Talk:Angelus Silesius/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 11:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an article I just had to review, so I've signed up. Pyrotec (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

Sorry for the delay, I intended to take just one day off for the weekend and that has caused various "ripples". I'm now back in reviewing mode. Pyrotec (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I've done a quick initial read of the article and it appears to be at or about GA-level so I would anticipate that it should make GA-status by the end of this review (baring any mishaps. I'm now going to review the article in more depth, starting at Life, working my way to the end and then going back to do the WP:Lead. I may fix minor problems as a go, rather than listing them for the nominator, if this is easier. The tool box is showing four disambiguation links, at: Phenomenology, Borowice, Kabbala and Moravian, but everything else looks OK at this point. Pyrotec (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Took care of disambiguation on 3 of 4(all 4)...they now go to Phenomenology of religion, Kabbalah, and Moravian Church. As for Borowice, I'm not entirely certain just yet, but I think it's Borowice, Lower Silesian Voivodeship given its proximity to Breslau/Wroclaw. Will check a.s.a.p.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• After checking my sources, I'm certain. 4/4. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Life -
  • Early life and education -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - The following three sentences could benefit from a copy edit: Silesius was born in December 1624 in Breslau, the capital of Silesia. His exact birthdate is unknown but it is thought to be in December 1624 as the earliest mention of him is the registration of his baptism on Christmas Day 1624, as the first sentence is definite in terms of place and date, the second less so in respect of date and the third is an explanation of date.

• Revised.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it reads much better now. Pyrotec (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - It would be helpful to clarify "Imperial court", at the end of the first paragraph. From its context, I would assume that its the Polish court (at the time of Sigismund III Vasa), rather than the Habsburg Empire.

• It was the Habsburgs. Revised and Linked.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Otherwise, OK.

• • Physician , Priest and poet & Death -

• These three subsections look OK.

• Importance -

...stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Interpretation of his work & Use in hymns -

• These two subsections look OK.

• • Silesius in modern culture -

• I considered this subsection separately as it has a number of direct quotations.
• The "Borges", is still likely to be within copyright, but as its a single sentence, that appears to me to be "fair usage".

• I just read a great Spanish journal article about Borges and German Literature that discussed a lot of particulars on how Silesius's work influenced Borges (as well as other Germans literary greats). I would have to translate this in English to incorporate a few more points and know the best gems to cite (down the line, though...it probably would take me two weeks to translate all of it). I agree...one sentence from Borges' Siete Noches would pass the "fair use" test and not run afoul of 17 USC 512, Berne Convention, etc.. This would qualify under that academic/critical review exemption. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - It's not clear what words were used in Cape Fear, as the table is titled "Original German text" and "English translation". Wikipeida states that the film's language was English, so perhaps the titles should be "Original German text" and "English translation used in film"?

• Good idea. Will take care of that forthwith.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• This should both introduce the topic and summarise the main points of the article (the requirements are in WP:Lead. Arguably, the lead does carry out both of these functions and its probably about the right "length" for an article of this size.
• I looked to see if anything was "obviously" missing from the lead and did not come up with very much: "publicly attacked and denounced as a heretic" does not appear in summarised form, neither does his second honorary position as as Imperial Court Physician, but the lead does describe him as a physician. So, on this basis I'm not going to put the review On Hold for this to be "fixed". Pyrotec (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA status. Congratulations on producing an informative and well referenced article. Pyrotec (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Removed.

I would be all for leaving it removed since the pronunciation seems obvious to me (cf. NOTADICTIONARY), but it must be hard for some since the IPA the article had is (per the OED on "Silesian" or per Classical or Ecclesiastical Latin) wrong. The article had {{IPAc-en|ˈ|æ|n|dʒ|ə|l|ə|s|_|s|aɪ|ˈ|l|iː|ʒ|ə|s}} but OED would replace the ʒ with a ʃ. The very uncommon word "angelus" has a pronunciation identical to that given here and I'd use it since I'm comfortable with English dog Latin, but "angel" /ˈeɪndʒəl/ is much more common. Frankly, if people "mispronounce" the name that way, I don't see why we should tell them that's wrong, given that neither way matches the German or Latin pronunciation anyway.

If the OED is wrong and people really do want to reädd it, kindly provide a source before doing so. — LlywelynII 22:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)