Talk:Cyclops (play)

message: I believe they're getting at the Μή τις /  Μήτις pun - but theres no subjunctive here, so have removed reference to the mood.--Lagodion 21:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No man" Pun 

message: The text under the heading of Euripides' Cyclops and the structure of the satyr play of The satyr play and Euripides' Cyclops rightly belongs in a discussion of the play. Bongomatic 08:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of [[The satyr play and Euripides' Cyclops#Euripides' Cyclops and the structure of the satyr play]] 

message: I am cutting this from the article, because it doesn't currently have a place to sit. 
Sizable fragments of other satyr plays have been discovered, such as Sophocles' Trackers and Aeschylus' Net-fishers.Euripides. McHugh, Heather, trans. Cyclops; Greek Tragedy in New Translations. Oxford Univ. Press (2001)  Cyclops is found in five extant manuscripts.https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/oeuvre/1914/ The first is the Codex Laurentianus, Laur. Plut. xxxii. 2.  It appears to have been written in the fourteenth century in a number of different handwriting styles.  It is kept in the Laurentian Library at Florence, Italy. The second manuscript is the Codex Palatinus 287, thought to be from the fourteenth or fifteenth century.  It is kept in the Vatican Library.Euripides. Patterson, John. Editor. The Cyclops of Euripides. The Macmillan Company (1900) page ix.Untitled50reg (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Cutting the first sentence is fine, but I see no reason why the page shouldn't have information about the play's own manuscript tradition, and it looks to me like you could just put it at the end of the intro without modification ("Cyclops is found in..."). HonestManBad (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I also "see no reason why the page shouldn't have information about the play's own manuscript tradition". That is one reason I pasted it here, rather than cutting it outright. But having had some of the sleep I wanted, I note that the sources for the information are over a hundred years old, and for that reason am disinclined to just cutting the first sentence, and reinserting. Otherwise, it mentions five, but elaborates for two. This incompleteness compounds the lack of seat. Untitled50reg (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text 

message: Hi there. Okay. Let's break this up into chunks.
* First thing is first: there's no need for any references in the article's lead. The lead (meaning the part above the Contents box) is a summation of the rest of the article. They should be no longer than four paragraphs (one or two is sufficient for an article of this size). Anything that is stated in the lead should be very easy to find the source for somewhere in the rest of the article. Leads only need a reference when it is a controversial statement (nothing on this page is likely to be).
*: I would provide a brief explanation on what a satyr play is. You don't need to do that if you Wiki-link it (so satyr play.
* Regarding the Story section, I have two key comments.
*: 1. I do think that the story section which you replaced was better than its current form. It includes a natural but formal use of language; the sentences naturally flow (and are not short, simple, and declarative). What exists in the current version of the article feels a bit stilted. I can assist you on this if you give me until the weekend, but I do think you have the natural fluency with English to fix it up. Broken record, but have a look at Hamlet#Plot or Odyssey#Synopsis. You have a much shorter section here, but define things for a reader. Imagine that they are a student who hasn't read the text, but has a class about it the next day. Why is Silenius suddenly appealing? (You are allowed to use sources here, but they aren't necessary for plot summaries typically.) Who is Odysseus? 
*: 2. Wiki-links should only be used if it is clear to what they go to without clicking on the link (referring to the link to Ganymede).
* The Analysis section is the big one. Like I said before, I recommend splitting up criticism into distinct groups. Remember: you are providing an overview. References are good, but there's perhaps a tendency to over-reference here, and overcomplicate things. It’s essentially become a list of sources, rather than a coherent overview of schools of thoughts about the play. What are the overarching trends in criticism?
*: Consider: does all of this need to be in Analysis? The first two paragraphs, certainly, read to me like textual history, supported by citations. That isn't analysis of the text. Don't let your sections get too big, and don't let your paragraphs be too small. 
*: Consider: instead of jumping from citation to citation, relay one critics' ideas as a few sentences. Then, offer a change of direction. See Hamlet#Analysis.
*: Consider: is the average reader going to understand what  As editors, our job is to make things clear. We aren't the be-all of criticism: we're a jumping off point through which the curious can find sources. Our job, instead, is to structure and give order. 
If you have any questions, let me know. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well I should perhaps confess that I never intended to give the article anything more than a kickstart. The reason I undertook any kickstart was little more than that I read Cyclops and thought that it deserved better than what was there on Wikipedia. This is likewise why I undertook the wrecksalvaging. But I have still intended nothing more than a kickstart. For this reason and also because I have no idea what might be the problem with "Euripides employed 'metapoetically loaded terms' like second and double and new to highlight interactions with his sources, familiar and foundational texts in Athenian education", I think I will now just let the article rove the seas for a while and hope that it snaps up some barnacles for itself. Untitled50reg (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Though I did just make one minor change because I realised that the "See also" had got lost somewhere. That is now back in. P.S. satyr play with a link is actually in the first sentence of the article. I'm not sure if you were implying that it is not so. Untitled50reg (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback on this article 

message: This then links to The Rape of Ganymede (Rubens); when, by rights, it should instead link to Beer goggles Nuttyskin (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Cyclops decides to take [...] Silenus to bed