Since the GAN review, the table and the "Reception and scholarship" section have been added, and the "Composition and attribution" section has been rewritten (among other changes); as a result, quite a bit of the article hasn't had another set of eyes check things over. The hope is to take the article through the FAC process in the near future.

Thanks, Michael Aurel (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again to the commenters below. Just noting here that if there are no further comments I'll probably move things over to FAC in the next week or so. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From a semi-knowledgeable perspective about Ancient Greece, the article does look to be FA quality, with the following minor changes:

• Where names of academics appear, their occupation/expertise should be written, to help show why their opinion is given

  This could largely be personal preference, but I tend to agree with the points made in this essay: User:Caeciliusinhorto/Context considered harmful. For this page, I'm not sure much helpful context could really be provided, as most of the scholars mentioned are known primarily for their work on the Hymns (eg. Morand, Ricciardelli, Fayant, Malamis), or they're authorities on Orphic literature (eg. Edmonds, West). I think all we could really say in most cases is "scholar x" or "classicist y", and I'm not sure how much that adds. That said, perhaps they are standards or expectations around this at FAC that I'm not aware of (if there are, do let me know!). – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, makes sense. You can probably add "it's widely debated by philogists and classicists" or something like that in the lead? Might be the reason the prose seemed off without it.

  Something along those lines could work. Perhaps if we wanted to specify "philologists and classicists" in the lead, we could integrate the phrase into the existing discussion of the history of the Hymns' scholarship in the last paragraph? – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  sounds like a good idea

  Added, to the end of the lead (which is where I think it fits most easily without restructuring things). I've gone with "classicists and historians of religion", as I think "historian of religion" would probably apply more to the scholars in the article (eg. Rudhardt, Sfameni Gasparro, Veyne), and it made a little more sense than "philologists" in that sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds good

• If possible, at least some of the longer paragraphs should be made shorter- the ideal paragraph would be around 150-200 words.

  Probably a good idea; I've split up a few of the longer ones. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "The collection can also be seen as part of the genre of hymnic literature attributed to Orpheus, of which it is the most important surviving representative.":"The collection can also be seen as the most important surviving representative of the genre of hymnic literature attributed to Orpheus."(shorten, bcs importance in Orphic literature is already given, and the hymns will just be a subset)

  Rephrased along those lines: The Orphic Hymns are most important surviving representative of the genre of hymnic literature attributed to Orpheus.. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Editions and translations" should probably be after the references

  Hmm, we could, though I would be a little worried that readers might assume they're cited works; most aren't cited, though the few that are can be found in the "References" section as well. (The idea, by the way, came from Catalogue of Women#Editions and translations). – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's under a separate level 2 heading, I don't think they will be confused with the cited works- also, are there no public domain translations into english that might be added under external links?( A google search seems to show taylor's translation on many websites)

  Taylor's translation could be linked (eg. [1][2]), though I've avoided doing so because of how out of date it is (nearing on 250 years, and it has a lot of issues). As to moving the list of editions, I wouldn't say I'm necessarily opposed to doing so, though I think it feels a little more natural where it is; I'd sort of consider it as fulfilling a similar role to a list of publications in a biographical article, if that makes sense. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A bad translation is probably better than no translation- unless it's really really bad

  If you like, I could link Athanassakis and Wolkow's translation (Internet Archive) (or the Google Books version) and Malamis's translation (Google Books), which are recent and would allow most readers to read the hymns. I'd also be happy to link Hermann's 1805 Greek edition (Internet Archive), which, despite its age, is still generally praised for its quality. As to Taylor's translation, and whether it's "really, really bad", I think I would say that it is; happy to explain my reasoning for this, but let me know what you think of including the other translations instead. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like they are a good addition

• Perhaps a different image of Dionysus can be used- page says the hymns were from 1st century BC to second century AD- so a more contemporary image of him

  In recent times, they've generally dated to around the 2nd or 3rd centuries AD (so the depiction should be contemporary). – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, stuck

• Given that Protogonos is the only decidedly Orphic deity in the hymns, perhaps an image of him too?

  Sure, that seems a good idea to me. File:Fanes Loggia Cornaro.jpg is contemporary (2nd century AD); added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are we sure that the licensing on that is correct? It looks like a book scan to me (notice the pattern of "dots" across the image), which would mean it can't be the uploader's own work. It certainly doesn't look, to me, like a photograph taken by a Wikipedian in 2022. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Darn – you're right of course, the same image appears elsewhere on the internet (eg. [3]), and, looking through sources on the relief, the image would seem to be the same as the one in this 1966 book. So, clearly not the property of the uploader; removed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You could probably use the image that's on the Protogonos article?

