Talk:Pro Plancio/GA1
GA review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 18:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Patrick Welsh (talk · contribs) 22:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi UndercoverClassicist, I can review this one. It appears to be in excellent shape already, but I will do my best to make suggestions for improvement even if in excess of the GA criteria. I'll aim for tomorrow, but it might be Friday before I have comments. Cheers, Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
General comments
[edit]- In the first sentence of the lead, could the redirects be put into parentheses with maybe a word or two less? I know they need to be up here, but they are not informative. I would format to encourage readers to just gloss over.
- I think we need something to the effect of "sometimes named as" -- "also known as" would be inaccurate, as it would imply that all three names are equally used, whereas the article title is by far the most common. We could stick the whole thing in brackets, but I don't think that would be an improvement, given how chunky it necessarily needs to be. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. Maybe at least get rid of the second comma? If the reason for it is the footnote, I'd consider dropping that too. Although I see how this might be an exception, as a general rule, anything that requires an explanatory note probably does not belong in the lead.
- I'm fine passing as is on criterion 1. Just something to consider. Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed that this is a good general rule, but alternative names are a notable exception. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- "Aedile" needs to be defined in the lead, even if only imperfectly, for a general audience. I think it also needs italics as a foreign term.
- It's a naturalised English term (see Oxford here), so no italics. I've added a brief explanatory note on first mention in lead and body.
- Definition looks good. M-W confirms it as a naturalized term (even if, confusingly, their usage examples both use place it in italics). --Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's a naturalised English term (see Oxford here), so no italics. I've added a brief explanatory note on first mention in lead and body.
- Could the last sentence of the first paragraph be rewritten in the the active voice?
- Not really: I can't see that any of e.g. "we do not know..." "scholars do not know...", "nobody knows..." would be advisable. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Is there some descriptor that could establish the importance of the assessment of James Smith Reid? If not, I would remove this. I cannot be the only reader who leaves the article just to see who this person is that I am assumed to know and respect.
- Even beyond the lead, where accessibility standards are lower, I would have appreciated some kind of descriptors for authorities quoted (e.g., Lily Ross Taylor, Michael Alexander, Andrew Riggsby, James M. May).
- There are good reasons not to introduce people like this in classical articles -- I follow the advice from an experienced FA and GA writer at User:Caeciliusinhorto/Context considered harmful. In brief, because most people have many overlapping job descriptions ("classicist"/"ancient historian"/"Cicero scholar"/"philologist" etc), it's at best editorial and at worst misleading to write e.g. "the classicist Lily Ross Taylor thinks X, while the ancient historian Michael Alexander believes Y" -- there's no real disciplinary difference between them, and writing endlessly "the classicist X" gets a bit repetitive. I don't think there's a real comprehension problem here -- as you note, readers will naturally assume this is someone we're meant to take as an authority on the subject. The same style is used widely in GAs and FAs: see for instance Brothers Poem. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- This is just a stylistic disagreement then. Not an issue for GA.
- I would still consider avoiding referring to James Smith Reid by name in the lead unless singling him out can be justified in the prose (without introducing peacock terms, obviously). I can't be the only person to immediately leave the article in order to see who he is, which is probably not great. Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- I do see that concern, but it's also important to give some summary of the scholarly views expounded at more length further down (per MOS:LEAD, which is a GA requirement), we need the name per MOS:QUOTE, and we can't apply one stylistic rule to the lead and another to the body. Even if readers understand it as "The speech has been described as...", I don't think that's a real problem. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- There are good reasons not to introduce people like this in classical articles -- I follow the advice from an experienced FA and GA writer at User:Caeciliusinhorto/Context considered harmful. In brief, because most people have many overlapping job descriptions ("classicist"/"ancient historian"/"Cicero scholar"/"philologist" etc), it's at best editorial and at worst misleading to write e.g. "the classicist Lily Ross Taylor thinks X, while the ancient historian Michael Alexander believes Y" -- there's no real disciplinary difference between them, and writing endlessly "the classicist X" gets a bit repetitive. I don't think there's a real comprehension problem here -- as you note, readers will naturally assume this is someone we're meant to take as an authority on the subject. The same style is used widely in GAs and FAs: see for instance Brothers Poem. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's good to remind readers that we are before the Common Era, but many of the dates could lose the "BCE" as already well-established.
