Wikipedia:Peer review/Sappho/archive1

Sappho


Sappho is one of the best-known poets of the ancient world, the source of the words "lesbian" and "sapphic", and one of the best documented women of ancient Greece, surpassed perhaps only by Cleopatra. Inspired by 's prompting on my talkpage, I've been considering making the final push to bring Sappho up to featured article status. Any advice, particularly with reference to criteria 1a, 1b, and 1c of WP:WIAFA, would be greatly appreciated. Please don't worry about reference formatting: I am aware that this still needs fixing.

Thanks, Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

SusunW
As promised, I'll take a look, with the caveat that I am no expert on the period, nor poetry. SusunW (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * In the lede, perhaps link elegiac to Elegiac couplet, iambic to Iamb (poetry), and epigram for those of us who are unfamiliar with the terms?
 * I thought I had done so, but turns out the links were only in the body; now added to the lead as well. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why was she exiled?
 * We don't know exactly – our sources don't say why. It's generally assumed that it's to do with the general political turmoil in archaic Lesbos.  There's a little more detail in the body.  I wanted to keep the biographical information in the lead very high level as it's all so vague and disputed, but I will consider expanding on this slightly. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would she jump off a cliff because she loved someone? (Perhaps the body says, but the lede doesn't and it seems rather odd that one wouldn't want to spend time with the object of one's affection.) – I do see that the text says unrequited love, which IMO should be inserted in the lede so as not to cause confusion to the reader.
 * Added "unrequited" to the lead. Possibly I should expand on this in the body – there is Myth behind it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * may derive from comedy Perhaps a link here to Ancient Greek comedy or Old Comedy?
 * Good idea; linked. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I get that I am old school, so use advice this as you want. Grammatically, noun should appear first in a paragraph before being replaced by a pronoun. Examples, Tradition names her mother as Cleïs haven't introduced who her is. She may have had a daughter, ditto, she is unnamed.
 * Changed both Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume that because Lesbian is capitalized you are referring to inhabitants of Lesbos, but perhaps since the word has a different modern meaning, on the first mention you should explain this?
 * I wikilinked "Lesbian lyric poetry" to Aeolic verse for now. Will consider adding an explanatory note. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just the way my brain works, how do we know her poetry was written to be sung? (If no music exists, it seems impossible that we know that. Was this a standard of Greek poetry? I am fairly familiar with the African-American/Caribbean revival of declamation, so it just makes me wonder if it couldn't have been spoken, performance art. And yes, I get there may not be an answer, just curious.)
 * This one I can answer, having written the article's music section. Short answer: Sappho wrote lyric poetry, which by definition is sung. Slightly longer answer: The Greeks did not have as clear a distinction between Music-Poetry-Theater and even Dance. The poetry was mainly written in a way that facilitated singing and vice versa; Sappho was a poet-composer, essentially. We have comparatively huge amounts of Greek music theory which discusses their music, as it survived via facilitation in the manuscript tradition (and was often coupled with other subjects). None of the actual music survives because it was often written for specific events and rarely re-copied or written down.  Aza24  (talk)   21:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What, pray tell is a cultic hymn?
 * I think just a hymn of praise for a deity (i.e. from a religious cult). Although Caeciliusinhorto can correct me if I'm wrong here  Aza24  (talk)   21:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, specifically one which was actually used in religious practice. So for instance, fr. 140 ("Gentle Adonis is dying! O Cytherea, what do we do? / Beat your breasts, maidens, and rend your garments") is generally thought to have been sung by a chorus as part of actual religious worship.  By contrast, the Ode to Aphrodite superficially looks like a hymn or a prayer but isn't. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I congratulate you on the prose of the article. As someone who is often overwhelmed by literary analysis, the article is easy to read and digest. I am not remotely sure that any of my observations are useful, but I enjoyed reading the article. Seems to present a very balanced view of what is known and unknown as well as her influences and how perceptions of her have been fluid. Good luck with taking it to FA. SusunW (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments! There's so much scholarship around Sappho and she is of such broad interest to non-specialists (last year she got |Pindar|Bacchylides|Alcaeus_of_Mytilene|Ibycus|Alcman|Anacreon|Stesichorus|Simonides_of_Ceos more than twice the pageviews of the other eight canonical lyric poets combined) that ensuring that the article is not too dense with either historical debate or literary analysis, while still fairly conveying the range of views on both those topics, is more than usually important. Your thoughtful but non-expert comments are very welcome in helping me calibrate! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

mujinga
Hi Caeciliusinhorto-public, like SusunW I wouldn't say I'm at all an expert on this topic. I did enjoy reading it and I think overall you have done a great job of summarising the many unknowns about Sappho's life. I've been working on a few articles recently where the narrative is confused or controversial, so I appreciate that it's not always easy to draw on contradictory sources. I have a few comments and I'd be happy to revisit at FAC if you decide to take it there.
