd twice, once to a section and once to the page itself, but I think just one wikilink is fine (preferably on Hen Ogledd itself).✅Done
 * 2) However, since the poem clearly does not form part of the original text of Y Gododdin, and was instead added to it through scribal error, Craig Cessford argues that there is no reason to favour a location within or near Gododdin territory. As currently written, the underlined part is sort of presented as though it is a fact rather then part of Cessford's argued opinion. I would just like to check with you if this is your intended meaning (that the underlined part is generally accepted, and that Cessford is simply using that uncontroversial stance to argue their case).✅ rephrased along lines discussed below
 * 3) The mention of a rayadyr (modern Welsh rhaeadr, "waterfall") on the Derwennydd also argues against the Durham Derwent... in similar fashion here, I see that this is attributed to Cessford but presented as a fact. If it is generally accepted, then I think "also argues against" should be changed to "also provides evidence against". If it is Cessford's opinion, then it should be attributed as such.✅Done


 * Comment by Boynamedsue Regarding the second point on this section, yes, that is the correct interpretation. Everybody agrees it was not part of the original epic poem which lists a lot of blokes who got killed at the Battle of Catraeth and has a completely different style. The second part is Caseford's opinion, buy I should probably rewrite the Caseford part anyway, because there are 3 or 4 scholars who argue the same as him.
 * makes sense. Zetana (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Language

 * 1) Another feature found in the poem but absent in Welsh of any age is... Underlined part reads a bit wonky, I would prefer something like ...but absent in historical(?) or modern Welsh... or simply ...but absent in Welsh...✅Done
 * 2) This feature is present in Breton, which leads Koch to argue that this use of penn is an inheritance from their mutual ancestor which did not survive in Welsh. To clarify, a mutual linguistic ancestor of Breton and Welsh?✅Done


 * Comment by Boynamedsue Regarding point 2, yes this is true. Tbh, I was never entirely happy with the wording here, as the "mutual ancestor" is also the ancestor of Cumbric, and that is not mentioned. I will look at it again.
 * okay, that is confusing indeed, didn't realize "their" was also referring to cumbric! perhaps, something like "mutual linguistic ancestor of Breton, Welsh, and Cumbric..." Zetana (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten this to include Cumbric. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, looks good now. Zetana (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Manuscript and sources

 * 1) The book contains two versions of the text... is (A87) at the end of this sentence necessary? I don't see it mentioned in the article elsewhere. ✅ Removed
 * 2) Nicholas Orme states that its inclusion in the manuscript of the Gododdin indicates that the poem possessed literary status at the time of its recording. What is "literary status"?✅Rephrased


 * Comment by boynamedsue "possessed literary status" is the exact phrase used by Orme, his discussion of the poem is in the context of the history of lullabies, what he means is that this was not some little song to make kids fall asleep but was valued as a piece of literature by contemporaries. He actually discusses this in a bit more depth, suggesting it borrowed from the form of contemporary lullabies, but was different from them. This could go in the analysis section you propose.
 * okay, i understand what it means now, however i think you should either explain what "possessed literary status" means in the article, or reword it along the lines of your explanation, as a reader likely won't know what that means. Zetana (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The identity of the llewyn, the lynx and rewilding

 * 1) In my opinion, I would shorten this subsection's name to "Identity of the llewyn". ✅Done.

Modern musical settings

 * 1) In 2001 the text of "Peis Dinogat" was set for piano and voices by... Is there a particular reason you refer to "Peis Dinogat" instead of "Dinogad's Smock" here? ✅ changed to DS
 * 2) The poem is used here in conjunction with another vestige of Cumbric in modern times, Cumbrian sheep-counting rhymes. I see what you are going with here, but the underlined part is a bit awkward. Unfortunately I cannot think of a good alternative suggestion at the moment.✅ rephrased


 * Comment by boynamedsue I use Peis Dinogat because Samuel never uses the English title in her own work, her translation and modernisation is given the title "Lullaby for Dinogat." I don't think it would make a difference if I changed it though, do you think it would be better in English? Re point two, I was kind of attached to that line, because it's the only one I didn't add myself! But I have an idea of how to fix it.
 * for #1, i would prefer "Dinogad's Smock" for sake of consistency (assuming they're referring to the same thing?), as the idiot reader i didn't have the foggiest idea what 'Peis Dinogat' was and if it was Welsh for DS or a alternate transliteration or something, had to scroll back up to remind myself it was the Old Welsh name. for #2, oops i didn't see that! Zetana (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have, as a whole I think the article is complete but just needs a bit of a touch-up here and there. Zetana (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the in depth feedback, it's really helpful. I will be working through this for a couple of weeks, starting with the very easiest stuff, then probably the items where you ask questions so you have the article fresh in your mind when I answer. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, no problem! i've replied to your comments above, and i'll check back every couple of days to respond to any additional comments you have. Zetana (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Grapple X
Some broader structural comments here, nothing majorly in-depth.
 * We're up to eight different references used by the end of the lead. A lead section should be summarising an article rather than containing new information, so anything outside of a direction quote or a controversial statement likely to be challenged shouldn't be separately cited in the lead; just cite it when it's mentioned in the article body.
 * On that note, there is some information not duplicated in the body from the lead, such as the characterisation of Aneirin as "semi-legendary". ✅ added description removed cit from lede
 * Images should have alt text for screenreader use. ✅added this
 * Rather than simply italicising instances of Welsh, consider using lang (ie, which would output penn ywrch). This allows browsers to recognise a change in language, which again is helpful for screenreaders. ✅added Welsh/Old Welsh and Celtic language codes ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tips. I will get on that. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * are you still working on this article? If not, would you like to close this PR? Z1720 (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm still working on it thanks. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)