Talk:Andromeda (mythology)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Michael Aurel (talk · contribs) 15:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    Generally clear prose, and understandable. Only a few places where I have issues with clarity or phrasing; I will post a couple of minor suggestions below shortly.
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    No issues from what I can tell.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    No original research. However, some of the cites to ancient sources seem to be incorrect: at a glance, the Apollodorus cites (2.35-44 and 2.45-59!) are clearly not correct, or otherwise are following some kind of system which I am unfamiliar with, and is different to the standard, and Catasterismi 1.17 is presumably Catasterismi 17 (the chapter on Andromeda). The others I've checked so far seem to be correct. I will go through and check all of them shortly. (As an added note, while this isn't required by the GA criteria, the article would benefit significantly from having the cites to ancient sources linked to translations of the works. This allows readers to easily see where the information is coming from, otherwise sending them on a Google search; at the same time, it would hopefully solve the issue I've raised here. If you're alright with this change, I would be happy to add such links myself. The addition of modern scholarly sources on Greek mythology would also be an improvement.)
    I believe this has been addressed below.
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    Overall, no major issues. However, there seem to be several quotes from ancient sources which aren't sourced to a specific translation. While links are not a requirement for citing ancient sources, we should be specifying the translation we are using if we are quoting one.
    I believe this is now fixed.
    Yes, just see my comment below on how we are citing such sources. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    c. (OR):
    No original research. Claims are cited.
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    No copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    I think the only area not covered is representations of Andromeda in ancient Greek and Roman art. While there is quite sufficient discussion of Andromeda in art, this starts in the Middle ages. I think a discussion of depictions of Andromeda in ancient Greek and Roman art (as displayed by pictures in the article) is deserving of a section. Other than this, the article addresses all of the main aspects of the topic.
    Added.
    I think there is certainly potential for the expansion of such a section (for example, see Timothy Gantz's Early Greek Myth pp. 308–9). However, the section added is sufficient for our purposes here I think. – Michael Aurel (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    b. (focused):
    I think for the most part this is satisfied. However, I do think the article is a little too detailed on some points, particularly in the "In music and opera" section. I will provide specific examples of what I mean below shortly.
    I've trimmed that section a bit. Most of the cited claims are actually very brief.
    My only quibbles with that section were:
    • I don't think Louis Antoine Lefebvre's cantata is notable enough for mention here. The composer doesn't have an article on the English Wikipedia, and the source cited is the sheet music for the piece, and doesn't suggest any kind of significance to Andromeda or how she has been represented over time.
    • Removed.
    • Similarly, Guillaume Lekeu and Jose Antonio Bottiroli seem to be reasonably minor composers, and in one case there is no source given and in the other case the source is sheet music. Overall, I don't think that just because a piece of music exists which is named after Andromeda, that it deserves mention here.
    • Removed.
    Other than that I don't think there are any issues with the section. – Michael Aurel (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    I cannot see any issues.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    One disagreement on the talk page. No edit warring or conflict of any concern. The article is stable.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    No issues.
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Overall, the images are generally relevant. Captions are descriptive, and contain relevant information such as dates. My only comment is that the image of the amphora depicting Cadmus does not seem necessary, considering there is only one seven word phrase on the topic in the article's body.
    The image is being used as a clear instance of the several myths which bear a resemblance to that of Andromeda, i.e. it directly illustrates Cadmus but is present to give form to all the somewhat similar myths (as listed in the first row of the Timeline table).
    Sure, that's fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Prose[edit]

Suggestions, mostly quite minor:

  • First sentence: ... is the daughter of the king of Aethiopia, Cepheus, and his wife, Cassiopeia to ... is the daughter of Cepheus, the king of Aethiopia, and his wife Cepheus
  • Reordered. Guess you mean "wife, Cassiopeia", however!
  • killing Argos' king, his grandfather, Acrisius to killing his grandfather Acrisius, the king of Argos
  • Done.
  • sonnet]Andromeda: typo
  • Fixed.
  • surviving only in fragments to which survives only in fragments
  • Done.
  • alongside the Italian painter Giacomo Torelli's stage scenery to alongside stage scenery by the Italian painter Giacomo Torelli
  • Done.
  • the year that theatre to the year the theatre
  • Done.
  • In Greek Anthology to In the Greek Anthology
  • Done.
  • The scholar of literature Harold Knutson describes the story as having a "disturbing sensuality", which together with the evident injustice of Andromeda's "undeserved sacrifice, create a curiously ambiguous effect". This sentence doesn't seem particularly clear: what exactly does a curiously ambiguous effect mean, and how is this significant?
  • Sexy and treated unfairly: I can hear some modern themes there, surely plain enough. I don't think we should double-guess what the scholars are saying, however. The quoted remark from Knutson at the end of the same paragraph on "the ambiguous male view of the eternal female principle" seems to me to round the opinion off quite coherently.
  • Alright, that's fine. I agree that quoting Knutson is better than trying to interpret what he means. – Michael Aurel (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The slashes in the quotes from ancient sources are, I assume, indications of line breaks, and don't need to be here.
  • Removed.