 * "Sappho may have had a daughter named Cleïs, who is referred to in two fragments." this is the first place fragments are mentioned in the body so I would suggest moving up some of the definition of what the fragments are
 * Hmm, added a little to the discussion of sources noting the fragmentary state of S's poetry. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * denys page is wikilinked on 4th mention, suggest wikilinking on first as wll
 * Good spot, done Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "More recent scholars have proposed that Sappho was part of a circle of women who took part in symposia, for which she composed and performed poetry, or that she wrote her poetry to be performed at men's symposia" - although it's the second (and third) mention of symposium, i'd suggest wikilinking it again here since it's a bit confusing otherwise because "symposium" now means somehting else
 * It's linked at the top of this section. As re-linking flagrantly violates WP:DUPLINK I will hold off for now but may re-evaluate if others find it confusing. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "The common term lesbian is an allusion to Sappho, originating from the name of the island of Lesbos, where she was born.[n][130] However, she has not always been considered so." - so you are saying she was a lesbian here and it's where the term lesbian came from? I think that needs spelling out more
 * I'm saying (or trying to say!) that it's where the term "lesbian" came from, but not that Sappho herself was a lesbian. While it's pretty clear that some of her best known poetry is homoerotic (Ode to Aphrodite, Sappho 31 and Sappho 94 are the key texts here), there's plenty of scholarly dispute about how meaningful it is to call Sappho a lesbian: the third paragraph of this section covers that debate a bit.  I will think further on this if you really think it's unclear though. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say some footnotes eg p need a citation
 * notes n, o and p are all supported by the citation at the end of their respective sentences, but it can't do any harm to make that explicit in the note, so I've done so. The other notes all already are cited with the exception of a, which isn't really citable: it's an explanation of what citation system we are using! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * the lead is already pretty good already and sorry this is rather vague but i feel that if you went through the different sections of the article you might find a bit more to add to the lead eg social context
 * I've added a sentence on social context. Hard to add too much more while sticking to a four-paragraph structure; I might have a go at redrafting it entirely if there are still concerns about summarising the article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for an interesting read and good luck with the article! Mujinga (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist
Saving a space; will have a read in the next few days and make some (hopefully useful) comments. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments below. My speciality in these things seems to be picking extremely pedantic grammatical nits, so please take the below with the full acknowledgement of how trivial many of these things are. I certainly learned a lot reading the article and was hugely impressed by your facility with Sappho's work and the scholarship on it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Sappho is known for her lyric poetry, written to be sung while accompanied by music: very minor, but this suggests at a surface reading that Sappho's lyric poetry specifically was written to be accompanied by music. I'd suggest a slight rewording to clarify that "[poetry] written to be sung while accompanied by music" is definition of lyric poetry.
 * What are the "other sources" for Sappho's life mentioned by Kivilo?
 * He doesn't explicitly say, but e.g. Herodotus, Cicero, Strabo, the various sources cited by Athenaeus all predate the biographical papyrus. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to be a little more specific, perhaps by bringing in another source that mentions those primary sources? Appreciate the WP:OR concerns here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * She was from the island of Lesbos: as we've just established that nothing about her is really known for certain, I'd suggest something like she is believed to have come from the island of Lesbos...: it feels odd to follow that disclaimer with a no-holds-barred statement of fact. Strictu sensu, we don't even know that Sappho was a single person.
 * Even Lefkowitz at the full height of her scepticism refers to "Sappho of Lesbos" uncritically. Scholars have questioned literally every other aspect of Sappho's biography, but to the best of my knowledge none have doubted that she came from Lesbos; her dialect, the content of her poetry, and the ancient tradition are all in alignment here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, then, she is universally agreed to have come from...? Something like that would seem more fitting given that we're talking about levels of consensus on basically-unknowable ideas. I've certainly seen it argued in print that at least some Archaic 'poets' could at least in part have been personas or names of convenience adopted by rhapsodes to signal genre and to place their work into a tradition: I'm not sure if that's been argued for Sappho, but it's at least theoretically possible that she is as historical as Homer. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge this has never been seriously argued for Sappho; it's certainly not a position any modern mainstream scholar takes. I don't want to write something like "universally agreed to have come from" for a couple of reasons. 1. the sources simply don't say that: they all say that she came from Lesbos, none say anything about that being scholarly consensus, because 2. this simply isn't a relevant topic of dispute in scholarship, and I feel that putting too much emphasis on "universally agreed upon" foregrounds it in a way which it really does not merit. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's all fair. I wonder whether another approach would be to take this "fact" away from the "everything is speculative" view we establish immediately before. Perhaps put it first: something like She was from the island of Lesbos, but little else is known about her life for certain? At any rate, this is hardly going to be a deal-breaker at FAC. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Lots of new people introduced here: again, I'd give them a brief introduction (especially perhaps Alcaeus and Pittacus: it's not obvious to a non-classicist why these people are being singled out).
 * Yeah, fair. Added context for Pittacus and Alcaeus Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In Ovid's Heroides, Sappho's father died when she was seven: I'd contextualise the Heroides (as Roman and with a rough date) and suggest a slight rephrase more in keeping with this as reported information: perhaps the Heroides, written by the Roman poet Ovid at the end of the first century BC, state that Sappho's father..."
