Talk:Adam Parry/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 09:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 10:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 02:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this - seems generally in my wheelhouse. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking it on: looking forward to your review. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

This article is so good my suggestions might seem quite nitpicky; feel free to ignore it.

Lead looks good to me.
Random thought; if the Harvard School is notable, wouldn't Virgilian scholarship in general be notable too? If so, you may want to redlink it.
- Yes, I suppose it would, though my instinct would be to wait on this one: it's a concept rather than a concrete thing, so the link doesn't seem to be "missing" as it would on (say) a person's name. One option would be to create a redirect to a suitable section of Virgil, but we only currently have one on "Reception" rather than scholarship per se. It would also be the fourth redlink in the lead, which I think might be a bit much! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The body is somewhat inconsistent with linking cities; I understand not linking Paris, but if you're linking Seattle, you might as well link Milwaukee too.
- I agree; done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What did John Huston Finley Jr. and Cedric Whitman teach? Might be worth briefly noting.
- They were classicists; added. This is actually more useful than it might appear, since John Huston Finley Sr. was a scholar of politics. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"viva" seems obscure enough it might be less ambiguous to just say "oral examination"
- Not sure about this: "viva" is the specific term for the oral examination on a doctoral thesis that ultimately decides whether it passes or progresses: if we say "oral exam", that makes it sound like just one component (perhaps alongside a written exam?). It's a pretty common term in the business, and it is linked. I've added "oral examination" in brackets so that we keep the "full" term while also providing a gloss. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Clausen, Moore, and Gould are all also classicists? Might be good to say "fellow classicists" so readers know these arent just three random blokes
- They were, of various stripes: added. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Morse fellowship - is there anything you can link here? It might be just to just say "a fellowship"
- Only from OR: looking around on Google Books, it's pretty clear that this is a one-year grant given to junior faculty in the Humanities to get on with some research, but I can only find that by cross-comparing all the different book acknowledgements that thank Yale for giving one to the author. I'd rather not write "a Morse fellowship (a fellowship)" or something equally repetitive, but not sure I can do any better with a source. Frustratingly, Yale has two other Morse fellowships (this one and this one), but neither were around in Parry's day. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably good to wikilink Ajax the Great on "Parry played Ajax himself"
- Absolutely; done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assessment and legacy is very solid.
Personal life also very solid

Coverage seems pretty much comprehensive but not overly detailed. It seems neutral and stable. Images are correctly licensed and have alt-text.

Source review

Sources are consistently formatted, with good use of SFNs.

Spot check follows...

Everything in Kirk 1972 (cites 2, 3, 19, 20, and 49) checks out.
I'm a bit unsure if Havelock 2010 is truly 2010, since it's fundamentally the same book as 1975, just scanned and published online. We don't use the date JSTOR or archive.org articles were uploaded as the date when citing, do we?
- It is a 2010 republication: I don't think there was any difference in the text (it's not impossible that CUP took the opportunity to fix a typo or so), but the advantage of using the 2010 date is it that it allows you to use the 2010 ISBN, rather than a less-useful OCLC. We've got the orig-date parameter set to make clear that the text wasn't written in 2010 (after all, Havelock had been dead for two decades by that point). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, I took a random selection of the Havelock's cites (7, 16, 18, 52) and they checked out. Maybe you could mention the fact that he was a union member in personal life alongside his leftist politics?
- Yes, done. It's almost certainly the Sailors' Union of the Pacific, but I can't write that without OR. I have some minor reservations here that some blue-collar jobs in the US de facto require(d) union membership, so it's not necessarily the case that he joined for ideological reasons, but it seems a relevant enough fact to join together with the left-wing beliefs. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lloyd-Jones 1989 all checks out.

UndercoverClassicist thats my bit! Let me know when you're all ready. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: Thank you for the review: back to you. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, everything looks good to me, and you answered all the questions I had. Happy to pass! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.