Wikipedia:Peer review/Philomela/archive1

Philomela

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would eventually like to bring it to FA and look forward to improving the article with this goal in mind.

Thanks, ColonelHenry (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This looks like a well-researched and comprehensive article, and I can certainly see it as a future featured article. I have not yet looked in detail at the prose, but there are a some general issues that need to be addressed:

• There are at least half-a-dozen uncited statements at the ends of paragraphs. See, for example, "Variations on the myth", para 1; "Elements borrowed...", para 2; "Appearances in the Western canon" introduction; "From antiquity and the influence of Ovid", para 3 - and others besides. At FAC, conventions regarding citations are observed very strictly, and you will find that any such "open-ended" paragraphs are quickly seized on.
• It also seems that not all citations cover the full preceding material. For example, in the "From antiquity..." section the citation which follows the three lines of verse is to Aeschylus's poem, but the preceding prose lines:, "Most notably..." etc, are not cited to anywhere. This problem may recur elsewhere in the article.
• I see in that same extract a couple of POV phrases: "Most notably", and "the great playwright". These are editorial judgements which a neutral emcyclopedic article seeks to avoid. I have glimpsed others, e.g. a reference to Eliot's "most famous poem".
• There are a number of issues with the format of the references:

• The list looks much tidier in columnar format. I have done this - three cols
• The online links should be incorporated into the titles, rather than shown separately. To indicate what I mean, I have done this for the first reference.
• Journal and other print sources should be italicised.
• There is unnecessary use of parentheses, in dates and retrieval dates. Refs would look tidier without them
• Every ref requires a publisher
• Page ranges need ndashes, not hyphens
• For standardisation in ref formats, it is sometimes useful to use citation templates

• You should reorganise the bullet point section (in "In Classical and Romantic works") into normal prose.
• I have not checked all the image licenses, but there could be problems with the Eliot photograph. Do we have a source for this, and do we know that it has not been published?

These are all things to be getting on with. I'll check out the prose later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)