 * Ugh, I don't want to get too much into the context of the Heroides because (at least judging by the scholarship on Sappho; I'm no Ovidist!) the authorship of Heroides 15 is still disputed: I see it attributed to both Ovid and Ps.-Ovid, with various degrees of certainty. Happy to take advice from someone who knows more about Heroides than me!  (Indeed, maybe WT:CGR has an opinion... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Likewise not an expert, though my impression of reading the scholarship is that 15 is generally treated as Ovidian (see e.g. Victoria Rimmel's article here. "Attributed to the Roman poet Ovid" would be fine, I think, perhaps with a footnote to the effect of "whether Ovid wrote the poem is a matter of scholarly debate [source]". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * He is not mentioned in any of her surviving works, but Campbell suggests that this detail may have been based on a now-lost poem: clarify exactly what this detail is. A poem of Sappho's?
 * "This detail" is the fact that Sappho's father died when she was seven. Is this not clear? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * On second read, not unclear (though the article says six): perhaps could be even clearer, but I don't think this is a problem. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Be consistent about whether the Greek-alphabet or Latin-alphabet spelling of a Greek word or name is given first (here pais): I'd suggest only using Latin in the main text but bracketing or footnoting Greek where it is felt that it adds to the reader's understanding.
 * I've removed a bunch of greek script and I think I've wrapped all of the Greek language stuff properly in lang and transl templates. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaving this up only so that I remember to do a check through: from experience this often turns into a game of whack-a-mole! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Judith Hallett argues that the language used in fragment 132 suggests that Sappho was referring to Cleïs as her daughter.: can we say anything about what in the language Sappho uses led Hallett to this conclusion?
 * Slightly expanded Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Briefly introduce the Parian Chronicle?
 * This may have been as a result of her family's involvement with the conflicts between political elites on Lesbos in this period.: can we briefly explain what these conflicts were: is it any more than inter-family squabbling?
 * Book I of the Alexandrian edition: this is a little confusing before we've had the Alexandrian (or any) edition introduced to us.
 * Changed this to simply "an ancient edition of Sappho"; I don't think the exact details of the Alexandrian edition actually matter at this point! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is uncertain when Sappho's poetry was first written down: some scholars believe that Sappho wrote her own poetry down for future readers; others that if she wrote her works down it was as an aid to reperformance rather than as a work of literature in its own right: a slightly clunky sentence with a lot of repetition.
 * I agree this isn't my best sentence, but I'm struggling to come up with a better wording. I've split the sentence in two at the colon, which hopefully helps a little; happy to take suggestions on a better wording! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether we could be clearer on the oral-composition subtext: something like "It is uncertain whether Sappho's poetry was composed with the aid of writing: some scholars believe that she composed her work orally, making no written records of it except for notes to aid in reperformance." UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * considered provincial in a period where the Attic dialect was seen as the true classical Greek: which period are we talking about here?
 * Source doesn't say, but implicitly after Catullus. Apuleius, who talks about Sappho's strange dialect, is second century AD. I can look for a source which is more specific on this. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This smells like the [Second Sophistic]] to me, but since the timeframe established in the previous paragraph ran until the 11th century, I think we could probably do something to clarify that we're still basically in ancient history here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Until the last quarter of the 19th century, only the ancient quotations of Sappho survived.: someone not versed in the preservation of ancient literature might be unclear on exactly what this means (in other words, what the alternative is). Suggest Sappho's poetry was known only from quotations found in the works of other authors. I'm not sure not survived is quite the right framing to use when that status is only temporary.
 * Changed Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Are Lesbian (as in Lesbian metrical tradition) and Aeolic quite synonymous? I appreciate that we only have Sappho and Alcaeus left from it, but the fact that the ancients used a wider name suggests that it might have been somewhat broader in antiquity.
 * Hmm, Battezatto says "aeolic metrical tradition" so I've changed to match. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * the earlier epic poets Homer and Hesiod: I'd advise against the suggestion that Homer was a person, and against the categorisation of Hesiod as an epic poet. Suggest something like the Homeric epic poems and the works of Hesiod, all dating to approximately the middle of the eighth century BCE. I'd also suggest caution in definitively saying that the Homeric poems are older than Sappho, since the chronology of their composition (and indeed the question of what it means for them to be 'composed') is so open.
 * I've cut "epic" because it doesn't really make any difference to the broader point. I'd rather stick with my presentation of Homer: yes, the exact evolution of the Homeric poems continues to be an open question, but so far as I know there's no real dispute that the poetic bits which became the Iliad and Odyssey predate the archaic lyricists; my understanding is that the dispute is over how and when precisely those Existing Poetic Bits were turned into the Iliad/Odyssey as we know them today.  Given that this isn't an article on Homer I think this is an acceptable simplification to get across the core point without getting bogged down in possibly the only question about archaic Greek poetry which has seen more spilled ink than "does it make sense to call Sappho a lesbian?"  (And as for Homer as a single person: it doesn't really matter to the point I'm making whether Homer was one person or many. Somebody composed those bits of the Iliad and Odyssey: they didn't spring full-formed from Zeus' head) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It does matter, at least to the grammar of the sentence, whether Homer was a poet (and that first word is important): practically nobody in the field would be happy to use that description without some massive caveats to the effect of "'he' is a literary construct that we've made up because it's tiring to say 'the cumulative effect of a centuries-long process of composition by people whose names are now lost". There's also a debate as to when those Existing Poetic Bits "count" as the Existing Poetic Bits (for example, the blinding of Polyphemus is built on an Indo-European myth of "the Blinding of the Ogre" which could be many millennia older than the Bronze Age, but nobody would call that myth The Odyssey in any meaningful sense), which is really more of a philosophical question than a philological one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Gloss some or all of cult hymns and invective? Cult, in particular, has a common English meaning that isn't appropriate here, so I'd suggest some sort of explanation or rephrase (perhaps hymns in praise of deities to be used in religious worship?)
