835:
827:
819:
803:
790:
778:
758:
42:
849:
I have concluded the review and am passing the article: I think that for the next stage (FA level) the article needs to give more of an analytical account of the
Etymologiae, including their social, historical and literary context, and their place in the history of encyclopedias and knowledge, and it
786:
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
378:
It definitely is an improvement. I think it still could do with some fleshing out as far as sources allow - the section is mostly about
Isidore and not so much about the intellectual milieu of the time or about the function of encyclopedias. Why is Pliny the Elder not linked anywhere, and why is it
208:
I think this article is of vital importance to wikipedia, being about one of the earliest efforts to undertake a project similar to our own. I am very thankful that someone has taken the time to bring it up to this level of quality. It should honestly be a FA, given its importance to our own sphere
346:
I missed a little bit of historical context surrounding its production - how and why was it made? What gave
Isidore the idea or inspiration? Who paid for it? How long did it take? Who helped him? Why were in that period interested in encyclopedias like this? What was Spain like in this period, and
306:
by Barney and others into modern
English, and it is cited many times, so it is placed in the Bibliography. I have used the sfn/Harvard templates to automate links between the short form references and the book, so like the other references it is now possible to navigate directly to online sources,
270:
The citation format is odd. The notes include both short and long references, but one book is separated out into the bibliography. I think the best solution is to take all long citations into the bibliography and use only short citations in the inline references - possibly excepting web-only
660:
There are many paragraphs that have no citations throughout the article - but especially in the contents section. I understand why the contents it section might not feel necessary to cite, since it summarizes the actual book - but outside of that section all paragraphs need at least one
569:
I think the section on manuscript is too short, and not coherent enough as prose. I actually don't understand what it says - untill the reference to Codex Gigas - and even then it is not very informative overall, but seems to assume a lot of background knowledge.
421:
Hmm, I found another source stating that
Solinus' work was also an encyclopedia, so maybe that claim is not true. Definitely I think the article could use some material on the Etymologiae's place in the history of
451:
Cool. There is a book by Andrew Brown on the history of encyclopedias, it mentions Pliny and
Knowledge - but there is no snippet view so I can't see if it mentions the Etymologiae too. But it probably does.
408:
This made me wonder if his citations to Pliny actually are to the
Natural History? That would be interesting I think. Also do we know anything about whether Pliny's natural history was a direct inspiration?
234:
The lead is not an adequate summary of the article. It should include material about the structure of the contents of the encyclopedia - its books and general format. And also its manuscript and printing
711:
Thanks for your improvements. I will be traveling the next three days and will probably not be able to review the changes until Friday, so you can take your time with the improvements, keep up the good
323:
I still think it is odd not to move the long refs into the bibliography just because they are only cited once - I don't know any style guides that do that. But if this is how you like it then ok.
620:
The section on "contents" is quite odd in the way that it is broken in to short sections on each book. Maybe a different organization might make sense, one without a header for each book?
379:
not mentioned that his was the only other previous encyclopedia? Not something I will fail the article for, but something I think can be worked on for subsequent levels of improvement.
518:
I liked that edit of yours. I looks to me as if
Brehaut can provide some analytical content in general which I think will be needed for further improvements beyond the GA level.
482:
Yes this was more for something more general about the
Etymologiae's place in the history of the encyclopedic genre. Here is a link to another work that may be useful
80:
209:
of interest as encyclopedists. So thanks for that! However the vitality means we can't skimp on quality, and there are some things that can definitely be improved:
70:
47:
498:
Ok, why not, said that
Isidore fits into the classical tradition (i.e. not observational research), Brehaut is certainly right on that point.
126:
850:
also needs I think to cite a little bit broader in the literature. It is however well within the GA criteria and deserves to be promoted.
435:
Pliny's was by far the largest (and most influential). The Etym.'s Books XII, XIII and XIV are all based largely on the Natural History.
347:
was there anything special about the period and historical context that favored the production? That kind of thing, I think is missing.
122:
52:
483:
107:
75:
307:
where available. I hope you'll agree this elegantly solves the formatting question and provides the "quality" we all desire.
770:
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
156:
99:
783:
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
840:
images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
871:
734:
683:
632:
592:
503:
469:
440:
397:
369:
312:
293:
257:
221:
187:
824:
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
767:
the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
867:
834:
826:
818:
802:
789:
777:
757:
730:
679:
628:
588:
499:
465:
436:
393:
365:
308:
289:
253:
217:
183:
678:
Yes, contents and 'plot' sections are generally agreed to be self-citing. I've cited the rest.
855:
717:
697:
666:
646:
606:
575:
523:
490:
456:
427:
413:
384:
352:
328:
276:
240:
171:
150:
115:
17:
811:
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
816:
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
392:
Wikilinked Pliny, and mentioned the Natural History! And one or two other links too.
288:
Noted. This is outside the GA criteria but I will try to find a sensible resolution.
851:
713:
693:
662:
642:
602:
571:
519:
486:
452:
423:
409:
380:
348:
324:
272:
236:
167:
146:
92:
364:
Added a Context section, which may begin to hint at your excellent questions.
866:
Thank you very much for the review, and for the suggestions for the future.
166:
This article looks incredibly interesting, and I will be happy to review it.
875:
858:
738:
720:
700:
687:
669:
649:
636:
609:
596:
578:
526:
507:
493:
473:
459:
444:
430:
416:
401:
387:
373:
355:
331:
316:
297:
279:
261:
243:
225:
191:
174:
160:
843:
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
134:
103:
641:
Much nicer in terms of readability and layout I think.
