Talk:Homeric Hymns/GA1
Latest comment: 1 day ago by The Morrison Man in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 10:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: The Morrison Man (talk · contribs) 21:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I'll be taking a look at the article and should be back with comments in the next few days. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking it on: looking forward to your comments. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- @The Morrison Man: Sorry to nudge, but any update? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for the major delay, I've been quite sick recently. I've included the notes for the sections composition and collection and transmission below, the rest will follow within 24 hours. If you have any questions or things are unclear, let me know! The Morrison Man (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks -- replies below to this first batch, looking forward to the second. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've addressed these comments where required. The next batch will be up in a few hours. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks -- replies below to this first batch, looking forward to the second. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for the major delay, I've been quite sick recently. I've included the notes for the sections composition and collection and transmission below, the rest will follow within 24 hours. If you have any questions or things are unclear, let me know! The Morrison Man (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- @The Morrison Man: Sorry to nudge, but any update? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Composition edit
- “though the Hymn to Ares is considerably later” - Maybe change this to something like “though the Hymn to Ares was made much later”.
- Gone for a slightly different verb (composed), but done in essence. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- “are composed in dactylic hexameter” - Perhaps this could be explained, as you do for the following mention of formulae.
- Done (now in the rhythmic form known as... UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- “one of the Homeridae,” - Swap out the comma for a colon.
- I'm not sure the colon would be wrong, but a comma is perfectly correct here and reads better to me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- “hymns’ comparative absence” - Comparative could probably be left out here.
- It can't, unfortunately, as Callimachus makes use of them (see Reception further down for a few more). However, by comparison with the Iliad and Odyssey, their footprint in Alexandrian poetry is tiny. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, my bad for misinterpreting the text The Morrison Man (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- It can't, unfortunately, as Callimachus makes use of them (see Reception further down for a few more). However, by comparison with the Iliad and Odyssey, their footprint in Alexandrian poetry is tiny. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- “However, few direct statements denying Homer's authorship of the Hymns survive from antiquity: in the second century CE, the Greek geographer Pausanias maintained their attribution to Homer.” - I think this would work better as two separate sentences, cut off at the colon. That would make something like: “However, few direct statements denying Homer’s authorship of the Hymns survive from antiquity. The Greek geographer Pausanias maintained their attribution to Homer in the second century CE.”.
- I'm not sure it would, as the second part follows from the first: with a full stop, the thought becomes isolated and the connection lost. It's not the shortest sentence, but I don't think it's long enough at 27 words to make splitting it essential. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Looking over the sentence again, I'm not really sure why I even suggested splitting in the first place. The connection is indeed enough reason to keep them it as a single unit. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it would, as the second part follows from the first: with a full stop, the thought becomes isolated and the connection lost. It's not the shortest sentence, but I don't think it's long enough at 27 words to make splitting it essential. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Collection and transmission edit
- “At least the longer hymns” - Leave out at least.
- That would change the meaning, since we don't know that the shorter hymns were not also included in these editions. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- There are now two conflicting timespans for the Hellenistic period in the article. Previously mentioned as post-323 BCE, and here mentioned as 323-30 BCE. The latter is correct, and I’d change the former accordingly.
- Done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- “listed as today "Homeric"” - “which we currently list as “Homeric””
- I've changed to listed today as, which is more grammatical, but am not a fan of the second-person plural here: it would raise a question as to who "we" are and aren't. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- An alternative could be "which are currently listed as "Homeric"", which omits "we". The Morrison Man (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure what the improvement over "today" is? To me, "currently" implies that the situation might soon change (compare "Today, he lives in London" and "Currently, he lives in London"). UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I mostly made the suggestion while considering the possibility that some of the Hymns aren't from the same author, though assuming that the name won't change, today works fine. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, the Hymns certainly aren't the work of a single author, but we don't really think of "Homer" as a single author now anyway, so the label is unlikely to go anywhere even though discussions about the Hymns' dates and circumstances of composition are likely to continue. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I mostly made the suggestion while considering the possibility that some of the Hymns aren't from the same author, though assuming that the name won't change, today works fine. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure what the improvement over "today" is? To me, "currently" implies that the situation might soon change (compare "Today, he lives in London" and "Currently, he lives in London"). UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- An alternative could be "which are currently listed as "Homeric"", which omits "we". The Morrison Man (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've changed to listed today as, which is more grammatical, but am not a fan of the second-person plural here: it would raise a question as to who "we" are and aren't. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps also link Callimachus here, and is there no bluelink for Proclus or his Hymns?