 * Hmm, I wonder if "cult" is needed at all; do you think we lose any meaning from just "hymns"? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My impression (I may have read this from you) is that, strictly speaking, a cultic hymn is one actually designed to be used in worship (as opposed to one written purely as an artistic exercise), but whether that distinction is knowable or relevant here might be a matter of opinion. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * where the performance context can be deduced from the surviving fragments with some degree of confidence: Is this not falling back into the poet-persona confusion we discussed further up: the performance context can only be deduced from the fragments if we assume that their internal information corresponds to their real-world performance and isn't just a literary conceit.
 * clear language and simple thoughts, sharply-drawn images, and use of direct quotation: I'd always frame value statements ('clear' is a judgement rather than a fact) as judgements by a secondary source rather than in Wikipedia's voice. Is simple thoughts Campbell's phrasing: it seems a slightly naïve reading given how most would plumb these poems for hidden depths? Could direct quotation be elaborated as to who or what she quotes, and what that means for the audience?
 * With Alcaeus, she pioneered a new style of sung monody: this reads as if Sappho and Alcaeus collaborated.
 * The word noted suggests a statement of unarguable fact, which seems at odds with the highly personal and subjective nature of Plutarch's comment. He gets an introduction ('the historian') where most people in this article don't.
 * In Sappho's time, sung poetry was usually accompanied by musical instruments: I'd suggest slightly re-ordering this section: we implied this in the first paragraph, but are only directly saying it in the third.
 * view continues to be influential: I'm a little uncomfortable with the present tense here, given that Parker's article on which it's based is now thirty years old (sorry...). Likewise later, many newer interpretations of Sappho's social role are still based on this idea: if this is still true in the 2020s, it should be cited or multi-cited to a more recent article.
 * I think this is the big remaining sticking point in the article. Glancing over the Cambridge Companion, I think you are right here: someone in there points out that this is no longer a significant view.  Really what needs to be done here is to substantially update this section.  The first couple of paragraphs are probably okay as is. From memory it might then go broadly along the following lines: Sappho as schoolmistress continued to have adherents up til the 1990s, Parker wrote his significant and controversial article, modern scholars largely believe that she had some sort of pedagogic/cultic role (as chorus leader or priestess) though in the 21st century there have also been arguments for a purely sympotic/hetaeric Sappho. Hopefully I will have enough free time this weekend to really dig into the sources and get this updated. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Nothing wrong with reporting the history of scholarship (even when that scholarship has been superseded), as long as we do so in proper context and without giving the impression that the obsolete view is current. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In the twentieth century, the suggestion that Sappho was a priestess of Aphrodite became more popular. However, though Sappho wrote hymns, including some dedicated to Aphrodite, there is no evidence that she held a priesthood: presumably the scholars who considered Sappho a priestess based their ideas on something they considered evidence? Perhaps rephrase to there is no definitive evidence vel. sim.?
 * I'd briefly explain somewhere what a symposium was.
 * Sappho was part of a circle of women who took part in symposia, for which she composed and performed poetry: did she compose poems for symposia, for women, or for a circle of women?
 * there is no external evidence for archaic Greek women's symposia: we've implied, but not directly stated, that symposia were necessarily single-gender.
 * The earliest of these is a fragmentary biography written on papyrus in the late third or early second century BC,: this is cited to the papyrus itself, which presumably doesn't say that it's the earliest known source for Sappho's homoeroticism: we need a secondary citation here.
 * Ode to Aphrodite is duplinked: I haven't checked for others but would suggest doing so.
 * I'd briefly introduce frag. 31 and its content before discussing who it may be about.
 * I think it's worth clarifying that the modern backlash against the term lesbian for Sappho hinges on whether the term would have had any meaning for her (because Ancient Greeks generally didn't use sexuality as a term of identity, and because aristocratic Greek men, at least, were generally assumed to be more-or-less open to both men and women, even if they practically restricted themselves to one): nobody seriously argues that she didn't love women, but that reading is very open in the article as currently written.
 * Yes, you're right: the post-Foucauldian debate about whether the ancient Greek concept of sexuality bore any relation to our own is a key part of this discussion and should explicitly be mentioned in the final paragraph of the section on §Sexuality – I shall have a look in the sources for this. Probably Melissa Mueller's chapter of the Cambridge Companion is the best bet. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And added a bit from Mueller clarifying this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * An impressive job: I think you've walked a tricky tightrope well in giving the reader enough without writing an entire sub-article on a massive topic. I wonder whether a "because..." after the Foucault statement would help (something a little neater than "because sexual orientation was not considered a meaningful axis of identity?") UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't like seeing the Roman Catullus in the midst of a section on the Greek reception of Sappho, especially without clarification that he was Roman. I'd make a sharper division here between Greece and Rome. Can anything be said about Horace's use of Sappho's work (esp. metres), beyond his judgement of her?
