Corinna

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Corinna is a relatively minor Greek poet, notable mainly for a surprisingly heated debate about when she actually lived, and for being one of the ancient Greek women poets whose work is best (which in the context of Greek lyric really means least worst!) preserved. I have ambitions of featured article status. I brought it to GA back in 2019, but since then it's almost doubled in length, from 1100 words to nearly 2000. Any feedback gratefully received!

Thanks, Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

Thanks for these comments, Mujinga! I've changed most things following your advice. There are I think two points where I haven't: the caption for the Stuckelberg painting, because it is descriptive rather than just identifying the artwork, I have left as is; I haven't linked panhellenic, which redirects to Greek nationalism and I don't think is a very useful target in this context. Wikt:Panhellenic would be better, but I don't know that "panhellenic" is such a confusing word that we need to link the dictionary entry. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure yes I was also wondering if the panhellenic link worked or not. If not would it be easier then just to say Greek? Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's an important distinction in meaning; the local mythical traditions that critics pan Corinna for working within (with all of the sneering comments about being "provincial") are still Greek, even if they aren't panhellenic. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SusunW

(edit conflict)* An "alt" description is missing for the photos of the work by Brodie, the Part of P.Berol, and the marble sculpture of Corinna.

  • Corinna of Tanagra, c. 1893 says author is "Christie, Manson & Woods", which is true for the book, but not the painting. Painting was authored by Frederick Leighton, who died in 1896. The book doesn't say where it was published, but as it was published in 1908 by Christie's and notes the auction was at 8 King Street, St. James's Square, which is the auction house's address, we are probably fine to conclude it was published in London. We have no evidence that it was ever published in the US, but 70 years after Leighton's death would have been 1966 and 70 years after publication would be 1977. Based on that analysis, I think that it should probably have ((PD-old-auto)) and ((PD-1996)). (I am unsure if you need to use ((PD-Art)) because this seems to imply that it would be redundant if the photograph (not the artwork itself) is already in the PD?) Perhaps buidhe can help answer that and look over my other photo comments? (It's so complicated and I am trying to learn this but it is hard!)
  • I went with "PD-scan" and "PD-old-70-1923". Because it is a scan of a book, published before 1923 (satisfies any concerns about PD-US), and the author of the creative work died at least 70 years ago. (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stückelberg Myrthis und Corinna seems fine on the PD-Art (Switzerland does not grant a copyright for photographs of artwork in the PD) but the tag seems to be automatically generating a message that it was published in the US. I can't find any version of the book or the artwork ever "published" anywhere other than Switzerland and publishing is irrelevant because the US status is the same as Switzerland's, i.e. cannot copyright a faithful reproduction of a PD 2-D artwork. I don't see any tag on WP that says it is ineligible for copyright in the US, but to prove that it is ineligible, I think it needs to be tagged to show that the original work expired 70 years after the 1903 death of the painter and was in the PD in prior to 1996 for the US, i.e. ((PD-old-auto)) and ((PD-1996)).
  • PD-Art can be used for all countries regardless of the laws of the country of origin, according to consensus on Commons. I'm willing to accept PD-1996 even without knowing when the first publication was because the chance of being copyrighted in the US is very low (if unpublished, it would also have lost copyright protection). (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Corinna (by William Brodie) I must admit I don't understand the licensing on it. Brodie died in 1881, thus his sculpture went into the PD in 1951. The photo album accredited to Philip Henry Delamotte who died in 1889 doesn't contain any publishing information at all, but the Met indicates it was made around 1859 in Britain. (The operative word here is made, not published.) US copyright says for unpublished works 70 years after the death of the author, if they died before 1952. But British copyright law says if the author is known: "If the work was not published before 30 August 1989 and the author died before 1969 then copyright expires at the end of 2039." The museum supposedly acquired the album in 2005, so how could they have donated it to commons? Seems to me as if the photograph isn't in the PD, because it cannot be covered under the 2-D art rule and we have no evidence of publishing prior to 1989?
  • SusanW raises some valid points here but I'm willing to accept MetMuseum's assertion that there are no copyright issues, which seems entirely plausible to me. (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused. In the analysis of the British National Archives release of photos on the recent review of Olive Morris, you weren't willing to accept their copyright release, but in this case you are willing to accept the Met's. I don't understand the difference? SusunW (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The more recent something is the more likely it is still in copyright so a work from the late twentieth century asserted to be copyright-expired warrants a lot more caution than a nineteenth-century work. In addition, I'm more likely to trust "public domain" versus "no known copyright restrictions"—I may be wrong but I tend to think that institutions would use the latter more loosely. (t · c) buidhe 03:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of P.Berol. 13284, similar to the above art tag, the ((PD-scan)) tag is auto-generating a tag that says the French publication was published or registered in the US. That is unsubstantiated. We have no indication that it was published anywhere other than in France. Though we know from the publishing date of 1911 that it was out of copyright in 1981. Thus it seems logical that ((PD-1996)) should be the proper US tag.
  • What PD-1923 is supposed to mean is (published) or (registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before 1927. The publication could be in another country; see the Hirtle chart. Licensing is OK. (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • buidhe Thanks for looking at these, so to make sure I understand, published means anywhere? It doesn't read that way to me, but I tend to take things literally. I truly appreciate your comments. SusunW (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, see the Hirtle chart, first row under "Works First Published Outside the U.S." confirms this applies also to works published outside the US before 1927. (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statue of Corinna says author was Phototypie Berthaud who died in 1912. I think that is meant to say Michel Berthaud, who died in 1912. According to the National Library of France, the business does not appear to have been active after 1898. Like the other two above, I think the licensing tag is wrong, as it says it was published/registered in the US. We have no evidence it was ever published in the US, just that it was published in France, i.e. it should have ((PD-France)) and ((PD-1996)), because it was in the public domain by 1982.
  • Licensing here is fine for the reasons stated above. Even if the exact author is unknown it doesn't matter because ((PD-old-unknown)) allows us to assume they have been dead at least 70 years. (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article is well written. I hope I was able to help some. I know very little about the ancient world and even less about literary criticism, but perhaps my lay-person's review gives a different slant. I appreciate the opportunity to possibly learn more about photo reviews and thank you for that. SusunW (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your incredibly helpful comments! I've mostly adopted them pretty much wholesale. Further comments on a few specific points:

