Cento Vergilianus de laudibus Christi is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 8 June 2017.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I had put off GA reviewing this because I peer reviewed the article, but I've done all of the other GAs I was interested in, and this has been waiting around for two months now, so unless you would particularly prefer someone else to do it I'll try to get you a review soon. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
General Comments
It might be nice to discuss the poem's place in the tradition of Christian interpretations of pagan literature, especially since Virgil was a perennial subject of this – from Constantine at least up to Dante's Divine Comedy. Did Proba specifically choose Virgil because of this? Does she conciously refer to this tradition? Is she referenced by later authors who wwork in this tradition?
I added a paragraph in the 'background' section that expands upon Virgil. I can't really find any source that explains why she cited him exactly, but I added a bit on why he was often imitated.--Gen. Quon(Talk)20:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
It isn't clear in the article why most scholars think that Jerome's garrula anus refers to Proba rather than anyone else. Is there any particular reason?
I added the bit "...in which he criticized Virgilian centos..." to make it clearer that the assumption is based largely on the contents on the letter and how closely he seems to allude to the work of Proba.--Gen. Quon(Talk)20:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
I've made a couple of copyediting changes to tighten up the article's prose; you might want to check to make sure you are happy with them.
Okay, so looking at the article again, it definitely passes criteria 2 (verifiable/no OR), 4 (NPOV), 5 (stability), and 6 (images). I think it's also okay on criterion 1. I'm wavering over whether it is sufficiently broad in its coverage, though. I really would like it if the article addressed how the poem fits into the tradition of Christian interpretations of pagan lit in general and Virgil in particular, as above. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the review. I'll get to work on this ASAP. (I have a few commitments the next couple of days, but I'll definitely get to it after those. Will that be an issue?)--Gen. Quon(Talk)15:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Looks good to me. I'll give the entire article one more read-through tomorrow to make sure, but based on the quick look I just had I suspect you are going to be the lucky recipient of another GA credit very shortly...
Okay, I've read through the article again, and nothing jumps out at me as being obviously problematic. Writing is perfectly clear and grammatical, if not always brilliant; article is well-cited, broad enough, stable, and the images are fine. I'm passing this one. Congratulations! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.