 * Expanded on this, citing more examples in both Latin and Greek – including Horace Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I've added the gloss "the Roman poet Catullus": I'm braced for the objection, but do think it's worth being absolutely explicit that we're now talking about non-Greeks (particularly as it was at least possible for non-Romans to write in Latin). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * her moral reputation as a woman could perhaps be a little clearer: I'm still thinking on the best way to phrase the (rather neat) antithesis here.
 * Introduce De Sade briefly so that the reader understands what the quotation means. Who said it: it's not clear from the text?
 * Wikilinked de Sade; explicitly attributed quote. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a minor point at this stage, but remember that we have MOS:NOFORCELINK: do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so. In other words, linking to something isn't quite the same as explaining it, particularly if it's really important that the reader knows something specific about it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence was already pretty tortured, so I've split it in two which gives a bit more leeway to give context to de Sade. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * she was a sort of "patron saint of lesbians": this is a bit flowery to put quite like this in Wikipedia's voice: how about was considered a sort...?
 * Hmm, yeah, changed to "considered a 'patron saint of lesbians'". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Is that a metaphor? If so, MOS:IDIOM would advise a rephrase. If it's literal I have other theological questions... UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely a metaphor! I see MOS:IDIOM, and it's not a hill I would die on at FAC, but I think as a direct quote it's acceptable: after all, I think the cultural reach of Christianity means that the idiom is going to be accessible to almost all readers.  I'm inclined to leave for the moment. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but a direct quotation should be attributed in text ("what Joan Lookemup has called...") per WP:NONFREE. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note a: I'd suggest using harvnb to give the works, rather than writing out the information manually: it's neater and more consistent with the article's citation style.
 * Good plan; I haven't yet implemented it because I'm considering rewriting the note now that Neri (2021) has provided a modern edition of Sappho including the New Bits Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Poem titles: I appreciate that this is a thorny one. Usually, original or well-established titles are italicised (Tennyson's Charge of the Light Brigade; Lucian's True History). What's the thought process on using double-quotes for "Ode to Aphrodite" etc.? The Brothers Poem is treated in a third way, having neither quotes nor italics. Later, we have Tithonus poem: no italics, no quotes and lc poem.
 * Poem titles are very thorny. There are two questions here: firstly, should we treat them as titles at all, rather than descriptions; secondly, if titles, should they be in quotes or italicised. Per MOS:TITLES, long poems are major works and should be italicised; short ones are minor works and titles should be in double quotes.  I think Sappho's are clearly minor works by this definition (I note that The Charge of the Light Brigade, which is longer than any fragment of Sappho, is rendered in quote marks in the article).  As for whether we should capitalise and quotation-markify, you are clearly right that we should be consistent; in Brothers Poem I split the difference, putting the name in caps but not quotes which is technically a MOS violation but nobody called me on it!
 * I think you can justify almost anything as long as it's consistent. Agreed that going with the MOS standard for 'minor works' is almost certainly the way forward: I think these are titles inasfar as any title for an ancient work is. What to do with fragment is another question: I'd suggest keeping that uncapitalised to underline that it's a different sort of description.
 * Okay, I've put all of the "titles" of Sappho's poems in titlecase but not in quotes, to match the use in Brothers Poem; if I get called on that at FAC I'll stick them in quotes as well. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Three epigrams attributed to Sappho are extant, but these are actually Hellenistic imitations of Sappho's style.: is this settled scholarly opinion? If so, suggest formerly attributed, attributed in antiquity or similar: otherwise, suggest a less strong phrasing than "these are actually...".
 * Oh yeah nobody has thought that they are really Sappho for like a century now; I think "formerly attributed" is probably best: Edmonds includes them without comment in his 1922 edition; I suspect it was Lobel's 1925 edition which excised them but I don't have access to that. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why have we given the Greek spelling of Sappho's brothers' names? Latin-only is usual in similar articles except for the subject of the article itself. There's also inconsistency in that they're given in Greek but other names (e.g. Rhodopis, Alcaeus, John Tzetzes).
 * No idea. I have no attachment to the Greek; removed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * comes both from what can be inferred from her own poetry, and from mentions of her in other ancient texts: I don't think the comma should be here.
 * Removed
 * I'd give a rough date for the Suda (or for the Byzantine period, if you prefer).
 * Good idea; added. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggest expanding comedy to be clearer for a non-specialist about what this means in context (e.g. "Athenian comic drama of the fifth to third centuries BC").
 * I've added a little more detail, and there's a wikilink. "Athenian comic drama of the fifth to third centuries BC" is comprehensive but laboured, and I'm not sure that the exact dates or the fact that it's drama are crucial details! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Until the 19th century, ancient sources about archaic poets' lives were largely accepted uncritically: this reads a little heavy-handed with the passive voice (did everyone largely accept them uncritically, or did most people accept them completely uncritically?): suggest something like "scholars generally accepted the accounts of archaic poets' lives given in ancient sources as factual".
