Talk:Prise d'Orange

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thoughts

  • Not sure chanson de geste is super commonly understood and while the link is great, I'd recommend a gloss or similar for the lay reader
  • I'd suggest clarifying that the poem is not based on real events in the lede-- my first reading left me thinking it was
  • The lead ends with the 12th century. Can you bring it to modern day?
  • I'm curious/a little confused about the greater background about the cycles. Could you establish some more background about what chansons de geste are or were. Other articles should do this, but from what I've seen they don't do a great job. OK, you do a good job establishing background in 'structure' and 'textual history'. Now I'd suggest consider what use the background section holds. Would it be better integrated in other sections? I was left with a lot of questions after reading it (See below)-- many of which I think are answered throughout the rest of the article.
  • suggest linking/glossing 'chanson' the first time it comes up in the body
  • Do we know what number of the 24 this poem was?
  • Suggest prefacing "William of Orange" with "the fictional" or similar.
  • "The Guillaume of the chansons," couldn't parse this sentence correctly on my first read. Maybe swap the order, revise slightly, and place it directly after "from youth to old age"?
  • "They also centre" what does this sentence mean? Am I being particularly slow, or is there something missing?
    • Does Special:Diff/1068554698 help? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kind of... What do you mean by "centre the relationship"? My brain wants it to be "centre on the relationship", which is admittedly a different meaning Eddie891 Talk Work 01:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Was just supposed to be "hey, reader, it's kinda wacky why boys hang out with their uncles instead of their fathers in these poems—as it turns out, this might be because children were considered as part of their mother's family only". The theory is developed in doi:10.7312/farn94492, but that book is very old and does not appear to have had much uptake besides the brief mention in Ferrante and a few other places. I removed it for now. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe consider moving the part about Guillaume's main historical counterpart to the third paragraph in this section?
  • "the historical Guillaume never reconquered the city from them" feels like an odd place to have the reconquering mentioned first
  • Suggest going through the article reviewing links (I've noticed a few that are already linked in the lead but would benefit from one in the body too)
  • "reach the walled city of Orange" feels a little late to establish that Orange was walled
  • "Disguised as a Turk," perhaps "still disguised as a Turk" unless he has changed costumes?
  • "Nîmes for reinforcements" perhaps "to get" them? 'for' could be interpreted a few ways
  • "Of the approximately 3,700 hemistichs in Prise, about 1,500 are repeated" meaning that there are about 2200 distinct hemistichs or 5200?
  • Suggest where possible distinguishing people beyond just "scholar" where possible i.e. "scholar of medieval literature"
    • So this is a substantive Q. If I were writing anywhere other than WP, I would just use the person's name. It's implied in context (esp given that the citations are to journals about medieval lit or similar) that the people to whom analysis are attributed are scholars of medieval lit. But over time I've detected what looks like a tacit consensus that you're supposed to preface these attributions with "scholar of ...", à la WP:CONTEXTBIO. (See the sections on literature in J. K. Rowling, for example.) I think it's kinda silly and doesn't add much, and I want to just remove these descriptors entirely. Is there something in the MOS that says you have to? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A similar planctus appears in The Song of Roland" suggest a brief bit showing why the 'Song of Roland' is a relevant connection
  • "The first modern version" how are we defining modern here? Maybe link to a relevant article, if it exists?
    • So the source said "first publication", which must mean "first attested publication in a form like that of the contemporary book". The basic idea is, I think: first release in a non-oral, non-manuscript form. Relatively minor point overall; I could probably just say "first publication", but that reads weirdly to me too. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the textual history, interpretation and reception sections a lot! Really interesting
  • Suggest adding some sort of date to Bedier's reading
  • " inferior because " suggest "inferior to [something]..."

This is from a readthrough. On the whole, I liked the article a lot. Very interesting stuff. Just some food for thought. Nothing major. Drmies might be interested in weighing in, if he hasn't yet. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Prise_d%27Orange"