Talk:Saturnalia/GA2

GA Review

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

Resuming (with fresh nominator) after 3-year interval ... Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Sources

One immediate comment: there should be a list of sources, rather than having "Versnel, Saturnus and the Saturnalia" both defined in and scattered among the references. It would be far tidier to place the full citation in a list of Sources and then simply say "Versnel, p. 123" as necessary. Other references that need the same treatment include Beard's Religions of Rome, Dolansky's Celebrating the Saturnalia, Mueller's Saturn in Oxford Encyclopedia..., and Palmer's Rome and Carthage. Possibly others. The Classical Tradition is only cited once (why?) but probably belongs down there too. By the way, these reference-to-bibliography links should be automated with the Harvard mechanism so readers can just click on them to see the source.Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That's almost done, but the Beard|North|Price refs have a mismatch between 1998 and 2004.

The mismatch was the result of a difference between the original publication date and the date of the edition cited in the article. I have corrected the error. Also, I thought I would note that I converted the citation for The Classical Tradition to a regular old citation, since the article in the book cited here is only one page, which means that all the instances where it is cited have the same page number, which means there is really no point in converting it to a Harvard-style citation. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I have converted all citations to Mueller and Palmer to Harvard citations. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if it wouldn't also be helpful to the reader to make a list of the classical sources, preferably with links to translations (on Archive.com etc). Should be simple to do.

I have added a section as you have suggested in the bibliography. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

We need to standardise on one way of writing names, either Bloggs, John F. (generally the best choice), or John F. Bloggs.

I have standardized the order of names so that it is "last name, first name" in all instances, which is what the majority of the occurrences were to start with. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding authorlinks for all classical authors cited in the references, e.g. multiple instances of Horace, Martial, Statius etc. Not sure who "Horaces" is, either!

I corrected this earlier while I was dealing with the "Links" section. "Horaces" was clearly a typo for "Horace," as there is no such Roman author named "Horaces." In any case, it has now been corrected. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Other ancient interpretations:

If perceived relations among Mithraic mysteries, 25 Dec and Christian nativity are long debated, the matter needs urgently to be properly cited, and at least a paragraph (maybe a section) needs to be devoted to summarizing the main theories in that debate, i.e. what do different scholars believe are the likely relationships between these 3 things, and briefly what evidence do they have for their views?

I think the Mithraic / Nativity / Sol Invictus discussion is misplaced, and should be moved to the Influence section, to be expanded there. Whether that means separate sections I'll leave to you: if they're heavily intertwined, perhaps a table or diagram would be best to give some kind of structure to and overview of the presumed relationships.

There is already an extensive discussion of the relationship between the Saturnalia, the birthdate of Sol Invictus, and Christmas in the second paragraph of the "Influence" section. I have removed the statement from the "Theological views" section, which is misplaced and rather misleading. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

A bit surprised by that response. Now Mithraism is reduced to half a sentence in 'Roman', implying that S and M were parallel or that one influenced the other, and leaving out whether C was influenced by M rather than S, which is certainly a possibility. Why are we sure this cut-down version bottoms out the discussion rather than leaving it wider open than it was before?

I do not entirely follow what you are trying to say. Does "S" stand for "Saturnalia" or "Sol Invictus"? Does "C" stand for "Christmas" or "Christianity"? The Mithraic cult did not have a holiday in December that we know of, but the cult of Sol Invictus did, which is mentioned in the paragraph I refer to above. The mention of the Mithraic cult in the "Roman" section is discussing the possibility that they may have interpreted the Roman holiday of Saturnalia in a similar fashion to Porphyry. I am not sure how this mention of the Mithraic cult could have anything to do with Saturnalia's possible influence on Christmas. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Influence on Christmas:

if there are many mediaeval and modern customs deriving from the Saturnalia, you must give examples of each (and I think their approximate dates) to show the general nature of that influence. Of all the sections in the article, this one seems most clearly to be "lightweight", giving the feeling that major aspects have not been covered adequately. For example, why do you name just these scholars? Are they opposed - are there scholars who think the opposite, and if so, what evidence is there for the various opinions?

The section should be renamed "Influence on Christmas", as it seems that the "great numbers" of both medieval and modern customs relate to this one festival; if not, more explanation is needed of the other unnamed festivals.

No, because it also influenced the celebrations of other holidays, such as the Feast of the Holy Innocents and Epiphany, which were all just as widely celebrated historically as Christmas; it is only in recent times that Christmas has come to supersede all the surrounding holidays. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but in that case Epiphany needs to be mentioned and cited in the section: currently it's only in the lead; and the mention of the FotHI needs a sentence or two to say that it too is influenced, and it needs to be taken out of its parentheses.

Technically Epiphany was already mentioned in the section because the caption of the second image mentions the Twelfth Night, which is a different name for the same holiday, but I have added mention of both to the main body paragraph, as well as a citation. The influence of Saturnalia on the Feast of the Holy Innocents is already mentioned in the context of the medieval boy bishops. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added more information about the boy bishops on the Feast of the Holy Innocents. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Is Christmas really associated with gambling?

It is not usually associated with gambling here in the United States, but the article from the BBC seems to state that it is associated with gambling in Britain, so I am going to stick with the source and assume it is accurate. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard it said over here in Britain, and the BBC doesn't actually say so, it just says that the S. was. Better remove it, or find a source which supports the claim.