 * Kivilo is pretty definitive here: he cites Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker and Karl Otfried Müller as trying to rationalise how the story of Arion and the dolphins was fundamentally true. I'm not super tied to the current wording, and I don't have any issues with your suggestion, but I see the two as much of a muchness; I will hold off changing for now but think on it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess part of my issue is with the word uncritically: I know we use it a lot in this kind of context as classicists, but it implies that they didn't think critically about what they were doing: it almost sounds a bit like a sneer at their naivety. People like Welcker and Müller certainly did think critically, albeit with different methods and priorities to those we'd use today. As you say, it's not a major issue, but I think we could do better at explaining that this is a matter of evolving scholarly
 * Yeah, perhaps "uncritically" is too editorially strong; changed to "largely accepted as factual". Is that better? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think so. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * scholars became increasingly sceptical of Greek lyric poetry as a source of autobiographical information: accurate autobiographical information? Nobody doubts that it contains (purported) autobiographical information; the question is how far that information reflects the poet's own life versus the construction of their literary persona.
 * Hmm, what they doubt is that it was intended to be autobiographical at all. Nobody doubts that e.g. Sappho composed poetry in the first person; what is increasingly in question is whether e.g. the "Sappho" of the Ode to Aphrodite was originally intended to say anything about the lived experience of Sappho-the-poet. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems like a concise, clear and nuanced explanation; could it be brought into the text? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Expanded slightly on this point in the text Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Some scholars, such as Mary Lefkowitz, argued that almost nothing can be known about the lives of early Greek poets such as Sappho; most scholars believe that ancient testimonies about poets' lives contain some truth but must be treated with caution: why is Lefkowitz in the past tense but "most scholars" in the present? Secondarily, I'd suggest briefly introducing new people with e.g. "the American classicist Mary Lefkowitz".
 * Put Lefkowitz in the present tense. As for introducing people as e.g. "the American classicist Mary Lefkowitz", I think Wikipedia could do with a whole lot less of this practice. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on the introductions; not a problem as long as consistent. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In the 19th century, classicists began to be more sceptical of these traditions, and instead tried to derive biographical information from their surviving poetry: something here needs a reword, since we currently juxtapose their surviving poetry with ancient sources: Sappho's poetry is itself an ancient source.
 * Ah, good spot. Yes, the juxtaposition here is external biographical traditions vs. the internal evidence of the poetry; I've made a slight edit which hopefully makes this clearer. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Contradiction resolved, but now "their" needs an antecedent (we have "these traditions" and "classicists" as grammatically closer than the poets). Suggest "from the works of the poets themselves".
 * Good spot; I've gone with the slightly more concise "from the poets' own works". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * assuming that Sappho's daughter was named Cleïs after her mother: worth clarifying that Greek names generally skip(ped) a generation?
 * Added a note explaining that Greek children were often named for a grandparent Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sappho's father's name is less certain: the name of Sappho's father may be more elegant.
 * Good suggestion; adopted Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * she often praised Larichos for pouring wine in the town hall of Mytilene, an office held by boys of the best families: as written, this implies that the town hall was an office held by boys.
 * Ugh, yes, well spotted. Tweaked. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * One ancient tradition tells of a relation between Charaxos and the Egyptian courtesan Rhodopis.: relation seems an odd word in this context. Do we mean (romantic) relationship, or perhaps connection?
 * We mean romantic relationship. I was so convinced that we said "relationship" that I had to re-read your question three times to work out what the issue was! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As we're saying that Herodotus is the oldest source for this story, we should give a rough date for his work.
 * Added a century. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Suda should be italicised throughout.
 * Yeah, think you're right. Changed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Some time in the second or third century: I'd clarify BC or AD here.
 * Yes, BC, but good to clarify for non-specialists. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A side note, but it strikes me that this is one of the classical articles probably most likely to be read by non-specialists, given how many people will have come to Sappho from an LGBT angle. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Probably nobody who isn't already unhealthily interested in ancient Greek lyric is reading my previous FA on Corinna; Sappho has had 40x the views so far this year, and has 9x the page watchers.  It's one of those articles where there's an enormous mass of scholarship which needs summarising, and it needs to be made accessible to a broad non-specialist audience while ideally remaining useful enough at least up to undergraduate level – I make no pretensions of being able to write an article on Sappho that's useful to anyone who is doing post-graduate work on Greek lyric poetry, but presumably they aren't reading general articles like this on Wikipedia anyway! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * by the 12th century, John Tzetzes could write that "the passage of time has destroyed Sappho and her works": this is cited only to a primary source; WP:PRIMARY would prefer a citation to a secondary source as well (I assume you found it in one?).
 * Sourced Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * for example, fragment 169A is simply a word meaning "wedding gifts: I think it would be nice to include the word here.
 * Good idea, done Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * BC, AD etc should have non-breaking spaces before them.
 * Done. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Grenfell and Hunt: why only surnames here?
 * Fixed Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * have been reported in the media around the world: seems odd to focus on the reporting of the discoveries rather than the discoveries themselves.
 * Yeah, this is already covered appropriately in #Reception. I've cut the media coverage from this section, and added mention of the other 21st century discovery Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * worked within a well-developed tradition of Lesbian poetry: I see the capital letter, but suggest a rephrase to clarify that we mean "poetry from Lesbos" not "poetry describing love between women".
 * I think it's slightly less elegant, but changed "Lesbian poetry" to "poetry from Lesbos" as both you and SusunW above queried this. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * how and where Sappho's works were performed. It seems to have been composed: singulars and plurals need a look here.
 * Oops, changed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Is duBois/DuBois capitalised? The body text and reference disagree.
