Talk:Callimachus/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 00:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'll be glad to take a look; I should have some comments for you shortly. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant, looking forward to working with you. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

@Modussiccandi: This article seems to be in pretty good shape, so my comments below should generally be construed more as suggestions than as steadfast requirements. Feel free to let me know if I've misunderstood anything.

• An entry in the Suda...is the only substantial source – the source says the Suda is the "principal source", and there appear to be have been other sources (e.g. Tzetzes's Prolegemona). You might change "only substantial" to "main" or something like that.

•  Done Modussiccandi (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• I was perusing this book (available with an free Internet Archive account) by Alan Cameron. It states (p. 5) that "the story that Callimachus was a schoolteacher...is almost certainly outright fiction." He seems to have lots of other things to say (it's a 500-page book devoted solely to Callimachus and his poetry), so it might be worth taking a look. (His views seem to reflect a minority position [characterized by one reviewer as a "heterodox" "sceptical reassessment"], so you certainly wouldn't want to rely on him too heavily. Nonetheless, including the minority views of a reputable scholar would probably be just fine per WP:DUE.)

•  Done Modussiccandi (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• pays homage to Callimachus' believe – I presume "belief" is what you're looking for.

•  Done Modussiccandi (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• This issue is father complicated by Callimachus purposeful amalgamation – "father" should be "further", and "Callimachus" needs an apostrophe.

•  Done Modussiccandi (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• With with few exception – typos

•  Done Modussiccandi (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Callimachus describes dream in which – typo

•  Done Modussiccandi (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• They form a friendship as the she recount – typos

•  Done Modussiccandi (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• while his poem Aetia – italicize Aetia

•  Done Modussiccandi (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Classical scholars place Callimachus among the most influential Greek poets. – This is a statement of academic consensus, which, per WP:RS/AC, requires a citation to a source directly summarizing the consensus. (I'm sure there's one floating out there somewhere, so this shouldn't be too hard to find.)

• Thank you for this observation. I started looking for a suitable reference and I'm a bit worried that Callimachus' is so famous among scholars of Greek literature that it's perhaps too obvious to say that he is among the most influential poets. Now, I've gone to the New Pauly (one of the standard reference works for the classical world) and their article on Callimachus says this: "... C. was one of the most frequently received authors of Graeco-Roman antiquity ...". Perhaps this could work, given that it's an authoritative summary on the topic. (If you'll click the link, you'll discover that the statement in the article might be qualified by the addition of "during antiquity".) Modussiccandi (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't seem to have access to the article, but I'm glad to take your word for it. Yes, that should be sufficient: a reliable tertiary source is in my view a valid way to assess scholarly consensus. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Done Modussiccandi (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Modern" section – if the sources permit it, it would be interesting to hear how scholarly opinions on Callimachus' poetry have evolved. Someone bluntly commented on the talk page back in 2006 that a century ago "classical scholars almost unanimously thought Callimachus' poetry was crap" and that even some modern scholars likely hold to that view. If possible, it would be good to see some quotes from those who take a more negative view of Callimachus: while it's a minority position, due weight probably requires that it be at least mentioned.

My understanding of the situation is this: these days, every serious Hellenist would acknowledge that Callimachus is hugely important because of his afterlife via the Roman poets. Like many authors from outside the Classical period, his work has only begun to be viewed favourably since the second half of the last century. I don't think, therefore, that the article at large needs to touch on the fact that he's risen in esteem; mainstream literature since 1975 will always acknowledge his importance. So, I'm not sure we would correctly represent modern consensus if we included such assessments. I might in the future add a section on scholarly reception before c. 1975. I hope it'll be okay if I postpone this until sometime after this review. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

That will, of course, be just fine. While you might want to think about it if you ever wanted to take the article to FAC, it's certainly not the sort of thing that'll hold up this review. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• If you know how to add an IPA pronunciation to the lead (I don't), it probably would be worthwhile.

• Sadly, I don't know how to do it either as I found when I wrote the article on the Aetia. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I should have more comments for you in the near future. Thanks for your work on this article! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• sometimes subsumed under the term of Alexandrianism – you might want to link Alexandrian school, to which Alexandrianism redirects.

•  Done Modussiccandi (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Aetia, Iambs, and Hecale sections – I feel like these could be expanded a bit. In addition to the plot summary, it would be good to discuss what these works tell us about Callimachus and his style. I'll leave the details to you, of course, but you might discuss, e.g., Callimachus' motivations for writing the Hecale (Cameron, pp. 437–438), what the Iambs tell us about his use of imagery and proverbial sayings (Ferguson, p. 73), or how the Aetia reflect an "innovatively intrusive" narrative style (Gutzwiller 2007, p. 65). The style of these works is discussed repeatedly throughout the scholarly literature, so touching on it briefly would probably be useful.

•  Done Modussiccandi (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Busiris, king of Egypt – per MOS:OL, linking Egypt shouldn't be necessary. Alternatively, you could make it a piped link to Ancient Egypt, which is a more pertinent article.

•  Done Modussiccandi (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• in Cyrene, a Greek city on the coast of Libya – "modern-day Libya", "present-day Libya", etc. would be clearer.

•  DoneModussiccandi (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• With few exception, the collection – typo

•  Done Modussiccandi (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on Callimachus and the chief librarianship. There now seems to be a solid consensus that he never held it (although Casson, p. 38, says that he "may have"), but some (e.g. Green, available here,) infer that he was striving for the role but ultimately lost out to Apollonius of Rhodes (creating a rivalry). Green considers this "certain", while Cameron (p. 11) is unconvinced. I'd be eager to hear your thoughts on whether this is worth mentioning.

• I've actually thought a bit about whether to include it or not. Off the bat, I'd say that the suggestion that he actually held the chief librarianship may well be an ancient inference from his exalted status as the compiler of the Pinakes. I chose not to mention it altogether since consensus seems to be that he did not have the position. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay (I inadvertently closed out a tab and lost half my comments); I hope to have more to say soon. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I'm satisfied that this article meets the good article criteria.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   No concerns; a well-written article

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Copiously cited; all sources are reliable. I've spot-checked a good number of the citations, and all appear to support the statements to which they are attached.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   There are plenty of places where you could or perhaps even should go into a bit more detail: the sources have plenty to say, and there's plenty of room to add more content. But the criterion requires broadness, not comprehensiveness, and I'm confident that the article satisfies the former standard.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images are free use; no issues are apparent.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Thanks again for your work on this article, and best of luck in your future endeavors! Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: thank you so much for the review. You were really thorough and went beyond the call of duty. Hoping to work with you again in the future, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.