The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2017 [1].

Astronomica (Manilius)[edit]

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article focuses on the titular work, a Latin hexameter didactic poem (probably) written by the Roman poet Marcus Manilius during the reign of Caesar Augustus or Tiberius. The five-book work describes celestial phenomena, explaining the zodiac and astrology. The poem—which seems to have been inspired by Lucretius's Epicurean poem, De rerum natura—espouses a Stoic, deterministic understanding of a universe overseen by a god and governed by reason. The work is of note for a number of reasons. First, it is seen as an answer to Lucretius's aforementioned poem. Second, it is an important window into Roman views on astrology and Stoicism. Third, it very barely made it to the present day, as only one manuscript transmitted the poem through the Middle Ages. Finally, its style is rather heady and peculiar, and its subject matter is very, very complicated and dense. These last few factors have led to it being described (rather hilariously, might I add) as "like a trigonometry texbook rendered as a Saturday New York Times crossword." Currently, it is a good article (the very thorough review can be accessed here). It has also undergone two extensive peer-reviews: one in June of 2016 (courtesy of User:Tim riley, User:Caeciliusinhorto, and User:Johnbod), and the other in January of 2017 (courtesy of User:Groupuscule). Finally, it has been copy-edited a number of times (e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5]) by four extremely competent editors. I had submitted this for FAN a few months ago, but upon realizing that I neglected part of Groupuscule's peer-review, I withdrew it and continued to make changes. Now, I feel it is ready to be promoted.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

Resolved comments from JM
A few quick comments: You provide the full name of Steven Green five times in the prose, introducing him as a classicist the second time. Could this be neatened up a little? Oops. I removed the repetition, having his name appear only the first time.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] "The poem also contains a direct allusion to Ennius's Annales, which, according to Goold, is the Astronomica's "one solitary notice of Latin literature.[73]" Could you close that quote? Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Is "Pseudo-Empedocles" worth a link? I linked "Pseudo-" to Pseudepigrapha, because "Empedocles" is linked earlier.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] "The work of Julius Firmicus Maternus, who wrote in the time of Constantine about astrology and other subjects, resembles Manilius in many ways" It doesn't resemble him- it resembles his work or Astronomica, surely? That was just a bit of confusing metonym. I've changed it to "resembles Manilius's work".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] "both of which bear the line, "We are born to die, and our end hangs from the beginning" (nascentes morimur finisque ab origine pendet) from the poem's fourth book" Is that comma necessary? Do you mean the one after "line"? If so, I think so, since it's introducing a quote (or, rather, an inscription).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] I really don't care for it, but I think this may be a legitimate stylistic difference, so I'll say no more! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] And please double-check my edits, especially the wikilinks I have introduced. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] @J Milburn: I have responded to/implemented you suggestions. Your edits also look great! Thanks for your help. Does it look better now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from JM

A few quick comments:

You provide the full name of Steven Green five times in the prose, introducing him as a classicist the second time. Could this be neatened up a little?

Oops. I removed the repetition, having his name appear only the first time.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The poem also contains a direct allusion to Ennius's Annales, which, according to Goold, is the Astronomica's "one solitary notice of Latin literature.[73]" Could you close that quote?

Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Pseudo-Empedocles" worth a link?

I linked "Pseudo-" to Pseudepigrapha, because "Empedocles" is linked earlier.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The work of Julius Firmicus Maternus, who wrote in the time of Constantine about astrology and other subjects, resembles Manilius in many ways" It doesn't resemble him- it resembles his work or Astronomica, surely?

That was just a bit of confusing metonym. I've changed it to "resembles Manilius's work".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"both of which bear the line, "We are born to die, and our end hangs from the beginning" (nascentes morimur finisque ab origine pendet) from the poem's fourth book" Is that comma necessary?