 * My copies of her books have "duBois", so I'm going with that (though our article was at Page DuBois until I moved it just now) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * the original music that would have accompanied Sappho's songs probably did not survive until the classical period: reads oddly (normally, X did not Y until Z... means that X began to Y in/at/when Z). Suggest the original music that accompanied Sappho's songs was lost by the classical period, and also giving a rough date for that period.
 * I didn't write this, but I think it's a perfectly natural use of "until", and I can't see there's any real possibility that someone is confused into believing it means that the music used in Sappho's lifetime only began to exist after Sappho's lifetime because that makes no logical sense. As for the date, I've added a wikilink to Classical Greece. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking at this again, I'm not sure it's really an issue. I guess to the Classical period would have been my first choice of phrasing. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * melismata rather than melismas? Perhaps a little pretentious, but this is a Greek article (and our own article uses the Greek plural).
 * changed Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why does pēktis have the long vowel marked? This isn't usual for Greek transliterations, at least on this site.
 * yeah, we don't mark long vowels elsewhere; changed Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * a well-known fifth-century vase: suggest cutting well-known as WP:PUFFERY.
 * Agreed, changed to "a fifth-century red-figure vase". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yatromanolakis is introduced by surname only; most scholars have been full name on first mention.
 * Now named in full on first mention Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * However, she has not always been considered so: so here could theoretically refer to her being a resident of Lesbos.
 * Added a clause which hopefully clarifies this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ambrose Philips': much to my chagrin, MOS:'S would prefer Philips's. Ditto for Longinus and Xenakis later on.
 * Yes, one of my small rebellions against MOS. I will change if anyone insists at FAC. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I won't, but I suspect others might. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Explain (and link?) eros.
 * Linked. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We should translate mascula Sappho (and place in a language template).
 * Done Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * a talented woman poet: unless this is a direct quote, modern style would generally avoid using woman as an adjective: either female poet or poetess.
 * Good point; changed to "female poet"
 * while H. D.'s poetry was frequently Sapphic in "style, theme or content": WP:PLAGIARISM requires in-text attribution of the author for direct quotes, though I'm not sure this isn't better rephrased.
 * Agreed; rephrased. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Worth a [sic] on Sapho to Philaenis - and perhaps an explanation of who Philaenis was?
 * I think a [sic] more likely to be distracting than helpful. Will consider if others think it necessary. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * by the 1960s, the feminist Sappho was – along with the hypersexual, often but not exclusively lesbian Sappho – one of the two most important cultural perceptions of Sappho: a lot of Sapphos here! I like the flair of the phrasing but I think something a bit more pedestrian might work better for an encyclopaedia.
 * Changed the final "Sappho" to "her"; yes it's not exactly Standard Wikipedianese but we've got to have something to keep the reader's attention nearly 6000 words into an article which is probably more technical and less sexy than they expected! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe so! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The publication of the Brothers poem a decade later saw further news coverage and discussion on social media: is the social media discussion really notable?
 * Enough for a throwaway mention, yes. It illustrates the point that Sappho is of broad cultural interest, in a way that virtually no other ancient Greek author is; nobody was brushing off their old ancient Greek dictionaries to translate the new Posidippus fragments online! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not going to argue with that (provided that the social media discussion is itself mentioned in secondary sources, but I'll take that as read). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note e: Transliterate Σκαμανδρώνυμος (not quite the same as the Latin spelling), and see my comment further up about Greek-alphabet text in main flow.
 * I've simply removed Σκαμανδρώνυμος: we don't give the names of Sappho's other family members in Greek Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note o: It's not totally clear exactly how much of the preceding list is covered by all of which. Is this list at all controversial: if not, I'd suggest removing Parker's name as implying undue doubt (so something like "Ancient plays which may have been about Sappho include...". That's quite apart from the other good reasons for giving Parker as little prominence as possible...
 * Checking other sources, Yatromanolakis 2008 and Lindsey Coo in the Cambridge Companion both give almost identical lists but omit Antilais. Parker doesn't explain why he includes Antilais. Yatromanolakis quotes a fragment which mentions Sappho, but inferring that it's about Sappho from that looks dubious to me and I'd want an explanation! I've rewritten the note slightly and updated the source.  (there are good reasons not to give Parker too much prominence.  "Sappho Schoolmistress" is a key paper discussing the sexuality & social context debates, but I might look for more recent alternatives for the claims cited to him outside of those sections.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did wonder exactly what "about Sappho" meant, and whether it might have elided with "featuring Sappho" or "mentioning Sappho". Agreed on all counts re. Parker's paper. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from HAL
Staking out a spot for tomorrow. I was only recently exposed to Sappho by means of Catullus, so I'm rather curious about the subject. ~ HAL  333  04:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of these are subjective and stylistic, so feel free to disregard:
 * --> the comma isn't needed as the following bit isn't an independent clause
 * Hmm, I freely admit it's a long time since I formally studied English grammar, but my understanding is that "are silent on whether Sappho's work also went through multiple editions", we are just eliding the implied subject of the sentence. ", but [ancient sources] are silent..." would clearly be an independent clause; I don't think the comma rules change just because "ancient sources" is elided? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The opposite is true of
 * Comma added Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * --> "John Tzetzes wrote that "the passage of time has destroyed Sappho and her works"
 * I'm inclined to keep this as is for now. I think the emphasis is subtly different, and I slightly prefer the current version. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * - Are there medieval quotations? Also, regarding the discoveries discussed in that paragraph, are these fragments scrolls? Or enscriptions?
