Wikipedia:Peer review/R. A. B. Mynors/archive2

R. A. B. Mynors


I'm starting this peer review after a recommendation from. The article was archived at FAC after it was determined that a prose section on Mynors' contributions to scholarship was missing. My intention is to remedy these issues with the reviewers who raised them ( and ). I will notify you here when I've added the section. Other editors are free to add general comments with an eye to a re-run at FAC.

Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * (my apologies for the continual pinging) I have carved out a section with paragraphs on his three most important publications: the editions of Catullus, Vergil, and Bede. I have left the Georgics commentary in the "Legacy" section. I felt it would be more at home there since it was unpublished during this lifetime and because it's in a class apart from his textual work. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for tagging me here. I've had a look at the article and I think it's definitely going in the right direction -- a solid and well-written improvement. As I'm not a subject-matter expert, Llywrch will probably be better to assess how comprehensive the section is. Thanks again, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC).
 * Thanks a lot. Let's see what Llywrch thinks. Your time and input are much appreciated. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. FYI, I've just found this which is a Word doc (on his website) of Professor Stephen J. Harrison's chapter "The Need for a New Text of Catullus", in Vom Text zum Buch, ed. C. Reitz, 	Subsidia Classica, no. 3 (St Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae, 2000), pp. 63–79. It includes a critical discussion of Mynor's edition which might be useful, though the book itself seems pretty obscure. ISBN: 978-3895900952 (Worldcat). Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC).
 * I concur with that this article is moving in the right direction. (For the record, I thought how it covered Mynor's edition Georgics was good, although I am curious if/why he released 2 editions: one as part of Vergil's collected works, then later one alone.) The section provides a more informed discussion of how Mynors contributed to understanding the texts he worked on. With some more work, I could see this section becoming a model for future FAs on textual editors &/or translators of significant works. -- llywrch (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your kind word and input, . Regarding the Georgics: the first book was only a critical edition of the Latin text, while the second one went on to use that text as a basis for a philological/historical commentary. Since this section was the missing piece for the article's FA status, allow me to ask you both the following: what else, if anything, would you advise me to change about the article before a re-run? My plan was to take up Gog the Mild's offer of another FAC without the two-week hiatus, given that the nomination had already gathered some momentum for support. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I always feel every article could stand further research; in writing my own articles, I can't dismiss the feeling I missed some important article or monograph that experts know full well. Which is why I have never felt any of my own contributions measure up to GQ or FQ level. -- llywrch (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting and quite unexpected, I must say. I agree that when one works on topics relating to the ancient world, it's almost guaranteed that useful sources will be left out inadvertently. I guess there is always a balance to be struck between summarising a topic for a general audience and indulging one's own curiosity. Anyway, since the aim of this PR was to address the lack of coverage on his publications, I'll consider that particular mission accomplished, unless either of you has further reservations about the section. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , to be honest, the changes you've made look good and this article definitely offers a more thorough overview of his contributions to scholarship. As I said above, that chapter by Harrison may be useful, but I'm really not a subject-matter expert. You know more about Mynors than me and probably anyone else actively editing Wikipedia, so it's probably best to ask yourself: is there anything else substantial I could say about him in the article? If the answer is "no", then you've probably met the comprehensiveness criteria for an FA and can re-nom. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC).
 * I have extracted from the Harrison chapter a review of Mynors' Catullus editions. So thank you for bringing it to my attention. I think it's good to have an assessment of the book some decades after its publications to see how it's fared in the eyes of posterity. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent, well done for getting hold of what seems to be a very obscure publication outside of Germany. This is a fine article and, if you're confident it's ready, then I won't hold you back on a re-run. As Llywrch said above, it'll hopefully serve as a good model for what articles about textual critics ought to look like. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC).


 * After serving its purpose of addressing the issues raised in the FAC, I will soon close this PR to stop it from needlessly adding to the backlog. I will confer with Gog the Mild on how best to proceed with the FAC re-run. I will give both of you a courtesy ping in the nomination statement. Please feel free to leave a review if you want. Thank you for your help and interest in the article. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)