Talk:Aratus of Sicyon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 11:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• The end of each paragraph must be cited. This is currently the most glaring issue with the article. I will add more comments later on.--Catlemur (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

All right. I'll try to correct this. ΛΕΩΝΙΔΑΣ 1206 ^Talk 12:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Does the introduction also have to be cited? ΛΕΩΝΙΔΑΣ 1206 ^Talk 12:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The introduction does not need to be cited.

Et voila: I think all of the paragraphs now have had a reference added. ΛΕΩΝΙΔΑΣ 1206 ^Talk 12:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Notes should be cited by inline citations.

Done ΛΕΩΝΙΔΑΣ 1206 ^Talk 19:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Please use ref tags to cite them the way you do in the main body of the article.

Done ΛΕΩΝΙΔΑΣ 1206 ^Talk 12:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wallbank's first name should be removed from the ref tags just as you did with the other refs.

• The article currently relies on Roberts & Bennett's work too much so it is highly recommended that you try and find another modern day source to supplement the reference list.

• Since the book's information is already mentioned in the sources section it does not have to be repeated in the inline citations, the inline citation should only include only author's family name, year it was published and page number e.g. (Roberts & Bennett, 2012, p. 16).

Done ΛΕΩΝΙΔΑΣ 1206 ^Talk 15:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Sources in the Literature section should also contain the book's ISBN and the city it was published in. You should mention the full first names of all authors so use |first1= and |first2=

Done ΛΕΩΝΙΔΑΣ 1206 ^Talk 15:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• The article uses a mix of British and American English try and stick to one for the sake of consistency.

As I am not a native speaker, that's possible. I've tried to write British English, but I must have forgotten some American words, of which I thought they were also British. I'll try to change the vocabulary so that it becomes more consistent. ΛΕΩΝΙΔΑΣ 1206 ^Talk 16:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• The tone of the article is at times unencyclopedic and there are also grammatical errors within it. So I made a request at the WP:GUILD for someone to take a look at the article since I am not a native speaker either.

I have tried to make some corrections in the article (both style and grammar). There may still be a couple of errors but normally most of them have been corrected. If you'd see that the style still isn't good enough, could you give me an example of some stylistic errors please? ΛΕΩΝΙΔΑΣ 1206 ^Talk 13:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The tone of sentences such as "This dancing round each other seemed to be leading nowhere" and "Aratus was able to solve the problems of Sicyon more or less" are too conversational, you also tend to oversuse the word however.--Catlemur (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It is true that I use 'however' too much, however;-), in Dutch this seems normal, and that's the reason I make this mistake. I will pay attention when I write another English text. I have copied the sentence 'this dancing round each other...' from my source. ΛΕΩΝΙΔΑΣ 1206 ^Talk 15:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Now I have tried to replace as much 'howevers' as possible and I used another formulation for the above sentences. ΛΕΩΝΙΔΑΣ 1206 ^Talk 16:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I made a lot of corrections but the article is really big so there is plenty of copy editing that still has to be done for it to pass the B class criteria for tone and grammar. I will give you a week to find a native speaker and resolve the remaining issues, in the meantime its placed on hold.--Catlemur (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I have been studying the life of Aratus for seven years, and I can tell you that it is an extremely complicated affair. At the same time it's also absolutely worth the effort and this is why I salute your project very positively. But for the same reason I cannot approve if you try to rush it. There are so many details still in doubt which you take for good relying on Roberts & Bennett. You should at least read Walbank's (with one l) biography. There is also a Dutch commentary: Wilhelmus Petrus THEUNISSEN, Ploutarchos' Leven van Aratos, met historisch-topographisch commentaar, Nijmegen, 1935. An older biography in German is available online: Andreas Neumeyer: Aratus aus Sikyon. Ein Charakterbild aus der Zeit des Achäischen Bundes, 2 Bände, Neustadt an der Haardt, 1885/86 [1] [2] Although outdated, this is pretty concise and therefore quite helpful to understand the main events and problems. In any case, since there are also many stylistic issues, I'd suggest to put the review on hold for a longer period. I'll keep coming back, to give it a view from time to time and add some corrections.--Lamassus (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but the link has changed. Here you get to a library that has it: [3] online. This leads to volume 2. Volume 1 is also available somewhere. Just click the name "Neumeyer, Andreas" and you find it.--Lamassus (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I have mainly used Roberts & Bennett because I think they present a very clear and book about Aratus, and according to me this suits Wikipedia the best, since it has to be accessible to most people. I agree that I may have used Walbank a bit more, but as Roberts & Bennett state that they have used it a lot in their book , I didn't really deem it necessary. ΛΕΩΝΙΔΑΣ 1206 ^Talk 15:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

"Epigenes....seem to have completely flown off the handle at his rival. And any devious scheming was reported as definitely up his street." ??? I've had a look at Bennett's book, as far as I could retrieve online, and now I understand where part of your colorful phrasing is coming from. The good side of it is that it investigates this rarely covered period. But the style is far from scientific or encyclopedic, often it is not even clear, and therefore you need to read some other source to improve on that.--Lamassus (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• The issues surrounding the article's tone and grammar have not been resolved in time, as Lamassus has pointed out there is also the question of over reliance on Roberts & Bennett. As such I am failing this article, but I am sure that it will pass with flying colors should it be resubmitted in the future.--Catlemur (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Catlemur: - just noting that I began copy editing the article earlier today, as noted on your Talk page, after accepting the request at WP:GOCE/REQ. The copy editing process is ongoing and is likely to take another couple of days. I understand that other reasons are cited for failing the GAN, but it would be a shame if grammar and tone not having being fixed in time were central to the decision. GOCE copy edit requests are accepted and undertaken as and when editors are able :) That said, maybe a repeat submission after copy editing and other changes have been completed is the best course to allow enough time all round. Regards - FiveFaintFootprints (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)