  Hmm, we could, though it's a modern depiction, so it doesn't really tell us how the Greeks (or the group who used the Hymns) conceived of him. File:Arte romana, rilievo con aion-phanes entro lo zodiaco, 150 dc ca., probabilmente da un mitreo.jpg (of the same relief) looks quite good, and looks as though it's a recent photograph, though it has a notice relating to Italian copyright regulations. Otherwise there's File:Engraving of a marble relief of Phanes.jpg, though it isn't a good illustration. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am unsure about which should be used of these three, but there should definitely be an image of Protogonos

  Actually, File:Mithraic Kronos, zodiac signs.png works, and it seems to be PD. Added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can ping me when you take it to FAC, I'll be glad to give an image review, and perhaps another review of the prose, because I'll give it an even more comprehensive read then. DWF91 (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these suggestions, DoctorWhoFan91! I'll look forward to your review at FAC. Do also let me know if you have any thoughts regarding my response to your first point. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to the points that could still be changed. DWF91 (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your replies, didn't notice that you had replied

@DoctorWhoFan91: Thanks, I probably should have pinged you when I responded. Replied on the final point. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in the subject, but not knowing much, I'll note my observations. It may take time, - travelling. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda! It's particularly helpful to have someone less familiar with the topic look over things, as the article suffered in the past from being overly technical. I've thought about an infobox, but haven't been too successful in producing an adequate one; unfortunately most of the pieces of information which would sit nicely into an infobox aren't too significant here (metre, or the date of the first English translation), while the most important points wouldn't really fit (place in the Orphic literary tradition, nature of the group who used them). A lead image would certainly be nice (though there isn't an obvious candidate). One possibility would be File:Magic tablet from Pergamon (Wünsch, Antikes Zaubergerät).png – it's not colourful, but does depict something uniquely related to the collection. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the lead last, after reading through. I miss an infobox, telling people who may not know that Orphic is derived from Orpheus at a glance that this is not about some church songs ;) - Metamorphoses might be a model. - I also miss some lead image, for the same purpose, to connect it visibly to ancient Greece, a link I suggest to use in the prose.

Provenance ...

• "Mise, Hipta, and Melinoe – who are otherwise attested only in western Asia Minor" - I don't understand "otherwise".

  The intended meaning was "who are, outside of the collection, attested only in ...", though the Hymns are themselves almost certainly from western Asia Minor, so the "otherwise" probably isn't needed; removed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto Kern - yes, there's a link, but perhaps a short description would make it easier to tell his relevance.

  I'll answer this one below. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "recently discovered" - a bit tough to remember that this is related to 1911

  "recently" removed (when they were discovered isn't really relevant in this section) – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Anne-France Morand - she has no article, therefore a short description might be even more wanted, or at least a year when she wrote that. Consider not to use the present tense ("concludes" and other instances), because it will become dated.

  I suspect a number of editors will disagree with me here, but see what you think of the response I gave to DoctorWhoFan91 above (the one at the top). Looking at a few of our classics FAs, they don't seem to be entirely consistent on this point; for example, Corinna excludes these kinds of descriptions, while Beulé Gate includes them (for the most part). To use Anne-France Morand as an example, she is known primarily for her work on the Hymns I believe, so we could call her "scholar Anne-France Morand" (or "scholar of the Hymns, Anne-France Morand"), though both feel as though they don't tell us much that the reader wouldn't already assume. Perhaps we could add "Canadian scholar Anne-France Morand", though where she's from doesn't mean a whole lot here. So, in essence, I think excluding descriptions would be better, though I'm certainly happy to be convinced otherwise. ;)

  With respect to tense, I've tended to use past tense (and include a relevant date) when the scholar is older, as their opinions are out of date (eg. Otto Kern), and present tense for contemporary scholars, as their opinions reflect current scholarship. Dates might work well, though we mention quite a number of contemporary scholars in the prose, and the reader might already have quite a bit of information to take in. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I followed the tense idea for Bach's cantatas, but now - some 15 years later - I changed most to past tense, because it's often quite a while ago that comments were made that felt "recent" in 2010. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "was more likely private" - I don't understand why that would rule it out.

  Sanctuaries were typically public; this should have been explained, though. I've now added (with a source): as the site of the cult's activity was more likely private (and sanctuaries were generally public). – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if "Date" could be another subheader, otherwise the para is long.

  I've split up the paragraphs a bit (which was needed). Separate "Location" and "Date" sections could work, though (and this is really just personal preference) I think the subsection "feels about right" in terms of length at the moment. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• rhapsodies (lc), if a genre

  It's sometimes italicised in sources (ie. "Orphic Rhapsodies"), though it tends not to be; it's the name given by scholars to a lost theogony, so it's one work (although, in reality, scholars disagree on whether it really was just one work, but for our purposes it is). – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• what's "proem"?