464:The use of Pliny's NH is cited in the article.
302:The 'one book' is the critical translation of
8:
216:Thank you. All the same, this is just a GA!
808:it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
30:
587:Rewritten, new wikilinks and references.
61:
33:
775:Verifiable with no original research:
7:
832:Illustrated, if possible, by images:
787:the scientific citation guidelines
24:
795:it contains no original research.
833:
825:
817:
801:
788:
776:
756:
182:Many thanks for taking this on.
1:
894:
876:05:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
859:20:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
739:19:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
721:17:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
701:18:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
688:06:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
670:23:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
650:18:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
637:06:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
610:18:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
597:14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
579:23:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
527:19:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
508:19:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
494:19:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
474:19:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
460:19:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
445:19:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
431:19:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
417:19:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
402:19:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
388:18:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
374:16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
356:23:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
332:18:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
317:09:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
298:06:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
280:23:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
262:19:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
244:23:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
226:06:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
192:07:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
175:03:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
161:03:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
800:Broad in its coverage:
627:Removed the headers.
89:
88:
885:
837:
829:
821:
805:
792:
780:
760:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
18:Talk:Etymologiae
893:
892:
888:
887:
886:
884:
883:
882:
752:
205:
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
891:
889:
881:
880:
879:
878:
847:
846:
845:
844:
841:
830:
822:
814:
813:
812:
809:
798:
797:
796:
793:
784:
773:
772:
771:
768:
762:
761:
751:
748:
746:
744:
743:
742:
741:
724:
723:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
673:
672:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
622:
621:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
582:
581:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
422:encyclopedias.
359:
358:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
283:
282:
267:
266:
265:
264:
247:
246:
231:
230:
229:
228:
211:
210:
204:
201:
199:
197:
196:
195:
194:
165:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
890:
877:
873:
869:
868:Chiswick Chap
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
857:
853:
842:
839:
838:
836:
831:
828:
823:
820:
815:
810:
807:
806:
804:
799:
794:
791:
785:
782:
781:
779:
774:
769:
766:
765:
764:
763:
759:
755:Well-written:
754:
753:
749:
747:
740:
736:
732:
731:Chiswick Chap
729:Many thanks.
728:
727:
726:
725:
722:
719:
715:
710:
709:
702:
699:
695:
691:
690:
689:
685:
681:
680:Chiswick Chap
677:
676:
675:
674:
671:
668:
664:
659:
658:
651:
648:
644:
640:
639:
638:
634:
630:
629:Chiswick Chap
626:
625:
624:
623:
619:
618:
611:
608:
604:
600:
599:
598:
594:
590:
589:Chiswick Chap
586:
585:
584:
583:
580:
577:
573:
568:
567:
528:
525:
521:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
500:Chiswick Chap
497:
496:
495:
492:
488:
484:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
471:
467:
466:Chiswick Chap
463:
462:
461:
458:
454:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
442:
438:
437:Chiswick Chap
434:
433:
432:
429:
425:
420:
419:
418:
415:
411:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
399:
395:
394:Chiswick Chap
391:
390:
389:
386:
382:
377:
376:
375:
371:
367:
366:Chiswick Chap
363:
362:
361:
360:
357:
354:
350:
345:
344:
333:
330:
326:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
314:
310:
309:Chiswick Chap
305:
301:
300:
299:
295:
291:
290:Chiswick Chap
287:
286:
285:
284:
281:
278:
274:
269:
268:
263:
259:
255:
254:Chiswick Chap
251:
250:
249:
248:
245:
242:
238:
233:
232:
227:
223:
219:
218:Chiswick Chap
215:
214:
213:
212:
207:
206:
202:
200:
193:
189:
185:
184:Chiswick Chap
181:
180:
179:
178:
177:
176:
173:
169:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
848:
745:
601:Much better.
303:
198:
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
304:Etymologiae
271:references.
104:visual edit
750:Assessment
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
661:citation.
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
235:history.
203:Comments
157:contribs
76:Criteria
856:snunɐɯ·
852:·maunus
718:snunɐɯ·
714:·maunus
698:snunɐɯ·
694:·maunus
667:snunɐɯ·
663:·maunus
647:snunɐɯ·
643:·maunus
607:snunɐɯ·
603:·maunus
576:snunɐɯ·
572:·maunus
524:snunɐɯ·
520:·maunus
491:snunɐɯ·
487:·maunus
457:snunɐɯ·
453:·maunus
428:snunɐɯ·
424:·maunus
414:snunɐɯ·
410:·maunus
385:snunɐɯ·
381:·maunus
353:snunɐɯ·
349:·maunus
329:snunɐɯ·
325:·maunus
277:snunɐɯ·
273:·maunus
241:snunɐɯ·
237:·maunus
172:snunɐɯ·
168:·maunus
127:history
108:history
94:Article
692:Great.
252:Done.
147:Maunus
712:work!
136:Watch
16:<
872:talk
735:talk
684:talk
633:talk
593:talk
504:talk
470:talk
441:talk
398:talk
370:talk
313:talk
294:talk
258:talk
222:talk
188:talk
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
874:)
854:·
737:)
716:·
696:·
686:)
665:·
645:·
635:)
605:·
595:)
574:·
522:·
506:)
489:·
472:)
455:·
443:)
426:·
412:·
400:)
383:·
372:)
351:·
327:·
315:)
296:)
275:·
260:)
239:·
224:)
190:)
170:·
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
870:(
733:(
682:(
631:(
591:(
502:(
485:.
468:(
439:(
396:(
368:(
311:(
292:(
256:(
220:(
186:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.