It's fine.
Difference in genres I suppose and why I said ignore it if you wished. It occurs to me that we only know of the ancients because of scholars; whereas, with the 18-20th century women I typically work on, there are other sources of media to build upon.
Makes sense.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for tripping on your fingers. My internet has been up and down all day. Apparently they are working on the service at the police station across the street. o.0 I finally just decided to type until the end of my comments and save it, but that resulted in an edit conflict. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, internet problems are the worst. Hope they get yours sorted out! Second worst is Wikipedia's byzantine image copyright rules, so I'll save that particular joy for the weekend, I think. You're right to point out that I haven't done alt texts, though, and I should get on that... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kaiser matias

I'll look this over in the next day or so. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that I don't see anything majorly glaring. For someone with very little background in the subject it comes across accessible, and I find it interesting that there is such a debate about her life. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Changed a couple of things per your recommendations. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. Good job here. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder Comments from Tim riley

I'll join the reviewers here in the next day or two, I hope. More a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 14:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an impressive article. Only a few points from me:

That's all from me. I hope you will take the article to FAC, and if you do, please ping me and I'll gladly look in there. – Tim riley talk 18:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these helpful pointers! I've implemented the easiest fixes, and will look at the others soon. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query from Z1720

@Caeciliusinhorto and Caeciliusinhorto-public: It has been over a month since the last comment in this PR. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If so, I suggest seeking reviewers from relevant Wikiprojects or editors who have written similar FAs. If not, can we close this? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Z1720; I've closed it Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category