Do you mean the one after "line"? If so, I think so, since it's introducing a quote (or, rather, an inscription).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't care for it, but I think this may be a legitimate stylistic difference, so I'll say no more! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And please double-check my edits, especially the wikilinks I have introduced. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I have responded to/implemented you suggestions. Your edits also look great! Thanks for your help. Does it look better now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I really, really like this article. I am very happy to offer my support. (FAC coordinators: I was the article's GA reviewer, and participated in the previous FAC discussion.) Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of recent comments from Seadowns here that may be helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I've added some more stuff to the article to address some of his points[6].--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More, in case you hadn't seen. I advised Seadowns about this page, but I suppose there's little harm in him/her posting there instead. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up here. I'm not too bothered by it, but if it is driving you up the way, just let me know! Ha!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind in the slightest, I would just hate for useful comments to be missed! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that the page wasn't on my watchlist, so I went ahead and added it. Hopefully now I can try to respond to any additional comments they might make there.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from groupuscule[edit]

Resolved comments from groupuscule
Hello. I have no further suggestions to make, having done my best to nitpick an article that was already quite good. Although the topic has aspects about which more could conceivably be written—for example the relationship of Astronomica to historical trends in astrology and astronomy—the page as it stands is well-focused and reads as a very solid encyclopedia article. Thanks again to Gen. Quon and other editors for this contribution. I'll return here if I come up with any more half-baked suggestions to annoy you with. groupuscule (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from groupuscule

Hello. I have no further suggestions to make, having done my best to nitpick an article that was already quite good. Although the topic has aspects about which more could conceivably be written—for example the relationship of Astronomica to historical trends in astrology and astronomy—the page as it stands is well-focused and reads as a very solid encyclopedia article. Thanks again to Gen. Quon and other editors for this contribution. I'll return here if I come up with any more half-baked suggestions to annoy you with. groupuscule (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Groupuscule: Thank you for all your help. Not to put you on the spot, but at this time, would you support this for promotion?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. groupuscule (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

~~OCLC for the books without ISBNs? Not a requirement, but would be nice.~~

Ah, good idea. I've added them.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Ok, a couple little things stuck out...

The work's date has also been controversial. The... - strikes me as a little strong, why not just "The work's date has also been debated"?

I have implemented this suggestions. Good catch.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the attention it received after its rediscovery, the Astronomica was never as widely studied as other classical Latin poems --> "Despite the attention it received after its rediscovery, the Astronomica has never been as widely studied as other classical Latin poems" (presumably all these classical Latin poems are still studied?)

Good point. Changed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is unknown if the Astronomica is a finished work, and this is further exacerbated by the presence of a large lacuna between lines 5.709 and 5.710 --> I know what you're getting at but "exacerbated" strikes me as an odd verb to use here..

How is "this issue is further complicated"?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, How about, " The presence of a large lacuna between lines 5.709 and 5.710 raises the possibility that Astronomica is an unfinished work or something like it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

@Casliber: How is this?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks for the comments. I've implemented your suggestions.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by caeciliusinhorto[edit]

