Talk:Philitas of Cos/GA1

GA Review

I'm afraid this article does not fulfill the Good Article criteria at this time. Although relatively well written and verifiable, the article is simply not broad enough in its coverage. Some specific examples and suggestions for improvement: María (habla conmigo) 14:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review (which was of this version of Philitas of Cos). The review is quite helpful. I'll try to address the points one by one, as I have time. Eubulides (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• The lead states that Philitas was "the most important intellectual in the early years of the Hellenistic world, and he was the first major writer who was both a poet and a scholar," but nowhere is this substantiated. María (habla conmigo) 14:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed here. Eubulides (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• This statement surprised me too, extremely, and I'm not convinced of it by the citation of a single source. --Halcatalyst (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• The life section begins "He"... who is he? What are his origins, etc? It doesn't even say when he was born.

 Fixed here. Little is known about his life, I'm afraid; I put it all in (plus some speculation, marked as such.) Eubulides (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep in mind WP:LEAD, which states that the lead section must be a summary of the entire article. It therefore stands on its own. The "Life" section should start at the very beginning, as it were.

 Fixed here, which includes a near-complete rewrite of the lead to make it summarize the body better. Eubulides (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• His thinness made him an object of ridicule... again, who does "his" refer to? The last paragraph ended with where Philadelphius had been born.

 Fixed here. Eubulides (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hermesianax wrote... who is Hermesianax?

 Fixed here. Eubulides (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm confused about Philitas' origin. Was he really of Cos? The lead says he was an "Alexandrian poet". Which is it? Was he Greek? I hate to phrase it this way, but this article really needs to be dumbed down. Don't presume readers know much about Ancient Greece, because chances are they don't.

 Fixed here. Eubulides (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• If we are to believe St. George Stock's analysis of the story... this is highly unencyclopedic, but could be easily reworded to put the emphasis on Stock's analysis rather than the collective "we".

 Fixed here. Eubulides (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Both the "Megarian dialectic" and the "Liar paradox" need to be fully explained.

 Fixed here. Eubulides (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• His reputation continued for centuries: whose?

 Fixed here. Eubulides (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Roman poets identified his name with great elegaic writing: when?

 Fixed here. Eubulides (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Other ancient authors mention... who?

 Fixed here. We can't really mention them all (there are lots of them) but that edit gives Callimachus as an example and says that there are others. Eubulides (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm left wondering quite a bit about this important figure. The "Works" section hints at his importance to future Greek and Roman authors, but what about his impact today? Again, what about the claims that the lead makes? What influence did he have upon his students? What about his work as a critic and not just a poet? If he supposedly died while pondering the liar paradox (a famous unusual death), was he also a philosopher? I have no sense of his life, as well; is there no other information available? Like other Ancient Greek figures, are there myths as to his origin? Personal life? Also, the Cos vs. Alexandria confusion needs to be cleared up. As for his work, the one example is interesting, but it's not described in terms of poetics. Meter, genre, etc. Also, are there any theories about what his work amounted to? How many volumes? What are the sources of the surviving verses?

So much more can be said, and for that reason I'm afraid I have to fail this nomination at this time. I do hope that the contributors continue to work on the article; I think it has a lot of promise and it certainly is important and interesting. If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me via my talk page. María (habla conmigo) 14:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

To address the points in the above "wondering quite a bit" paragraph:

• Philitas has very little direct impact today, because almost all his work has vanished. I don't know of a reliable source saying this directly (I guess it's too obvious), so I can't put that in the article; we'll just have to let the reader infer it.
• I added text to back up the claims in the lead.
• I added a new section Philitas of Cos #Influence to talk about his influence on students.
• I think he was more a scholar than a critic; the article no longer says he was a critic.
• The funerary epitaph is fictitious and is a bit of a joke. The current text says this, I hope a bit more clearly. It's not at all clear that he was a philosopher.
• There is very little information about his life or his personal life, and much of that is guesswork. I've added text along those lines to Philitas of Cos #Life. There are no myths about his origin that I know of; he was not a mythic figure.
• The Cos vs. Alexandrian confusion is cleared up in the lead.
• The one example is conjectured to be from the elegiac Demeter, but the fragment is so short that this is just a guess, really. I added text to that effect.
• As far as I know we don't know how long his works were, though they probably weren't that long (is that vague enough?...).
• The surviving fragments come from many sources; I'm not sure it's worth listing them all here. I think it should suffice to give the sources for each example, which I've done.

Thanks again. The bottom line is that Philitas is a "wonderful" character, in the sense that so little is known about this important intellectual figure. Eubulides (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)