- Could link Callimachus, but it's not a million miles away from his first mention, so I'm not sure I see a compelling case to break the usual habit of linking only on first mention, or where a link is particularly helpful. Linked Proclus; "Hymns (Proclus)" isn't an article yet, and I'm not sure it's ever likely to become one distinct from the main Proclus article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- My line of thinking was that an extra link would be good to have to allow for easier navigation to the other works that were included alongside the Homeric Hymns in the editions originating from the fourth to thirteenth century. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've tried something slightly different, and created the redirect Hymns (Callimachus), which currently links to the Hymns section of Callimachus's article. How's that? I think it does the same job and potentially allows someone to come along and write a whole article on them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion this is the most elegant solution! Nicely found. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've tried something slightly different, and created the redirect Hymns (Callimachus), which currently links to the Hymns section of Callimachus's article. How's that? I think it does the same job and potentially allows someone to come along and write a whole article on them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- My line of thinking was that an extra link would be good to have to allow for easier navigation to the other works that were included alongside the Homeric Hymns in the editions originating from the fourth to thirteenth century. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Could link Callimachus, but it's not a million miles away from his first mention, so I'm not sure I see a compelling case to break the usual habit of linking only on first mention, or where a link is particularly helpful. Linked Proclus; "Hymns (Proclus)" isn't an article yet, and I'm not sure it's ever likely to become one distinct from the main Proclus article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- “are fifteenth-century in date” - date to the fifteenth century
- Yes, that's clearer, done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- “along with Orphic and other hymnic poetry.” - along with other Hymns and Orphic poetry.
- That would create the implication that the Homeric Hymns were themselves Orphic poetry. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Whoops, my mistake. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- That would create the implication that the Homeric Hymns were themselves Orphic poetry. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Explain siglum in brackets.
- I can't immediately think of a good, short way to do it: we need "conventional symbol indicating the name of a manuscript", which is a bit long for brackets. To me, it's pretty clear to any reader that the character Ω is whatever a siglum is: it's not massively important that they understand it as meaning anything more than letter/symbol/designation, so I think we've got the right balance where those who just want to read the article have what they need to do so, and those who want to go further can click the link.
- Your reasoning is sound, though I do believe an explanation would add some extra value. Would the shorter "symbol indicating a manuscript" work, or is that too abbreviated? The Morrison Man (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm not sure that's quite right either! Will keep thinking on this. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I can't immediately think of a good, short way to do it: we need "conventional symbol indicating the name of a manuscript", which is a bit long for brackets. To me, it's pretty clear to any reader that the character Ω is whatever a siglum is: it's not massively important that they understand it as meaning anything more than letter/symbol/designation, so I think we've got the right balance where those who just want to read the article have what they need to do so, and those who want to go further can click the link.
- Link philologist
- Done on first mention. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- “discovered M” - maybe change to “discovered manuscript M”? (not essential)
- We introduced it in the previous sentence, and "manuscript M" is not idiomatic (it's also arguably a tautology), so I think what we have at the moment is better. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- On second glance, agreed. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- We introduced it in the previous sentence, and "manuscript M" is not idiomatic (it's also arguably a tautology), so I think what we have at the moment is better. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- “M has among its sources a lost manuscript” - “One of the sources M draws from is a lost manuscript”
- I'm not seeing a problem or improvement here?
- Mostly related to the flow of the sentence, which in my opinion is better with the proposed change. If you disagree, its fine to keep the original. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a problem or improvement here?
- “which he stated he had” - “which he stated to have”
- The former reads as more idiomatic in contemporary English to me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- “that manuscript has also been suggested as being Ω” - “it has also been suggested that Ψ and Ω represent the same manuscript”
- Ah, that's not quite what I meant: the question is whether Aurispa was writing about Ψ οr Ω, but they're definitely different manuscripts. I've clarified, hopefully. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the new sentence solves the clarity issue. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, that's not quite what I meant: the question is whether Aurispa was writing about Ψ οr Ω, but they're definitely different manuscripts. I've clarified, hopefully. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
more to follow