Resolved comments from Caeciliusinhorto
Disclosure: I reviewed the article at PR here, and promised Gen. Quon that I'd give them an FA review here. Slightly picky, but in the first sentence "Latin hexameter didactic poem" is three links to three different targets. Could the sentence be rewritten to make that clearer? As it is, it isn't clear just from looking at the text whether that is one, two, or three links (and it's entirely conceivable that we might e.g. have an article on "Latin hexameter poetry"... I've broken it up so that it now reads "Latin didactic poem written in hexameters". How is that?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Section on authorship says that the author was probably a Marcus Manilius, but doesn't say why. The article on Marcus Manilius seems to suggest that the name "Manilius" comes from the poem itself – but why "Marcus"? This is confusing, because no source really talks about it. Here is my speculation: the earliest sources bear no name, and the later ones bear a different variety (I've added this info in as a footnote). However, there is a document from the 10th century written by Gerbertus Aureliacensis that asks for an astrological work by "M. Manilius". I can't find any sources that explicitly say as much, but I think Gerbertus Aureliacensis's letter is taken as authoritative as to the authors nomen, and then scholars derive the praenomen "Marcus" (a popular Roman name) by assuming that's what "M" stood for.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Actually, looking into this myself quickly, Gain 1970 "Gerbert and Manilius" says that the manuscript M gives the author's name as "M. Manili", "M. Manlii", and "M. Milnili", and so the praenomen also comes from the manuscript tradition. I've added a note to that effect to the article; see what you think... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Ah! Thanks for that find. The note looks great (although I fixed one minor typo). Thanks for the help there.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] What happened to β itself? I can't find much other than it was lost.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] More later... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] "denies the epkyrosis": while epkyrosis is linked, it's a sufficiently obscure technical term that it should probably be defined in-article as well – having to follow a link to find out what it means breaks the flow of reading... I've added a short parenthetical explanation for "epkyrosis".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Likewise, what are the "six Stoic paradoxes"? Or "tetraktys"? (Neither of which are even linked, though we do actually have an article for tetraktys...) In regards to the former, I've added a linked to Paradoxa Stoicorum, since I think the six paradoxes are bit long to describe in this article. As for the former, I've added a link and a short parenthetical explanation.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] The article says that the poem is notable for its "peculiar style", but doesn't really discuss what is unusual about it. More detail? I've tried to expand this a bit. It largely has to do with his odd word choices and his penchant for versifying mathematics. I can't find a source for this, but I also speculate that Classicists have long criticized him for being of lesser quality (than Vergil, most likely) since he was a Silver Age poet, and thus somehow 'inferior' (hence Woollgar's assertion that the Astronomica "has the regular and monotonous flow of the age").--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] "Manilius's work is largely Stoic and promotes creationism (in the Greco-Roman sense)": the linked article creationism does not clarify at all what is meant by "creationism (in the Greco-Roman sense)". Given that there were at least a couple of pretty different Greek cosmogonies (compare Hesiod's Theogony with the world egg in Orphic traditions) this could do with some clarification... I was basically trying to express the idea that Manilius believed God or a god created the world (which is technically "creationism"), but that it wasn't the type of creationism that is usually associated with that term (namely, the Judeo-Christian belief). I've added a link earlier in the article to Teleological argument#Roman era, and I removed the creationist link and just put "a Greco-Roman understanding of creationism". I don't know if that is any better, but I'm not sure what else to do here without veering off into too much detail.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] "The ambiguous phrases and extravagant circumlocutions necessitated by Manilius's hexameter verse must often have made the Astronomica seem, as it does today, rather like a trigonometry textbook rendered as a Saturday New York Times crossword." This is an amazing analogy. This is one of my favorite lines about the Astronomica. Whoever wrote it nailed it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Right, that's the lot. A few minor quibbles, but otherwise this article looks to be in excellent shape. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] @Caeciliusinhorto: I've responded to and/or implemented your points. How does it all look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Caeciliusinhorto

Disclosure: I reviewed the article at PR here, and promised Gen. Quon that I'd give them an FA review here.

Slightly picky, but in the first sentence "Latin hexameter didactic poem" is three links to three different targets. Could the sentence be rewritten to make that clearer? As it is, it isn't clear just from looking at the text whether that is one, two, or three links (and it's entirely conceivable that we might e.g. have an article on "Latin hexameter poetry"...

I've broken it up so that it now reads "Latin didactic poem written in hexameters". How is that?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section on authorship says that the author was probably a Marcus Manilius, but doesn't say why. The article on Marcus Manilius seems to suggest that the name "Manilius" comes from the poem itself – but why "Marcus"?

This is confusing, because no source really talks about it. Here is my speculation: the earliest sources bear no name, and the later ones bear a different variety (I've added this info in as a footnote). However, there is a document from the 10th century written by Gerbertus Aureliacensis that asks for an astrological work by "M. Manilius". I can't find any sources that explicitly say as much, but I think Gerbertus Aureliacensis's letter is taken as authoritative as to the authors nomen, and then scholars derive the praenomen "Marcus" (a popular Roman name) by assuming that's what "M" stood for.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking into this myself quickly, Gain 1970 "Gerbert and Manilius" says that the manuscript M gives the author's name as "M. Manili", "M. Manlii", and "M. Milnili", and so the praenomen also comes from the manuscript tradition. I've added a note to that effect to the article; see what you think... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thanks for that find. The note looks great (although I fixed one minor typo). Thanks for the help there.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to β itself?

