Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corinna/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2022 [1].

Corinna

edit
Nominator(s): Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corinna is, after Sappho, the ancient Greek woman poet with the most surviving fragments, so we know almost nothing about her, rather than absolutely nothing. Three fairly substantial fragments of her poetry survive, and her works preserve versions of Greek myths not otherwise attested. Despite this, the main scholarly interest in Corinna over the past century has been the surprisingly contentious debate about when she actually lived – despite this being the one fact about her life which is unanimously agreed upon by the ancient sources!

I brought Corinna up to GA back in 2019; this year I submitted it for peer review and got helpful comments from Mujinga, SusunW, Kaiser matias, and Tim riley. As far as I can tell, I have read nearly every piece of English-language scholarship about Corinna written in the past century, and I think the article is now ready to be examined at FAC. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

image review

  • File:Frederic_Leighton_-_Corinna_of_Tanagra.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Statue_of_Corinna_(Revue_archéologique_1898_32,V).jpg
  • File:Stückelberg_Myrthis_und_Corinna_beim_Töpfer_Agathon_1897.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:"CORINNA_(THE_LYRIC_MUSE)"_"WILLIAM_BRODIE"_from_-Sculptures_of_Andromeda,_the_Toilet_of_Atalanta,_Corinna,_and_a_Naiad-_MET_DP323119_(cropped).jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sculpture was by William Brodie, who died in 1881 (and it was published no later than 1859, when the photograph in question was published); I've added PD-old-auto-expired to this image which I believe is the correct tag? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing some further research, if I do have to remove the Stuckelberg and Compiègne images, there's this Blake drawing, but it's also missing a US public domain tag. It's likely that either PD-US-expired or PD-1996 apply, but I haven't yet been able to demonstrate either. There's also this, which doesn't have a tag for the artwork but I think ought to be PD-old-auto-expired – it's in a public place and both the artists who painted it died before 1927. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I've managed to find a 1901 publication with an illustration of the Stückelberg painting! That one is safe, I think. I think the only remaining question is about the Compiègne statuette photo – I have not been able to track down any evidence that Michel Berthaud rather than one of his brothers was the photographer, and the uploader is now inactive and has not responded to my talkpage enquiry. I have replaced the Commons:Template:PD-old-auto-expired with Commons:Template:PD-old-assumed-expired. I hope this is sufficient, but I can't find any discussion about the use of this template on en.wiki; if this is not an acceptable license here then unfortunately I think the photo will have to be removed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

edit

Support from Tim riley

edit

I had my say at the peer review, and I'm not going to make a song and dance about the spellings "romanized" and "archeologists" (I understand the reason for the former, and the latter has the merit of being one letter shorter than the spelling I favour.) "Set forth" strikes a slightly archaic note, but that's hardly a bad thing in an article on an archaic subject. The only thing I knew about Corinna was the line about not sowing with the whole sack – still good advice for all of us – and I have much enjoyed meeting her again here. I can't begin to judge the content or the comprehensiveness of the article, beyond recording that to my eye it looks authoritative, and it is clearly well and widely sourced. Splendid illustrations, and highly readable prose. As far as I can see it meets the FA criteria in every respect, and I am happy to support its elevation to FA. – Tim riley talk 20:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks again for your useful comments at peer review, Tim! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias

edit

I did go through pretty thoroughly during the Peer Review, but I'll give it another read in the next day or so, see if anything else should be edited. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Went through it again and nothing stands out to stop me from supporting it here. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aiship

edit
  • Should papyrus be linked at all?
  • "mythological innovations which are often unique to Corinna" seems awkward. "often-unique mythological innovations" or something?
  • Note C has just Suda, whereas all other uses include the article: the Suda. Any reason?
  • "now in the collection of the Berlin State Museums" is repeated, albeit once is in a note.

That's pretty much it. Well done.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Changed the easy things ("Suda" without the article is a dated use an should probably be avoided; linked papyri in the lead). I agree that "mythological innovations which are often unique to Corinna" is clunky, but I'm not sure "often unique mythological innovations " is any better; I shall think on it further. The discussion of the papyri could probably be rewritten to avoid the repetition – I will work something up. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: I've had a go at rewriting the two points you raised – how does it look now? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Nothing to stop me from a support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • A minor suggestion which can be ignored: I would link the publishers as I generally find it to be helpful.
  • Does MA in Cambridge, MA refer to Massachusetts? If so, I would write out the full form. People not familiar with the city/state might not know the abbreviation.

Otherwise sources are of appropriate quality and formatted correctly/consistently. Spot-checks not included. Version reviewed. FrB.TG (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I've expanded "MA" to Massachusetts, wikilinked the publishers and made a slight tweak for more consistent ISBN formatting. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Gog. These were two minor "concerns", one of which was optional so it was almost a pass at the time. Anyway, good to go from my end. FrB.TG (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Corinna/archive1&oldid=1107802904"