# Talk:Midnight poem

This review is transcluded from Talk:Midnight poem/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 20:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. 20:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
The lead is a little short. It should include a brief description of the poem ("It describes the speaker lying alone at night.") and mention that the poem has inspired other poets.
Expanded slightly.  Is there anything else you think is missing here? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I think it's good now. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Metre (poetry) and Aeolic verse should be linked in Poem.
Both of these are now linked. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I think the "(see Prosody (Greek)#Aeolic))" is clumsy. Why not just link it directly from hagesichorean?
I've just removed this parenthesis.  It could be linked, but I don't think it really contains anything relevant which isn't already in Aeolic verse.  If you disagree, feel free to link it, though; I'm not bothered. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
"It describes the speaker lying alone at night." This short sentence feels out of place within the paragraph. I think it would read better combined with the previous sentence, such as " The poem, which is composed ... hagesichorean, describes the speaker lying alone at night."
Sentence is now slightly longer; I've also split the paragraph before this sentence.  Can redraft if you still don't like it, but it looks better to me now. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks good to me Argento Surfer (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Wilamowitz is referred to by last name in Poem, but he's not properly introduced until Authorship. The link and full name should be at his first mention.
Fixed Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
First names for Reiner and Kovacs are not provided in the prose.
Fixed Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The sentence beginning "Other authors..." is rather long. It should be split after lover, and Tsagarakis' comment may work better as its own sentence as well.
Split into three sentences Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
"goes as follows:" - this sounds rather casual. Perhaps "reads as follows:"? See below for additional comments about the Scansion. - already fixed.
Under Authorship and Legacy, should midnight be capitalized?
I see that I capitalised "Brothers Poem", but not "Tithonus poem".  I think it should either be "midnight poem" or "Midnight Poem", and that it should be consistent, but I don't have a strong opinion as to which.  Diskin Clay doesn't capitalise it in "Fragmentum Adespotum 976".  Cuntz, Gudemir & George (2016) do, but they are not classicists and I am suspicious of pretty much everything in their paper other than the results of their calculations.  If you have a strong opinion I will do that; otherwise I shall keep it as "midnight poem" (though I note regardless of which capitalisation style the article ends up at, it currently has "Midnight poem" twice and "midnight poem" the rest of the time...) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion. I went ahead and made it uniformly midnight poem to match Clay. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry doesn't have a clear MOS for section headings, but based on the FA Ode on a Grecian Urn, I think the material in Poem and The poem in Greek could be combined into one Poem section.
fixed.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
no concern
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
no concern
C. It contains no original research: 
no concern
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
earwig is clear. AGF on print sources.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
The Scansion is presented without any context. At minimum, readers should be told what they're looking at with a link. A brief explanation of what the symbols mean would also be very helpful. - addressed
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
n/a
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
n/a
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Pass pending replies to suggestions made above. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with your comments re. the section "The poem in Greek", and have edited the article to work those into the section Midnight poem#Poem.  That section was just added this morning by a different editor, though, so hopefully they won't object to my changes.  re. scansion, I gave a brief explanation of the symbols used, and linked Aeolic verse.  "hagesichorean" could be piped to Aeolic verse#Names of basic lengths as well/instead if you think this would make things clearer. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Nice work. Passing the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)