I can't find much other than it was lost.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More later... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"denies the epkyrosis": while epkyrosis is linked, it's a sufficiently obscure technical term that it should probably be defined in-article as well – having to follow a link to find out what it means breaks the flow of reading...

I've added a short parenthetical explanation for "epkyrosis".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, what are the "six Stoic paradoxes"? Or "tetraktys"? (Neither of which are even linked, though we do actually have an article for tetraktys...)

In regards to the former, I've added a linked to Paradoxa Stoicorum, since I think the six paradoxes are bit long to describe in this article. As for the former, I've added a link and a short parenthetical explanation.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that the poem is notable for its "peculiar style", but doesn't really discuss what is unusual about it. More detail?

I've tried to expand this a bit. It largely has to do with his odd word choices and his penchant for versifying mathematics. I can't find a source for this, but I also speculate that Classicists have long criticized him for being of lesser quality (than Vergil, most likely) since he was a Silver Age poet, and thus somehow 'inferior' (hence Woollgar's assertion that the Astronomica "has the regular and monotonous flow of the age").--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Manilius's work is largely Stoic and promotes creationism (in the Greco-Roman sense)": the linked article creationism does not clarify at all what is meant by "creationism (in the Greco-Roman sense)". Given that there were at least a couple of pretty different Greek cosmogonies (compare Hesiod's Theogony with the world egg in Orphic traditions) this could do with some clarification...

I was basically trying to express the idea that Manilius believed God or a god created the world (which is technically "creationism"), but that it wasn't the type of creationism that is usually associated with that term (namely, the Judeo-Christian belief). I've added a link earlier in the article to Teleological argument#Roman era, and I removed the creationist link and just put "a Greco-Roman understanding of creationism". I don't know if that is any better, but I'm not sure what else to do here without veering off into too much detail.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The ambiguous phrases and extravagant circumlocutions necessitated by Manilius's hexameter verse must often have made the Astronomica seem, as it does today, rather like a trigonometry textbook rendered as a Saturday New York Times crossword." This is an amazing analogy.

This is one of my favorite lines about the Astronomica. Whoever wrote it nailed it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's the lot. A few minor quibbles, but otherwise this article looks to be in excellent shape. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: I've responded to and/or implemented your points. How does it all look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good to me. I'm perfectly happy to support. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from edwininlondon[edit]

Glad to see this back here. Some comments from a layman:

written in hexameters about celestial phenomena, written -> repetition of written

I've broken this sentence into two new ones, and changed the second instance of 'written' to penned.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth book -> I have no doubt this is the correct technical term but I suspect that for a layman it is a bit unexpected that a poem has books. Maybe better to state first the work is made up of n books?

I've mentioned this in the first line of the article now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

some have argued -> some historians? classicists? some somethings is better than just some

I added 'scholars'.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This copy is the direct descendant -> you mean M?

Good catch. Reworded to make clearer.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Goold later issued -> not sure this sentence needs to be in parentheses. Clutter.

Removed parentheses.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Astrology and Horoscope -> why do we need this? inline linking will surely do the trick

I don't know why I didn't think of that. Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Katharina Volk -> I can't see a rule when first names are used and when not. Consistency would be good. I prefer first name on intro, but just last name from then on, but that is just my personal preference

I like your preference as well. I think it's an artifact from when I moved pieces around and expanded sections.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

finishes his digression on the Milky Way -> I wouldn't think the Milky Way to be a digression. But listing heroes worthy of their place in the Milky Way sounds like a digression

Good point. I've changed it to "discussion of".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dodecatemoria -> maybe one day create an entry to avoid the redlink

Good idea. I'll put that on my list!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Near the end of the book, -> I would not have a comma here

Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in book five's description I miss an indication of where the lacuna is

I've added that to the summary now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: I've responded to the points you've raised so far. Hopefully, it's looking better now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Looking at it again with fresh eyes I must say the style is far from fluent. So many — and ( and quotations, sometimes in same sentence.