 * Hmm, yeah, a couple of the surviving quotations are medieval. Might have to rework that sentence slightly.  And yes, the fragments are mostly papyrus scrolls; there's at least one which is part of a parchment codex. Will think about how we can make this clearer. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * --> why not something more concise like "Sappho reportedly wrote in the mixolydian mode"
 * Can't see any reason not to be more concise here; changed. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Are David Campbell and David A. Campbell the same person?
 * Yes, they are. I've changed to just Campbell on the second mention to match how I've treated all the other academics. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I might link Ovid in his first mention
 * Good suggestion; linked Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Lesbos is not linked in its first mention, but in the Sexuality subsection
 * Added link on first mention; still need to go through and check duplicate links (undercoverclassicist above mentioned spotting some too) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * -- I don't like the repetition of influential/influenced
 * Cut "influential" Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * --> "the original music that accompanied Sappho's songs probably did not survive" per WP:WOULDCHUCK
 * Reworded, and in a couple other places too Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto and who argued?
 * Attributed quote. Actually this is a case where it's very important to be clear who argued – it's a famous (and famously homophobic) paper by someone who is not a classicist! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * --> maybe "a position adopted by Wilamowitz" or "a position that embraced by Wilamowitz
 * I cut the "would" here per WP:WOULDCHUCK; less bothered by the verb though "adopted" is a fine alternative Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would reword as it implies that Sappho's mother's name is certain...
 * Yeah, I think this sentence is actually unnecessary: we can just say "Ancient sources record 10 names for S's father" and let readers work out that we don't know! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I always have issues with 'Further reading' subsections. If they're relevant and useful, why aren't they cited in the text? If they don't offer anything more than the sources that you actually cited, then why include them at all?
 * I don't disagree on the general principle. This one's in there basically as a historical artefact; it was there before I ever touched the article.  In this case, half of the entries are editions or translations; they're not cited in the text because we already cite one edition and several translations (Storer for the long box quotes because they're out of copyright; Rayor's as the best most recent translation for inline quotes; Campbell for the testimonia because they aren't in Rayor), and we don't need more.  I think Voigt's and Lobel & Page's editions are worth including in further reading because though superseded by Neri 2021 (who is cited), they are historically important and Neri is so recent that the vast majority of Sappho scholarship uses one or both of those editions; the translations are probably unnecessary (especially now there's an affordable edition of Rayor/Lardinois and we have an external link to a reliable translation which includes most of the major fragments).  Freeman is written for a general audience and I don't think it would meet FACR's "high-quality reliable source" bar; we can probably do without him in the further reading too.  Boehringer, Greene, and Snyder are all certainly relevant; I'd have to reread them to see if they offered anything to justify citing them. (Greene is a collection of essays, several (all?) of which are also published elsewhere; we cite some of those essays in the article.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's all. Fantastic work - it should have a very easy time at FAC. ~ HAL  333  20:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your comments! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Aza24
Have been thinking about some things in this article, to start (more later):
 * Many of the scholars introduced are without a title, i.e. "the classicist, "the historian" etc. Throwing their names in without such words makes their relevance confusing to a general reader
 * I loathe the practice of introducing scholars as "the classicist", "the historian" and so forth. They all are! If they aren't then we should strongly consider whether to attribute views to them at all!  My practice (and feel free to point out cases where I haven't done this) is only to give this kind of context when someone isn't a classicist/ancient historian (so e.g. Devereux's stupid article is a famous example of the trend towards seeing Sappho as homosexual, but he is absolutely not a classicist and I do flag that).  I've written an essay on why I refuse to keep saying "the classicist" all the damn time. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel very hesitant using so much of The New Yorker for biographical information. Almost certainly there must be better source(s) to use?
 * Agreed. Mendelsohn is a professor of classics, but publication in The New Yorker is probably tenuous given WP:WIAFA's "high-quality reliable source" requirement.  I've cut down to three cases which I think are defensible, though if I come across alternative sources I will swap those out too. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we must add at least a sentence more in the lead about Sappho's music, otherwise that entire section is not summarized in the lead (don't think the opening mention of "accompanied by music" really counts). I'm happy to help with this; maybe something about no music surviving, but her pioneering monody in additional to the predominate choral style.  Aza24  (talk)   11:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think tbh the lead could do with rewriting entirely: it hasn't had much love for a long time and the article has had pretty significant expansion in the meantime. I've started to draft something but I want to lock down the body a bit more firmly before I start really working on that – when I do, your advice would certainly be appreciated. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Golden
Quick comment, but I suggest replacing "Sappho" with she/her/hers wherever possible. There is excessive use of her name in the article, and in some cases, two consecutive sentences both start with her name. E.g. " Sappho is known for her lyric poetry..", "In ancient times, Sappho was widely..", "Three epigrams formerly attributed to Sappho are extant, but these are actually Hellenistic imitations of Sappho's style". — Golden  call me maybe? 10:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It has been over a month since the last comment on this. Can this PR be closed? Z1720 (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note – I've closed it Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)