Thank you for bringing this here. We need a bit of diversity. My firs set of comments below:
-
fourth-century AD Latin poem, which was arranged by Faltonia Betitia Proba c. AD 352–84 --> bit odd to have two descriptions of when it was made in one sentence.
-
I've removed "fourth-century".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
the poem was criticized as being of poor quality, but recent scholars have taken a renewed interest in it --> not sure I get the "but" here.
-
Changed it to "During the 19th and 20th centuries the poem was criticized as being of poor quality, but recent scholars have written more positively about it."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Faltonia Betitia Proba, the cento's author, was born around 322. --> is it known where was she born?
-
Unfortunately, I can't find much info on this. We barely even know when she was born. (Although I'd wagger she was born in Rome)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Virgil --> first use in body of article should be linked. Same for Aeneas
-
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Bernice Kaczynski -> some description would be helpful to the reader (historian?)
-
I have added "classicist".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
The cento suggests that Proba ... given that topics like virginity and poverty are not recurring themes in the poem -> I'm not convinced this whole paragraph is right here. I much rather first read what the poem is actually about before reading about what we can derive from it or what is not in it.
-
I've removed this from the first section and added it to the section about Proba's motivation. I've renamed this whole portion of the article "Proba's character and motivation". I will probably tinker around with the title.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Cullhed, for instance, --> I'm not sure I get the for instance. What is it an example of?
-
Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Laocoön's death (from Book II, Aen. --> is that Aen. abbreviation necessary? Makes the article look scholarly, less accessible
-
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
I don't think the punctuation rules are applied correctly for quotes at the end of a sentence. See MOS:TQ. An example: and his followers."
-
I don't have the original source at the moment, but I'm a pretty rigid follower of logical punctuation, which is what is preferred on WP.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
The poet does this in three major ways. Proba -> She
-
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Jesus's -> only once do you end the possessive in s's, elsewhere you have Jesus'
-
Changed to be more consistent.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
"It is Mary's -> if you start quote with a capital you should end it with ."
-
I've re-written that whole sentence.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Carthage could be a link
-
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Vergil -> unfortunate that the quote uses an alternative spelling of Virgil. Something must be done, now it looks like you made a typo
-
I've inserted the Wiki-approved spelling, surrounding by brackets.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Aurelio Amatucci -> what is so special about this person, unlike all the other commentators, that this is a redlink?
-
I'm not quite sure (I think he might have a wiki page in another language, but I can't find it). I've removed it for the time being.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Cătălina Mărmureanu et al. -> I much prefer the other 2 named as well. This is not a scientific paper.
-
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Jerome -> a short intro would be good
-
How is "he theologian, historian, and translator"?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
-
Yes, that works. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
AD 395–408 -> normally this would be years of birth and death, so something along the lines of "who reigned from " might be better. This doesn't need to be repeated I think for the next reigns (Theodosius II, etc)
-
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Pope Gelasius I (492–496) -> I don't miss the AD here, but it does look odd that a bit further on the AD returns with Isidore
-
Re-added, and also added "who held the papacy from" before the date.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Middle Ages -> link
-
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Faltonia Betitia Proba may have been the first female -> why the full name here?
-
Collapsed down to just "Proba".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Nineteenth- and 20th-century -> that looks odd. Rephrase sentence such that you can use 19th
-
Changed to, "Scholarship in the 19th and 20th-century was more critical of the poem".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
"late antiquity's 'poverty of ideas'" -> I don't quite see why you need ' and "
-
Are you referring to the alternation between single- and double-quotes? If so, it's per MOS:QWQ.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
-
I was wondering why it isn't just "late antiquity's poverty of ideas" Edwininlondon (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Hower -> However you mean?
-
-
-
-
Ah, I see. I changed it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
@Edwininlondon: I appreciate your useful comments. Here are my changes; do tell me what you think!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So far so good. A bit more:
-
a late-fourth- and early-fifth-century noblewoman and the granddaughter of Faltonia Betitia Proba -> I would put the most notable fact first, which I assume is her being the granddaughter.
-
I've re-arranged this entire section.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Regarding the second point, --> bit of a strain for the reader to figure out what the first, second, etc. points were since they are not labelled and it even seems the third and fourth are inconveniently made in one sentence
-
Ditto.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
the reference to the 387 debate about Easter could have referred to an earlier dispute -> is the argument that the reference to the debate about Easter could have been to a debate before 387? That's not what it currently says. It currently says there is a reference to the 387 debate, taking that as fact.
-
Ditto.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
As for the third point -> I don't see how this is a counterargument. Or is it not meant to be a counterargument?
-
Ditto.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
AD 351 -> inconsistent with the 387 a few lines earlier
-
Ditto.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Cullhed notes that the works "position in the -> not sure if grammar is correct here. For instance do you mean work's?
-
Ditto.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
9780891304814 and the other ISBNs in Further reading should have hypens
-
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Leiden, Netherlands -> the Netherlands
-
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Ziolkowski ref should be moved to the end
-
Oops! Good catch.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that I miss is the textual history. In Astronomica you have a whole section about it, but here there isn't anything at all. Is there nothing to be said? Surely there is some copy of a copy written by some monk 100s of years ago... :) Edwininlondon (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Thanks for the additional comments. I'll try to respond to/fix them in the coming days. In regards to the textual history, I would have to look at the sources again, but I think the issue is there really isn't anything interesting to consider. This work is preserved in a way that something like the Astronomica isn't. And since it's made up entirely of stuff borrowed from Vergil, even minor mistakes would be easy to fix. But I'll try to find something.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
@Edwininlondon: Here are the I have made. Do tell me what you think. In regards to the textual history, I'm not finding a whole lot.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
Here are some additional copy-edits as well.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|