I should probably cut down on the dashes, but I believe the parentheticals are necessary. So many terms in this article are heady and unfortunately don't have articles to which I might link. The parentheses help explicate some of these terms and ideas. I'm sure, however, that there are places where they can be removed and worked into the main body.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

; proposes a Platonic proof -> not sure about this enumeration using semicolons, each clause without a subject. Commas instead of semicolons? Breaking it up in multiple sentences?
I believe this is a relic from an earlier draft of the sentence that did not include parenthetical explanations. I have removed the semicolons and used simple commas.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
than a stoic -> Stoic?
Changed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The one Latin poet who excelled even Ovid in verbal point and smartness". -> I find that capital T midsentence odd
Whoops, sorry about that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
although is largely due -> although this is largely due?
Yes, indeed, Good catch.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Latin literature." -> I believe this one should end with ".
The full sentence is "The list of works alluded to is remarkable as containing in a reference (3. 23 ff.) to the Annals of Ennius Manilius’s one solitary notice of Latin literature." Since the comma is part of the full sentence, I believe it should also remain in front of the quotes. I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
he is alluded to -> an example of how would be good
Honestly, from what I've read, most just say he's alluded to. I assume they mean that his ideas are echoed, but it's all really conjectural, and I don't know if there are any great examples. The parallels between Manilius and Julius Firmicus Maternus are the most obvious, though (and the article discusses this).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More later Edwininlondon (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gertanis[edit]

What a lovely article. I was bold and changed the image positioning of Augustus & Tiberius, so that A. points towards our article, and not hors-champ. Feel free to revert my change, if you think it was better the other way round.

That looks a lot better. Thanks for that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"To further complicate matters, over the years Marcus Manilius..." – editorializing
Good point. Changed to "Additionally,"--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The 19th-century classicist Fridericus Jacobs and the 19th- and 20th-century historian Paul Monceaux have said that he was an African, based largely on his writing style, which they say resembles that of other African authors." – is 'said' the right verb here?
Changed to 'argued'.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"At the turn of the 20th century scholars such as A. E. Housman began favouring the idea that the first two books were written under Augustus" – bit of a garden path sentence: I read '20th century' as an attributive adjective to 'scholars'. Perhaps try a comma after 'century'
But, but, the old man the boat! Haha, good catch. Sorry about that. Comma added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"A consensus has not yet been reached but, according to Volk, the poem can be dated roughly to sometime between AD 10–20" – too many modifiers: bin either 'roughly' or 'sometime between'. Also, try changing 'but,' for ';however,'
I have changed this whole like to "While a consensus has not yet been reached, Volk has argued that the poem can be dated to c. AD 10–20."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"There is debate..." – given that your source is from 2009, is the present tense warranted?
"This began to change in 1815" – too vague; how can something begin to change? Try omitting the entire line, and join the phrases, i.e. "The first conjecture was favoured primarily from the Renaissance until the 19th century, when Karl Lachmann wrote"
Ditched.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"It is possible that the earliest references to Astronomica (aside from literary allusions) are to be found in two Roman funerary inscriptions," – you can't have parentheses out in the open prose like that: try swapping them for dashes. Also, I presume this is Volk's evalution, not ours?
I have changed this to: "Volk notes that that the earliest references to Astronomica—aside from literary allusions—may be found in two Roman funerary inscriptions..." How does that look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The Italian humanist Lorenzo Bonincontri delivered lectures on the Astronomica to large audiences, and he compiled his lecture notes into the work's first commentary" – bin the pronoun 'he'
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk)
"21st century scholars, such as D. Liuzzi and Emma Gee, favour the latter position" – needs a hyphen between '21st' & 'century'; should prob also be moved further back in the sentence; I think the MOS somewhere recommends against digits opening a phrase (I may be wrong though)
The sentence now reads: "The latter position is favored by several 21st-century scholars, such as D. Liuzzi and Emma Gee."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Gertanis (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gertanis: Thank you for your helpful comments. Take a look at what I've done and see if they address some of the issues, and feel free to let me know if you see anything else that needs fixin'.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Resolved comments from Tim riley
I confidently expect to support the promotion of this fine piece of work to FA, but before I do, here are some minor corrections and adjustments you may like to consider: AmE or BrE? As it stands, the text is a mixture of English and American spellings. Of course the variants should be preserved in quotations, but in the main text we have AmE: analyzed analyzes center favored skepticism traveled unfavorably and BrE: emphasise favour favoured favouring unfavourable There are two dubious spellings that are neither American nor English, I think: receation genetive In the sentence "Lots: Points on the birth chart that carry special significance. In Manilius['s poem], the losts…", I imagine losts should be lots. In "According Victoria Moul" I think you have a missing preposition. And I wondered about "aritmetica" and "arithmetica" in successive sentences (though pray bear in mind it is fifty years since I took O-Level Latin at school, and be kind to me if I’m talking rot). However The word "however" appears 16 times in the text, and its repetitions become a bit noticeable. The word can more often than not be dispensed with at no harm to the sense and at some gain to the flow. These are all matters of minor importance, but it would be good to have this excellent article as free from drafting errors as humanly possible. If you like to consider these points, I’ll look in again in a few days' time to – I confidently hope – add my support. – Tim riley talk 15:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply] @Tim riley: Sorry that it took me so long to respond. How do these changes look? I believe I've implemented all of your suggestions, and I also switched everything from British to American spelling (simply because I'm American. If it makes more sense to go the British route just let me know).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Tim riley

