Wikipedia:Peer review/Cento Vergilianus de laudibus Christi/archive1
Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi edit
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd really like to see it blossom into a GA or maybe (one day) an FA. I've been working rather hard on it for the past two weeks, but alas, I'm pretty much the only editor who has edited it, and I know that means there are areas that I might have overlooked, or sections of prose that make sense in my mind but might translate differently to a wider audience. I'd love someone to take a look over this article and point out and suggestions.
Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Caeciliusinhorto edit
- In the lead, there is written "crafted by Latin Roman Christian poet Faltonia Betitia Proba sometime c. AD 350–360 following the author's conversion to Christianity"
- "crafted" is a strange verb to use here. "written" or "authored" would probably be better. Crafted has connotations of skill or quality which might not fit with wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements.
- "Latin Roman Christian poet" reads as clunky to me. Is it necessary to give out all three qualifications? (Indeed, are any of them necessary?)
- "Christian poet[...] following the author's conversion to Christianity" is definitely redundant. You could cut the first "Christian" with no loss of meaning.
- "sometime c. AD 350-360" is also odd. "sometime around 350-360", or "c. 350-360", but not "sometime c.".
- In the second paragraph of the lead, I corrected "Proba was trying to circumvent a law put in place by Roman Emperor Julian’s law that forbade Christian from teaching classical Greek and Latin literature" to "Proba was trying to circumvent a law put in place by the Roman Emperor Julian that forbade Christians from teaching classical Greek and Latin literature".
- In the section on origins, the article has "Proba was a noted poet, who first composed a piece, now lost, known as Constantini bellum adversus Magnentium, which dealt with the war between Roman Emperor Constantius II and the usurper Magnentius."
- This is the kind of circuitous and tortured sentence that I would write, but it could probably do with simplifying. Perhaps "Proba was a noted poet, who first composed the now lost work, the Constantini bellum adversus Magnentium, which dealt with the war between Roman Emperor Constantius II and the usurper Magnentius." Even that's four clauses, though, and if you can untangle it more that would be great.
- I'm not quite clear on what "who first composed" is meant to mean. I assume the meaning is something like "who had previously composed"; I suggest you change this to make the meaning clearer.
- "It should be noted that the proemium and invocation section is composed of several original lines of Latin, in addition to lines borrowed from or alluding to Virgil, the Silver Age poet Lucan, and the 4th century poet Juvencus.": this might be better put with the sentence which says that the poem is a patchwork of Virgilian lines in the previous subsection.
- The paragraph on the contents of the Old Testament section of the poem is significantly longer than the single sentence on the NT section. Can more detail be added here to even this out?
- Looks much better to me. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- In the section on Proba's Motivation: "with this being said": why not simply "however"?
- The lead tells us that Jerome criticised de laudibus Christi. In the main body of the article, however, this is watered down to "many scholars believe". Which is it?
- Once in the article and once in the references, the author is referred to as "Falconia"; otherwise she is "Faltonia". Are these errors in the sources (in which case perhaps point this out with "sic") or in the article? Or are they legitimate alternative spellings?
Hope this helps,
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)