Talk:Cento Vergilianus de laudibus Christi

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://home.infionline.net/~ddisse/proba.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 18:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I had put off GA reviewing this because I peer reviewed the article, but I've done all of the other GAs I was interested in, and this has been waiting around for two months now, so unless you would particularly prefer someone else to do it I'll try to get you a review soon. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

General Comments

• It might be nice to discuss the poem's place in the tradition of Christian interpretations of pagan literature, especially since Virgil was a perennial subject of this – from Constantine at least up to Dante's Divine Comedy. Did Proba specifically choose Virgil because of this? Does she conciously refer to this tradition? Is she referenced by later authors who wwork in this tradition?

  I added a paragraph in the 'background' section that expands upon Virgil. I can't really find any source that explains why she cited him exactly, but I added a bit on why he was often imitated.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• It isn't clear in the article why most scholars think that Jerome's garrula anus refers to Proba rather than anyone else. Is there any particular reason?

  I added the bit "...in which he criticized Virgilian centos..." to make it clearer that the assumption is based largely on the contents on the letter and how closely he seems to allude to the work of Proba.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've made a couple of copyediting changes to tighten up the article's prose; you might want to check to make sure you are happy with them.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so looking at the article again, it definitely passes criteria 2 (verifiable/no OR), 4 (NPOV), 5 (stability), and 6 (images). I think it's also okay on criterion 1. I'm wavering over whether it is sufficiently broad in its coverage, though. I really would like it if the article addressed how the poem fits into the tradition of Christian interpretations of pagan lit in general and Virgil in particular, as above. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'll get to work on this ASAP. (I have a few commitments the next couple of days, but I'll definitely get to it after those. Will that be an issue?)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No, that's fine. Just comment here (I'm watching this page) or write on my talkpage when you are done, and I'll have another look at it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Would the changes I've made suffice?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'll give the entire article one more read-through tomorrow to make sure, but based on the quick look I just had I suspect you are going to be the lucky recipient of another GA credit very shortly...

Okay, I've read through the article again, and nothing jumps out at me as being obviously problematic. Writing is perfectly clear and grammatical, if not always brilliant; article is well-cited, broad enough, stable, and the images are fine. I'm passing this one. Congratulations! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)