I confidently expect to support the promotion of this fine piece of work to FA, but before I do, here are some minor corrections and adjustments you may like to consider:

AmE or BrE?
- As it stands, the text is a mixture of English and American spellings. Of course the variants should be preserved in quotations, but in the main text we have AmE:
  - analyzed
  - analyzes
  - center
  - favored
  - skepticism
  - traveled
  - unfavorably
- and BrE:
  - emphasise
  - favour
  - favoured
  - favouring
  - unfavourable
There are two dubious spellings that are neither American nor English, I think:
- receation
- genetive
In the sentence "Lots: Points on the birth chart that carry special significance. In Manilius['s poem], the losts…", I imagine losts should be lots.
In "According Victoria Moul" I think you have a missing preposition.
And I wondered about "aritmetica" and "arithmetica" in successive sentences (though pray bear in mind it is fifty years since I took O-Level Latin at school, and be kind to me if I’m talking rot).
However
- The word "however" appears 16 times in the text, and its repetitions become a bit noticeable. The word can more often than not be dispensed with at no harm to the sense and at some gain to the flow.

These are all matters of minor importance, but it would be good to have this excellent article as free from drafting errors as humanly possible. If you like to consider these points, I’ll look in again in a few days' time to – I confidently hope – add my support. – Tim riley talk 15:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Sorry that it took me so long to respond. How do these changes look? I believe I've implemented all of your suggestions, and I also switched everything from British to American spelling (simply because I'm American. If it makes more sense to go the British route just let me know).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No apology needed from you, Gen. Quon, for the supposed delay – hardly a lengthy hiatus. As to AmE/BrE, WP's rules say we should stick with the variety of English used by the originator of an article, and in this case the originator is you, so AmE, definitely, which we now have consistently throughout the article. My quibbles having been attended to, I am happy to add my support for the elevation of the article to FA. – Tim riley talk 19:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need an image review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for pointing that out.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

image review - (not surprisingly) all in public domain due to either age or US gov't published. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: per the above. Thanks so much for the reminder. (And thanks Casliber!)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: A minor point, but the link to the article by Abry is currently dead, but as it is a journal article that doesn't matter too much. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.