– Michael Aurel (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • seven sons: no longer
  • Fixed.
  • (Hercules in Roman mythology): don't think we need this, the discussion is of figures in Greek mythology
  • Removed.
  • (who, according to folk etymology, is the ancestor of the Persians): this is not mentioned by either of the cited sources, and I don't think we need to mention this here
  • Removed.
  • The primary classical sources have: the only author to mention the use of the sword explicitly is Ovid. Apollodorus has "slew", but it is not entirely clear as to what this entails. I am considering how we should be presenting these different versions, and whether the current structure is the best, but for now I think maybe change it to Ovid, in contrast, has? (something to this effect).
  • Done.
  • to make sacrifices to: don't think this should be italicised
  • Not italics.

– Michael Aurel (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Aurel - these are all done now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

  • I don't think the GA criteria necessarily requires this, but I think at least a generally consistent citation style for ancient sources should be followed, e.g.: Author, Work 1.1.1.
  • Noted both parts of that, and I agree; it's an area where I'd be happy to accept any help. Fixed several.
  • Unlinked.
  • Theoi.com is not a reliable source. I don't think we should be linking it in the "Sources" section.
  • Removed.
  • I mentioned this above, but what translations are the quotes from the Heroides and the Ars Amatoria coming from? These should be cited. The Philostratus quote as well.
  • Heroides: replaced version and cited.
  • Ars Amatoria: cited.
  • Philostratus: cited.
  • Refs 60 & 75: "Metamorphoses" should be italicised.
  • Done.
  • Source is missing behind Pomponius Mela in the "Ethnicity" section.
  • Added.
  • Apollodorus, 2.4.5 lists the following children of Perseus and Andromeda: Perses, Alcaeus, Sthenelus, Heleus, Mestor, Electryon, and Gorgophone. Pausanias, 3.2.2 calls Cynurus a son of Perseus. I cannot find a source for Autochthe being their child. We need to be careful, as by mentioning all of these children in a row, it comes across as though the sources cited list all of these children (when they come from different accounts). I would suggest removing Autochthe, unless a source can be found, and either removing Cynurus, or reworking the sentence, so that it doesn't seem that we are saying he is their child in Apollodorus' account. – Michael Aurel (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • typically as derived from Ovid's Metamorphoses (4.663ff): this is cited in the article's body, and doesn't need to be here in the lead
  • Fixed.
  • Lucian cite: the quote is overly large. I've added a link to the Loeb translation, and I don't think we need the quote anymore.
  • Removed quote from ref.
  • Marcus Manilius, Astronomica, 5.538-634: seems an odd place to end this cite, I would suggest Marcus Manilius, Astronomica, 5.538–618
  • Done.
  • Ref 62: Book 1 of Ovid's Metamorphoses only has around around 780 lines. I haven't found the correct location with a brief look.
  • Removed, it's not essential.
  • Noted.
  • The way I tend to deal with ancient sources is by citing them, for example, as "Apollodorus, 2.4.3–5", and then adding a bibliographic entry below, e.g.:
  • Apollodorus, Apollodorus, The Library, with an English Translation by Sir James George Frazer, F.B.A., F.R.S. in 2 Volumes, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd., 1921. ISBN 0-674-99135-4. Online version at the Perseus Digital Library.
This page doesn't seem to have a full list of references though, so I'm not sure how you want to cite the translations of ancient works (whatever your preference is), but I do think they should be cited in some form. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've no preferred style here. I agree it'd be nicer to define the sources a little more fully, and am happy to do that your way. It'll be fine if you want to add these (I'm off to bed now) or if they're listed here I can add them tomorrow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sounds good. I'll add a list below. I think doing this should mean that the "Full text, translations, and background" and "Primary Greek and Roman sources" parts of the "Sources" section aren't necessary. And maybe the books by Hartland and Odgen could be moved to a "Further reading" section, or something of that nature, since they aren't actually cited. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Layout & Other[edit]

  • The short description uses "Ethiopian", whereas the rest of the article uses "Aethiopia" and "Aethiopians".
  • Fixed.
  • Is "In constellations" the best section title? I think "Constellation" or "Constellations" might be more appropriate.
  • Fixed.
  • Consider moving the first paragraph of the "Classical mythology" section to its own section, something such as "Etymology" or "Name". This is almost always treated in a separate section in Greek mythology articles.
  • Done.

