Talk:Antinous/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Coldupnorth (talk · contribs) 16:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Good day, I will undertake the GA review of this article and will list my comments and findings below. Thank you. Coldupnorth (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. It's great to work with you again! Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article was a pleasure to read. It it is generally well written and is sufficient to cover all the key points a likely reader would want. I have identified a few issues I would like you to consider. Importantly, there are a few instances where additional references should be added. Overall, it is nearly at GA. Please address the below comments accordingly. Thank you. Coldupnorth (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your feedback. I've had some books ordered from the library for a while now to help me with this article, but if they do not come in time, would you consider extending the hold? Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Great, that is dedication, thank you and yes, happy to wait on hold. As you have also done, depending on the importance of the text to the overall article, it may also be possible to remove text as uncited and then replace when you have a reference again. Coldupnorth (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I just received an update on my library orders. I expect to complete all the revisions you suggested by 2 October at the latest. Is it okay if you extend the hold until then? Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem Unlimitedlead, happy to keep it on hold to give you sufficient time to update the references. Many thanks. Coldupnorth (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I am so sorry about the sudden change, but I have another book coming in in a few days/weeks, so the hold may need to be extended until 12 October. Is that alright? Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, that's fine, just let me know when ready. Thanks. Coldupnorth (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing all of my queries. I believe this article is now at GA level. Well done! Coldupnorth (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Grammar - infobox, is the comma in caption before bracket correct?

 Done Comma removed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Lead - wording - 'and was with him when he killed the Marousian lion in Libya.' could be improved to provide context/clarity. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says that the content should provide an accessible overview. I didn't know what this was. Perhaps it should read something along the lines of 'and was with him when he killed a Marosian lion in Libya, a significant event for the Emperor'. I took at look at the Hadrian article, it notes that they killed the article together (although that specific sentence does not have a reference). It also says that they killed it together in the main body.

 Done Now reads: Antinous accompanied Hadrian during his attendance of the annual Eleusinian Mysteries in Athens, and was with him when he killed the Marousian lion in Libya, an event highly publicised by the Emperor. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Biography - first paragraph - would this be better as a historiography section towards the end of the article? While I understand it provides the historical context/accuracy of what follows, this often appears at the end of WP historical biographies. For example, the Hadrian article discusses it in the section 'Sources and historiography'.

 Done Moved to the new "Historiography" section. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Birth and childhood - reference within quote. The reference is given Robert 1980 but this is not given elsewhere, however, if it is a reference within reference 16 (R.R.R. Smith) then it is not needed?

 Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Age - I'm not sure the Age subsection fits here. The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Order_of_events says a biography should generally be in chronological order unless good reason. This section appears more an analysis of the age relating to sculptural/cultural depictions of Antinous. Maybe it would be better elsewhere, perhaps in the Roman sculpture section?

 Done Now a subsection underneath the Roman sculpture section. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Age - This subsection needs more references. Firstly, a reference is needed for the end of the first paragraph. This is historical analysis/research concerning the Delphi Statute/boy at 17 so needs a verified reference or could be considered original research. Secondly, 'These statues should not be treated as photographic evidence'. Why not? Who said this? This needs a verifiable reference or should be removed.

 Comment: Doing some digging in the revision history, that last sentence was actually added by a random user without a source. I will go ahead and remove it. As for your first concern, I am searching for a reference for that. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I could not find any source for that sentence concerning the Delphi statue, so I have removed that unsourced information. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, that is fine. Coldupnorth (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Status - I found the wording of this sentence difficult to follow. It may read better as two sentences. 'Although many historians from the Renaissance onward asserted that Antinous had been a slave, only one of around fifty early sources claims that, and it remains unlikely,[26] as it would have proved heavily controversial to deify a former slave in Roman society.'

 Done Split sentence. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Life with Hadrian - 4th paragraph - grammar. Should a comma be after 'In April 128'?

 Done Technically, introductory prepositional phrases under four words long do not require commas, but I see your point. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Life with Hadrian - 4th paragraph - knowledge. Who are the 'Caeserii brothers, and Pedanius Fuscus the Younger' If they are to remain mentioned, some context needs added as to who they are.

 Done Added information on who these people are. The additional text I added can be found in the citation at the end of the sentence. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Life with Hadrian - 5th paragraph - please add more references to this paragraph. There should be a separate reference for the June 129 events. Importantly, the claim that Hadrian was critical of Jewish culture needs a separate reference.

 Done Citations added. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Life with Hadrian - 7th paragraph. 'Many of these early writers were biased towards Hadrian especially in regard to his relationship with Antinous.' A reference is needed for this statement please.

