Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saturnian

Saturnian

This may technically be a self-nomination, since I began this article about the verse form of early Latin poetry some time ago. But its virtues are the work of Sauvagenoble, who has wholly rewritten the article from the viewpoint of recent research, as opposed to the nineteenth century sources I relied on. == Smerdis of Tlön 17:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now - a nice article on a relatively unusual topic for Wikipedia - and congratulations on finding a relevant image! - but it has no lead section. Not so important, but should the "bibilography" section be changed to a "references" section? And are there no relevant "external links" or other Wikipedia articles to add as "see also"s? Finally, it seems a little repetitive to analyse the three fragments you have chosen in series, and the layout produces lots of white space due to the indenting and new lines: would it be possible (merely a suggestion: this may not work very well in practice) to do the quantitative and accentual analyses of the three fragments, for example, using a table, so you can compare and contrast the two analyses of the same fragment at the same time, side by side? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:44, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yikes, careful. The word bibliography has two conflicting meanings. One is resources used in the writing of an article and more problematically it can also mean just a list of works relating to a given topic. If the second is true it would be entirely innapropriate to retitle it as references. - Taxman 21:42, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, my comment was ambiguous - I meant "is the bibliography section a references section? If so, it should be titled as such" (I assumed this was the case, given the contents of the section; if not, references are required.) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Needs a lead section, and proper references. - Taxman 21:42, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• The article shouldn't start with a TOC. There should be an intro (without a section heading), and then a TOC. Everyking 21:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object - 1. No lead section; what is there has too much emphasis on the technical analysis and very little social, historical, or literary context / 2. The bulk of the article relies on the readers' understanding of a particular notation system -- the text version doesn't match the version within the graphics insert on my browser either. Jgm 21:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Is there any reason all sections use level 2 headers instead of level 1? Phils 10:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks to everyone for the attention and efforts towards this article.

1. The bibliography section doubles as a "references" or "works cited", so I’ve renamed it.
2. I just added a little more of literary-historical material.
3. I tried to introduce the notational conventions at each first instance, but perhaps this still falls short of facilitating understanding. Admittedly, Unicode ∪[∪] is not the symbol I used in the graphics but is the closest. Metrical symbols are not in Unicode.
4. Regarding formatting in general, I rely on the more experienced for cleaning the article up, as this was my first contribution. The side-by-side accentual-vs.-quantitative comparison is a good idea; my only concern is possibly breaking lines where they shouldn’t and placing a lot of dependence on a reader’s font and screen size and resolution settings.

Sauvagenoble 14:20, Feb. 26, 2005 (UTC)