General Comments[edit]

This is from an initial read through. Overall, none of these issues are particularly major. I will add a few comments as I reread parts of the article, and look at the sourcing in some more depth. Thanks for rewriting an article which used to be quite a mess. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, I have few to no issues with most of the article from the "Constellations" section onwards.

  • Noted.

However, as I've looked into the sourcing for the "Classical mythology" section, I think it still needs some work. Current issues I can see are that in the "Central story" section, there is no delineation between different sources, and it is not clear what is coming from where.

  • This is quite usual in Good Articles.
  • The issue is particular to the subject matter (i.e., Greek mythology). I will see if I can illustrate what I mean. For example, on the topic of children, Gantz, p. 311, a modern scholarly source on Greek mythology, discusses the different children given in several different sources. While it is probably not appropriate for our article to discuss the topic with the same level of detail, the issue with how we present the matter here is we state that "Perseus and Andromeda have x children", as though this is the way it *is*, when this is just one account of their children. When I say, "it is not clear what is coming from where", I mean that we need to instead have something to the effect of (in this instance) "According to the mythographer Apollodorus, Perseus and Andromeda have x children". Additionally, because we cite both Ovid and Apollodorus at the end of the paragraph, it comes across as though these children are given by both authors, when it is only Apollodorus. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added "Apollodorus states that" to disambiguate the claim. Agree that we needn't go into detail here.

In addition to the issue regarding Andromeda's children (above), the article states that Athena/Minerva places Perseus and Andromeda's parents in the sky as constellations as well, but neither of the cited sources support this.

  • I've added back the mention of Andromeda being added among the constellations – to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that we remove it altogether, but just the part that didn't seem to come from either of the sources cited. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks.

Secondary sources are also needed for statements such as [Conan] seeks to rationalize the myth ...

  • Removed (just said "[Conon] makes..."), i.e. purely descriptive, a proper use of the primary source.

... and for Tzetzes' version, for which no English translation exists.

  • There is no GA requirement on the language of sources. The sentence about Tzetzes is a plain summary of the text, for which the primary source is sufficient.
  • You're right that a modern scholarly source (or English source) isn't required in such a situation, just preferred. I've checked a few sources, which refer to an account of the story there, and opted for a link to the Greek text, which is enough. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As this section seems to not be too different to how it was before you started editing the article, I'm assuming that your work was mostly on the sections which follow it. I suppose I could to try to properly source the section myself, but I don't want to mess up a pre-existing citation style, and the requirement to review an article is that you have "not contributed significantly to the article", which I would have by that point. Thoughts? – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Michael Aurel: Noted, that's right. Of course if you know of sources you can cite them here and I can pop them into the article. But I think we've now fixed the issues.

Later part of article[edit]

A few minor points on the later parts of the article:

  • judging the poem's style to be "unfamiliar to most modern audiences", the cartoonist Matt Lawrence was commissioned in 2015 to create a set of cartoons to tell the poem's story. I don't think that this is worthy of mention: the cartoonist is not notable enough to have an article, and this doesn't seem to be particularly significant to Andromeda or how she has been represented over time.
  • Removed.
  • Lemoyne seems to be mentioned in the table, but not in the article's body, and there doesn't seem to be a picture from him.
  • Removed.
  • The play, a pièce à machines, presented to King Louis XIV of France and performed by the Comédiens du Roi, the royal troupe, met with enormous and lasting success, continuing in production until 1660, to Corneille's surprise. Should this be The play, a pièce à machines, presented to King Louis XIV of France and performed by the Comédiens du Roi, the royal troupe, *was* met with enormous and lasting success, continuing in production until 1660, to Corneille's surprise. ?
  • Edited.
  • Other classical works have taken a variety of forms including Andromeda Liberata (1726), a pasticcio-serenata on the subject of Perseus freeing Andromeda, by a team of composers including Vivaldi; Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf's Symphony in F (Perseus' Rescue of Andromeda) and Symphony in D (The Petrification of Phineus and his Friends), Nos. 4 and 5 of his Symphonies after Ovid's Metamorphoses (c. 1781). Maybe switch the semicolon for an "and"?
  • Done.
  • I think it makes most sense to remove the sheet music for the Lefebvre cantata, since it isn't mentioned in the article's body anymore, if you'd like to keep it it's fine though.
  • Done.

Otherwise well written, no issues beyond the above.

– Michael Aurel (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Chiswick Chap: Ok, I've just checked the sourcing for the mythology section again, and yes, I think for the purposes of the GA criteria, that section is now fine. I'll still go through and make a couple of changes after this, but, for now, I have no issues with making this a Good Article. It is heartening to see that an article which previously sported one of the worst "Popular culture" sections out there can be turned into something well written and properly sourced. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the kind words, and the constructive review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andromeda_(mythology)/GA1&oldid=1159279473"