I have now removed the mention of gambling in association with Christmas. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: I found another source saying that Christmas was associated with gambling during the Middle Ages and have added mention of this to the article, as well as some other information gathered from the same source. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Links

Why are Livy, Macrobius and Suetonius linked in the refs, but not Catullus, Virgil, Statius or Horace? And please spell Vergil as Virgil.

They are all linked at the first place where they are mentioned. I checked this last night before I nominated the article. Nonetheless, I have gone through and wikilinked their names when they first appear in the references also. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

My view is that all mentions in refs should be authorlinked as they're separate items and in any case tend to get moved around with time (as we've just discovered).

Better wikilink Martial (the writer).

Provide a main link to Sigillaria at head of that section.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

best-known of several festivals ... role reversals: can we have a further link to an account or list of the relevant Roman festivals? There may be sections in that or other articles worth linking to here.

I went back to the source and added information about the related and similar festivals to the "Origins" section, where I think the information is more appropriate. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Book of Christmastime is linked a couple of times in support of dubious (as in incorrect) claims about the links between Saturnalia and Christmas. These are contradicted by scholarly sources referred to in the Wikipedia article on Christmas. The Book of Christmastime is a gift-book compendium, not a reputable source. I propose deleting these links and aligning the text to the other Wikipedia articles.Martin Turner (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Layout

"Saturnalia as a whole is not described from beginning to end in any single ancient source." The comment could describe the article, which lacks unity. The material in each section looks not unreasonable at first glance, but standing back and looking at the list of sections as a whole, the effect is confusing and disconcerting.

For example, why is 'Historical context' in the middle of the article? Why does it have just one subsection?

Why does the 'Influence on Christmas' section say nothing about what that influence was, save perhaps the giving of gifts?

In short, it all looks a bit random. The article needs a simple, logical structure. I wouldn't want to impose my personal view of what that should be, but it might have a 'Historical context' section first, followed by a description of the 'Festivities', public and private, followed by a discussion of the disputed 'Interpretations' or 'Viewpoints', with a subsection for each alternative view. Finally it should have a section on the Saturnalia's 'Influence', which may well include other festivals as well as Christmas (the lead mentions New Year, for instance), and one might wonder if the Celtic midwinter festival was related, too. I am not sure whether a major rewrite is required - some material may need reshaping - but a reorganisation of the material is definitely necessary.

Possible human sacrifice

Why is a section obscurely entitled 'Munera' (a term that isn't even bluelinked)? Why does that section take Frazer's Golden Bough as an authority? It's certainly a doubtful source of opinion: the article rightly says "Frazer surmises..." but fails to follow this up with a rebuttal of any kind. For that matter, why should we rely on the Acts of Saint Dasius, and why is this minor event given such weight in the article? It's undue, or worse, original research. Certainly it isn't clear from the text how far scholars today believe the interpretation.

Well, "Possible human sacrifice" is certainly a better section title. I'm still doubtful about the weight given to the topic, and to Frazer. Since there is "no evidence of this practice during the Republic" we really shouldn't be saying much about it at all here; and Frazer's stuff is "not attested before the Imperial period" so it's no better. I think it all needs to be cut down, with the flakier bits consigned to footnotes or the dustbin.

I have removed the entire paragraph dealing with Frazer's interpretation. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

"Another of his consorts was Lua": no other consorts have been mentioned.

Another consort is mentioned in a later section; I assume that that section must have originally come before this one, before I reorganized the article. In any case, I have now removed the word "another" and replaced it with the word "one." --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Why is the Catullus quote placed in the lead?

Why is the Greek Kronia mentioned and cited in the lead, but not in the body, and why is it then repeated in the See also list?

Why is Sol Invictus mainly mentioned and cited in the lead?

The lead needs to summarize the body, mentioning and summarizing each of the major sections, such as private festivities and theological and philosophical views.

I have expanded the lead with more information summarized from the "Private festivities" and "Theological and Philosophical views" sections. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Images

Caption for Temple of Saturn: please say this is in Rome, and give its date.

Caption for Calendar of Philocalus: give source and date.

Ave Caesar! Io, Saturnalia!: please rewrite the caption to explain why this image is relevant, and preferably refer to it in the text. At the moment, barring the name of the painting, it's quite obscure. What is the painting really about? The still more obscure explanation in the reference is not sufficient.

Well?

I have revised the caption to make the image's relevance more apparent. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Saturn driving a chariot: please rewrite the caption to explain why this image is relevant, and refer to the image or elements of it in the text.

Still not sure that it relates to Saturnalia rather than Saturn.

I thought the original caption was sufficient, since it describes ideas associated with the Saturnalia, but I have now tweaked the caption in effort to spell this out more clearly. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion

@Chiswick Chap: I believe I have now addressed all of the criticisms you have brought up so far. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

There have been many changes to the article since the GA process began, which I will check now. I shall fix the image formatting, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio check: Earwig flags up https://aratta.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/enlilhaya-ninlilnisaba-saturnjanus-ops-cronus-rhea-njord-njorun/ and aamorris.net/saturn-the-god-of-government as copyvios but it is likely that aratta copied from Wikipedia, and aamorris states that it did so. A direct comparison of the 2015 revision with aratta gives an exact match with the whole of the then article's lead section and one other chunk of the article, implying these were lifted into the aratta blog at that time.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead: ok; layout: ok; weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Cleared by review above.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	See comment above.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article has been substantially improved since GA1, with sharper focus, removal of original research, and better organised citations. It now offers a concise, readable and well-cited overview of a complex subject, and I am happy to award it GA status. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)