Talk:Consolatio (Cicero)/GA1
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Gen. Quon in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 04:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'll review this shortly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Quick note. This source repeats the accusation and provides evidence on the forgery, including "[t]he evidence that Sigonio himself was the author is also strong, though not conclusive." The full text is here. Though I think some background on Cicero is really needed, including the circumstances upon which it was written. Also, the result of the work its and Cicero's actions after its written. Since fragments exist, it may be acceptable to include some window in it the work. Cicero and the Rise of Deification at Rome seems like a good source.[1] Just some places to add more content. I'll pause for you to evaluate it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Background is an excellent idea. I'll get to work on that tomorrow, and implement the other source you brought up.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- How do these changes look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Glad you understood my garbled and typo ridden comments! It is looking much better, but I think it is still a shame that "Forsyth, Richard, et al." couldn't be given more space here given the circumstances. I have records from over a century ago that actually believe that the work was really that of Cicero. The only result I can possibly gather from this academically and scientifically well-known forgery is to highlight it with its own section because throughout history, its been taken as fact even after being debunked. This Pseudo-Ciceronian Consolatio may merit its own article in the end, but considering the fake was republished time and time again under Cicero's name and identified as being a body of his work - the fake is clearly the worthy of significant discussion on this page because its a historical imposter of sorts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is probably a good article to discuss the forgery, so I'll try to flesh that section out a bit. EDIT: How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)