 Done Citation added. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Deification and the cult of Antinous - first paragraph. 'However, the public and formal divinisation of humans was reserved for the Emperor and members of the imperial family;[77] thus Hadrian's decision to declare Antinous a god and create a formal cult devoted to him was highly unusual,[95] and he did so without the permission of the Senate.[96]' This sentence is little long and difficult to follow. Please look at splitting it up and rewriting for clarity.

 Done Split sentence. Now reads: However, the public and formal divinisation of humans was reserved for the Emperor and members of the imperial family. Thus, Hadrian's decision to declare Antinous a god and create a formal cult devoted to him was highly unusual, and he did so without the permission of the Roman Senate. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Deification and the cult of Antinous - third paragraph. Suggest change 'In October 131, he' to 'In October 131, Hadrian' for clarity.

 Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Antinoöpolis - first paragraph. Please add a reference for the sentence beginning 'Hadrian also had political motives...'

 Done Citation added. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• The cult's spread - third paragraph. I think 'and archaeological finds point that Antinous was worshipped in both public and private settings' would be better as a new sentence for clarity.

 Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• The cult's spread - third paragraph. The sentence beginning 'At least 28 temples...' needs a reference.

 Done Added citation. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Condemnation and decline - first paragraph. please add a reference to the end of 'as well as the Sibylline Oracles, who were critical of Hadrian more generally.'

 Done Citation added. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Condemnation and decline - second paragraph. 'During the struggles between Christians and pagans in Rome during the 4th century, Antinous was championed by members of the latter.' This could be expanded and a reference added. Was it pagans generally, a leader of a group of pagans, senior figures in the government of Rome?

 Done Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Condemnation and decline - third paragraph. 'Some contemporary Neo-Pagan groups have re-sacralized Antinous. This modern cult of Antinous mainly attracts LGBT polytheists.' Please look at rewriting these two sentences and expanding for clarity. For example, what neo-pagan groups? LGBT polytheists is not a clear term. Do you mean members of the LGBT community who choose to worship the form of Antinous? I was intrigued by this but further clarity is needed.

 Done I have reworded that area to be clearer. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• In Roman sculpture - second paragraph. 'About a hundred statues of Antinous have been preserved for modernity,[13] at the least, a remarkable fact as his cult was the target of intense hostility by apologists of Christianity, whose followers vandalized and destroyed artefacts and temples built in honour of the youth.' This sentence is little long and difficult to follow. Please look at splitting it up and rewriting for clarity. Also, the following sentence re number of images more than most others in antiquity is a significant fact. A version of it could perhaps go in the lead? However, that is up to you.

 Done Now reads: About a hundred statues of Antinous have been preserved for modernity, a remarkable fact considering that his cult was the target of intense hostility by Christian apologists, many of whom vandalized and destroyed artefacts and temples built in honour of the youth. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• In Roman sculpture - gallery. Please look at the image captions. For consistency, the museum/location should be clarified for all. Also, for the statue in Rio, Brazil is named. However, no other countries are named. Please look at the image captions for consistency.

 Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Cultural references - 6th paragraph. A reference is needed for the Fernando Pessoa paragraph.

 Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Cultural references - 7th paragraph. A reference is needed for the Marguerite Yourcenar paragraph.

 Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Cultural references - 8th paragraph. A reference is needed for the BBC drama paragraph.

 Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• References - 44 and 63. Two references are given as an undergraduate thesis by T.E. Fox. I do not believe this is sufficient. Another reference would be preferred. If the thesis is given, it should be accessible, eg weblink and confirmed as verifiable, etc.

 Done Citation added. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• References - 97. This perhaps should be split up into a note and a reference?

 Comment: What do you mean? Could you please elaborate on what you'd like to do? Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to be clear, I suggest moving the text from now reference 96 'Hadrian's "Hellenic" emotionalism finds a culturally sympathetic echo in the Homeric Achilles' mourning for his friend Patroclus' to a footnote and then having the reference tag as 'Vout, Caroline, Power and eroticism in Imperial Rome, illustrated, Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN 0-521-86739-8, pp. 52–135' See Help:Footnotes for further guidance. The article already has a footnote which you can use as a reference, (a) which is formatted as) Coldupnorth (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Further reading. The title 'Antinous. The Face of the Antique' by Vout would arguably be a major source on the topic. Ideally, at some point it should be read and references included in the bibliography. However, other works of Vout are referenced throughout. I also believe aside from a few missing references, an excellent academic overview of the subject is given, so this is only a comment for the future if it is possible.

 Comment: I appreciate the comment, but unfortunately, I am unable to acquire the book (at this time, at least). Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem, the article is arguably sufficient in content and coverage without it. Thank you for considering it though. Coldupnorth (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)