Talk:Pythagoras/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hrodvarsson (talk · contribs) 14:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I will review this soon. Hrodvarsson (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Non-reviewer comment: Lots and lots of Harvard citation errors. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: What "errors" are you talking about? I am not aware of any errors. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: The following short citation links are broken because no long citation in Sources is formatted to match them (clicking on the links won't take you to any long citation). There are many reasons why this could be (see Template:Sfn#Wikilink to citation does not work). E.g. "Joost & Gaugier 2016" should probably be "Joost-Gaugier 2016" etc. This is the list of broken citations (all instances of):

• Ferguson 2011
• Joost & Gaugier 2006
• Joost-Gaugier 2007
• Zhmud 2006
• Zhmud 2013
• Riedweg 2002
• Kahn 2003
• 2011

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Thanks. I will fix all of these right away. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Are there any left? I think I have fixed all of them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: these remain:

• Joost-Gaugier 2007
• Ferguson 2011
• Zhmud 2006
• Riedweg 2002

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: I have found all the ones you have listed here, I think. I do not think there are any left, but, since I have already demonstrated my ineptitude in finding them, you may want to check to make sure I have taken care of all of them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Almost. Just two cites of Riedweg 2002 and you're done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: I found them and have corrected them. Thank you for your patience and perseverance. Now all the Harvard citation errors are have been corrected. @Hrodvarsson: I am ready to proceed with the rest of the review. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Some comments:

• "Pythagoras the son of Mnesarchus pursued inquiry further than all other men and, choosing what he liked from these compositions, made a wisdom of his own - much learning, artful knavery". This is not a direct quote of either of the references.

Yes it is. The exact quote can be found halfway down the page on page 13 of Christiane L. Joost-Gaugier's 2006 book Measuring Heaven: Pythagoras and His Influence on Thought and Art in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, which is one of the two sources cited here. Kahn loosely paraphrases the quotation, saying "Heraclitus attacks him as a clever charlatan: his learning is great, but his wisdom is fraudulent." --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

In Joost-Gaugier it is stated "Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchus, practiced inquiry more than any other man, and selecting from these writings he manufactured a wisdom for himself—much learning, artful knavery." Kahn paraphrases but quotes Heraclitus in the footnotes. "Pythagoras son of Mnesarchus pursued inquiry (historié) further than all other men and, choosing what he liked from these compositions, made a wisdom of his own, much learning (polymatheié), artful knavery (kakotechnié)." Neither is the same as the current article version.

@Hrodvarsson: Hmmm... That is odd. I was sure that I had used the exact quote. I must have gotten that other translation of the quote from one of my other books, but I cannot think of which one it was. Oh well. I have corrected the quote now, so it gives the translation given in Joost-Gaugier 2006. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Joost-Gaugier uses an emdash in the quote, not an

• Relatedly, the usage of a hyphen is not in either source and they are not used in this way, per MOS:DASH. Also see "that he - or his students - may have" and change date ranges using hyphens to endashes.

I have converted them all to endashes, as you have requested. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

"he–or his students–may" should use emdashes or be spaced out. "he – or" or "he—or".

• "Porphyry asserts". Change this and most other uses of "assert" and "claim". WP:SAID. (This is mostly harmless but very important when there is a POV being expressed.)

I have changed most of them. I left in one instance of each where I could not think of a better word. Additionally, the words "claim" and "assertion" each occur once as nouns and the word "claim" also appears once in a quotation. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You can use claim in some cases, such as "he claimed x is y" if it is later contradicted that x isn't y, or if there are multiple claims about what x is with no concrete evidence for any claim. It just shouldn't be used when conveying someone's POV if there's no reason to.

• "competing with Homer's more renowned)". His more renowned what? Apologies if I am misreading this line.

The phrase is referring back to the term "rhapsodic tradition." I have removed the phrase since it is not particularly relevant anyway and is not necessary for understanding Pythagoras. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Pythagoras's theorem needs a full stop after it.

I am not sure which instance of the word "theorem" you are referring to. I have done a control F for the word, but all the instances I have found either already have periods after them or do not need periods after them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the equation. It cannot be CtrlF'd as it uses <math>${\displaystyle }$ and is displayed as an image. I will add the period myself for the sake of ease.

• "Walter Burkert rejects this suggestion". Burkert is already introduced, do not need to use his first name. WP:SURNAME

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• "4th century BC". All other mentions of century are [word] century.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: I believe I have fully addressed all of the criticisms you have presented. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I have replied. Hrodvarsson (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

More comments:

• A couple instances of "s'" being used when the majority of cases use "Pythagoras's". Consistency is needed.
• "even more fantastic in their descriptions of Pythagoras's legendary achievements". I don't think legendary is needed here if fantastic is used.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Dante Alighieri was obsessed with Pythagorean numerology". The source does state "Dante's fascination, even obsession," but I think "fascinated by" would be better than "obsessed with" as "obsess" can carry a negative connotation.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Newton attributing his discovery of the law of universal gravitation to Pythagoras seems to be notable enough to warrant a mention in the lead. Newton should also be added to the "Influenced" parameter of the infobox.

I added Newton to the "Influenced" section of the infobox and to the final paragraph of the lead, but I did not add the part about the theory of gravity, because it is a nonessential attribution; no one else has claimed that Pythagoras discovered it and Newton only claimed it to make himself look impressive for having discovered something that only Pythagoras, the greatest of all sages, had discovered before. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I meant to suggest that you just add Newton along with Copernicus and Kepler, apologies if i did not convey my point clearly. It would be undue weight to mention specifics for Newton's case in the lead, yes.

• "Nonetheless, many...". I think this should be changed to "Classical historians dispute whether Pythagoras made these discoveries, and many...".

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• "probably either originated". I think probably should be changed to likely as probably is used a few lines earlier in "probably prohibited his followers".

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• The lead's last paragraph could be split in two after "to what extent, if at all, he actually contributed to mathematics or natural philosophy." One half is discussing his (supposed) achievements, other is discussing his influence on later philosophers/mathematicians.

They originally were separate, but I combined them to make the paragraph length closer to the length of the preceding paragraph about his life and teachings. I have now separated them again, as you have requested. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hrodvarsson (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Okay, that's all I can find. I now believe the article meets the GA criteria. Good work! Hrodvarsson (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·