- The MoS advises omitting CE where possible, but not BCE, which I take as a statement that it should generally be included. However, where there are multiple BCE dates in quick succession and there's no real risk of confusion, I've omitted the second: see for instance He then successfully ran for curule aedile in 55BCE, with Crassus's support, in an election that Lily Ross Taylor has described as "a travesty of Roman free institutions". The election results were declared void, following corruption and violence during the campaign, and the election repeated in 54: Plancius was again elected, alongside Aulus Plautius. His election as aedile made Plancius the first in his family to enter the senate. It is debated whether Plancius served as aedile in 55, or was due to begin his year of office when prosecuted in 54.
- Thanks for informing me of the MOS guidelines. The changes you made look good. --Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- The MoS advises omitting CE where possible, but not BCE, which I take as a statement that it should generally be included. However, where there are multiple BCE dates in quick succession and there's no real risk of confusion, I've omitted the second: see for instance He then successfully ran for curule aedile in 55BCE, with Crassus's support, in an election that Lily Ross Taylor has described as "a travesty of Roman free institutions". The election results were declared void, following corruption and violence during the campaign, and the election repeated in 54: Plancius was again elected, alongside Aulus Plautius. His election as aedile made Plancius the first in his family to enter the senate. It is debated whether Plancius served as aedile in 55, or was due to begin his year of office when prosecuted in 54.
- Closer inspection confirmed what I was already sure of at the beginning. This is a clear pass. I'm only sorry I didn't have more suggestions for further improvements. If you'd like me to read it again with an eye towards anything specific, I'd be happy to do so—just tag me. Otherwise, excellent work! Cheers, Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Formal assessment
[edit]- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Some of the sentences with semi-colons and colons might read better just divided into separate sentences. But I was still able to follow the prose in the grammar of which I found just one error. (Should there have been a comma in that last sentence? 🧐)
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: The nom and I have a few minor differences with respect to style, but nothing that I would expect to be an issue even at FAC.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- Spot-check:
- Kelly, Gordon P. (2009) [2006]. A History of Exile in the Roman Republic. Cambridge University Press. pp. 110–11 supports citation 11.
- Lintott, Andrew (2008). Cicero as Evidence: A Historian's Companion. Oxford University Press. II The Texts of the Speeches (which I assume is p.25) supports citation 54 and footnote.
- Grillo, Luca (2014). "A Double Sermocinatio and a Resolved Dilemma in Cicero's Pro Plancio". The Classical Quarterly. 64 (1): 214–225. supports citation 75
- Spot-check:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: The bibliography is impressive and impressively formatted. Above and beyond.
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): The article is supported by high-quality sources throughout.
- C. It contains no original research: Article is thoroughly sourced, and nothing I read set off alarm bells about SNYTH or other forms of sneaky OR.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: Earwig had a few hits in the 20% range, but all were obviously non-issues.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: Yes. I was not aware of this speech before reading the article, it does, to all appearances hit on the major aspects of the speech, its context, and its significance.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): In some contexts, 3003 words would be too long. But for anyone who finds themselves here and reads past the lead, the level of detail seems great to me.
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: Scholarly disagreements are presented in a neutral voice. No concerns here.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: The short edit history speaks for itself, and I do not imagine any new information coming to light that would disrupt the stability of the article.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: Images are relevant, in the Creative Commons, and appropriately captioned.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Yes, per the above.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Thank you for these, Patrick Welsh: replies above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:29, 29 May 2025 (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.