# Talk:Sappho 94

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sappho 94/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You drew me in with the FAC on the Brothers Poem, so I'm happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if the title Sappho's Confession should be in quotemarks, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Names and titles? I'm not sure.
The MoS guidance on this is currently... messy...  Long story short, I am following the same practice I have on e.g. Brothers Poem of not giving quotes because it is a conventional name rather than a title, but without much conviction. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
What's a strophe?
Changed to stanza throughout as a more common word – I have no idea why I used strophe! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to hear more about the parchment; where did they come from? Who discovered them, and when? How did they come to be at the museum? Who analysed them? How? I feel I'm missing a bit: When was this "discovered"?
I will have a dig about in my sources.  Someone must have said something about it, but my notes don't give any clues...
Could we have an appropriate wikilink for "Alexandrian"?
Linked to Library of Alexandria
"It is unknown whether the poem originally had further stanzas either before or after the surviving portion." // "The poem begins in media res, with at least one prior line missing." ??
As the section on preservation says, the first surviving stanza is known to be missing its first line.  The point is that we don't know exactly what is missing, but there must be at least one extra line at the beginning of the poem. (And more or less of 17 lines which are only partially preserved). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
What does "long to be dead" mean?
Changed to "wish to be dead". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
"a lament for Sappho's loss of her lover." To be clear: Does this mean that (Rauk believes that) Sappho and the other woman were romantically involved?
He doesn't comment on romantically, but he specifically says that the eighth stanza "can only be a description of love-making".  So sexually involved, at least. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
If you're not wikilinking the academics you're mentioning, it may be worth introducing them; "the classicist John Smith" or whatever. Assure readers that we should care what they believe!
Unfortunately, the remaining six don't have WP articles.  I suspect Greene meets WP:NPROF but I couldn't immediately find any sources to base an article off of except her own faculty webpage, and the others are even less promising.  I could say "classicist John Smith" a bunch of times, but I am reluctant to.  Of the six unwikilinked scholars, three are cited to books published in reputable academic presses (Harvard & Princeton University Presses, and Brill); three to well-known journals in the field (Arethusa, TAPA, and Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies).  I think it should be clear why their opinions are worth listening to... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I feel a wikilink to an article about homosexuality in Ancient Greece (or similar) may be useful.
Added. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
"with Wilamowitz," Full name?
Changed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
"of the male sympotic repertoire.[30] The same images are also found in the world of female ritual" I feel this needs more explanation.
I'm surprised by the repeat use of the words girl and girls. Unless you're referring to children, would woman and women not be more appropriate?
Changed this.  Scholars do universally say girl, which is where I got it from, but I was specifically trying to avoid doing so: Robbins, though he says "girl", specifically observes that there is no reason to believe that the woman is a girl! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
In the lead, you identify the poem as being about lessening the pain of separation, but, further down, this is presented as contentious. Also, I think the lead should probably include a mention of the two big controversies noted in the interpretation section.
Expanded lead and slightly edited so as not to take a position on whether the poem is a lament or a consolation. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
That's all for now. Really interesting stuff; I'm thrilled that someone is writing articles on these poems for Wikipedia! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Replied to about half your comments, will get to the rest tomorrow... Sleep for me now... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Getting there.  Still need to see what I can dig up on the history of the parchment, and have a look at the final paragraph on sympotic overtones.  Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I had another look through; it's looking great.

Paragraph 1 of "content" is tricky, but I think this is unavoidable.
Yes.  Greek metre is difficult to explain simply for modern audiences, but it's an important part of the poem and needs to be included.
The final paragraph of "interpretation" is also difficult. I think you could probably provide a little more explanation of the things you're talking about for uninitiated readers; this might result in multiple paragraphs, but that's not a problem. Do you see what I'm getting at? I can probably be more specific if that would be helpful!
I have slightly expanded on the most cryptic part of that paragraph – do you think this is better?
I'm happy with the reliability of the cited surces, and I am not going to hold up a GA review on source formatting, but two things to think on: 1) It would be usual to include page numbers for book chapters and journal articles; 2) Links to online versions (even if paywalled or only the abstract) would be helpful; DOIs or similar would also be great! Don't fee; you have to make these changes.
Will go away and dig up page numbers and links when I have a moment.
A picture of Sappho herself might add some visual interest, but, again, far from essential.
Oh, looking on Commons there is actually a reasonably relevant image!  A miracle!  I'm getting sick of the bloody Capitoline bust.
I reiterate what I said about the history of the poem; you mention that Schubart was the first to edit the poem. When was it published/brought to the attention of modern academics?
I have added a little more about the parchment.  Unfortunately some things which I would like to know more about just... aren't covered in the sources.  Like, where did Reinhardt get the parchment?  Nobody apparently sees fit to discuss...
Hope this is helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all your useful commentary.  I always think an article is greatly improved by someone who isn't intimately bound up in it giving it an intelligent once-over! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure - it's a great article and topic. I've made some final edits; if you're happy with them, I'll go ahead and promote. (I note that technically the image you've added does not have a US copyright tag. I'm not going to get annoyed about that for the purposes of this review as it strikes me as a technicality...) Josh Milburn (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Fine with all your edits.  I am sure the Solomon drawing must be c:Template:PD-US-expired, but I cannot immediately prove that it was published before 1924.  As it was drawn in 1865 and Solomon died in 1905 I am fairly convinced it's PD in the US, though...  Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Great - I'll leave that with you. It'll certainly need sorting out if you plan to use it anything at FAC... Anyway, promoting now. Great  working with you. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I have done some digging but haven't turned anything up yet.  I've emailed The Simeon Solomon Research Archive in the hopes that they might be able to point me in the right direction... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)