  Good catch. This is explained in the following paragraph, but it seems it slipped in here. Relegated that bit to a note, where we can redirect the reader to the relevant part of the article. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

End of a travel day: thank you for thinking about things and making changes. I can follow your reasoning mostly. Perhaps use that lead image, and say about Anne-France Morand something such as "who is known primarily for her work on the Hymns", telling it those who don't know it. Better would be to write an article about her. I agree that nationality doesn't matter - compare my user page ;) - If she is a leading scholar on the topic, you might give us the name of an important book and its publication year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image added, as having something there seems a good idea to me. For Morand, I've gone with "Evaluating Kern's hypothesis in her 2001 study of the Hymns, Anne-France Morand concludes that" which I think conveys some of what's desired (unfortunately, I think "who is known primarily ..." would need sourcing); the book's actual title might also work, though it's "Studies of the Orphic Hymns" in French, so mentioning it might not be too exciting. I'll leave the matter of whether (or how much) context should be provided somewhat up in the air for now, seeing what later reviewers think, but do feel free to point out if there are other places you feel it's particularly needed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I like the image there. Regarding introductions, I think if nothing special comes up, the one introduction will be a nice pars pro toto to establish that what she and others say is substantial. Will continue reading now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

• I still believe that Rhapsodies - when italic and a title, should be italic, perhaps even Orphic Rhapsodies.

  That works. It is more commonly written without the italics I think, but if it'll avoid confusion I don't see an issue with italicising it here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Orphic Hymns are most important surviving representative of the genre of hymnic literature attributed to Orpheus." - feels like a word is missing?

  Yup, fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "that which does points" - perhaps I am the only one to have to read that twice

  Yes, the phrasing was clumsy. Hopefully now a bit more natural: and the relatively little surviving evidence for this genre points to such works having been .... – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Structure ...

• box: it's not obvious where the first and second lines would be, - I guess what looks like the first line is a header, no?

  Good point. The phrase "Friend, use it to good fortune." is technically before line 1 (it's more part of the dedication, or a subtitle of sorts); probably fine to omit it here. Removed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "In the order of the hymns there occurs a movement from birth to death" - I wonder if you might first describe the fact, and then present this as a conclusion, - "movement" otherwise seemed a strange word.

  Across the two sources, Morand uses the words "cheminement" and "progression". I've tried a rephrasing, though I'm not sure if it's really any better: The hymns follow a sequence which moves from birth to death:. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Morand, however, points to, within the collection, the references to souls" - I think that could be phrased with fewer commas - in different order.

  Removed "within the collection", as I think that's obvious from context. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I found it surprising to click on gold lamellae, unprepared to land on Totenpass. That's a familiar word to me, but possibly to not too many ;)

  Changed to "gold tablets", as that will make more sense to most readers. As to the link to Totenpass, I think that's arguably more an issue with that page (the German term is fairly rare in my experience, perhaps the page should be moved to something with "gold tablets" in the name). – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deities ...

• I think that Homer and Hesiod don't need a link repeated.

  Agreed, fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Textual history

• I've seen criticism if the lead uses exactly the wording of the prose. I personally don't mind that.

  Varied a little (as I think this is the bit you mean): There are no extant references to the Orphic Hymns from antiquity. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The works from the 4th and 5th centuries were linked before.

  Fixed (except for Orphic Argonautica, which was linked in the lead). – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

External links

• I suggest to word 1 and 2 parallel, - not "Google preview" as the linked subject, - or why?

  Fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reached the end, just trusting the table after taking in samples. Will read the lead another day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• why not "87 hymns"?

  Hmm, do you mean use "87" instead of "eighty-seven" (and the same through the rest of the article)? If so, I'm happy either way on this point. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "were attributed to the mythical poet Orpheus in antiquity" - On first reading i missed the "in antiquity" modifies the "attributed" - perhaps bring it sooner?

  Changed to which were attributed in antiquity to the mythical poet Orpheus. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Hymns are one of the few extant works" - "The Hymns are" is fine with me, but the "one" sounds a bit odd, at least to me.

  Changed to The Hymns are among the few extant works of Orphic literature. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is the number of hymn repeated in the second para?

  This was changed during the GA review (see UC's first comment in the "Resolved" tab, starting with "The Orphic Hymns open with a proem: this took me a minute to parse ..."). This seemed the easiest way to clarify that the proem is not one of those eighty-seven hymns, but there are probably other possible phrasings here (eg. "The collection is preceded by a proem"); let me know what you think. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest to include the "prayer" aspect at the end of each hymn.

  This is probably a good idea. We lose a bit of connectedness with the following sentence, but it's probably much more important here that the reader gets an idea of the tripartite structure. I've given this a go. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "and the Hymns themselves possibly refer to members of the group" - this remains unclear to me.

  This was a reference to Morand's view that a number of terms in the hymns (eg. mústai, neomústai, etc) refer to members of the cult, but this probably isn't lead-worthy information; removed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "performance of the hymn" - makes me wonder if performance could have included singing, movement, ...

  I think the general answer here is that we don't really know; the article sort of alludes to this with the mention of tambourines (which would imply something at least somewhat musical in nature), but I think scholars can't do much more than guess at how its performance might have been accompanied during the rite. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you plan to write the red-link article? (When I met FAC, red links were a no-no.)

  Removed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• link to Renaissance? - perhaps bring it with the publication? - and published where?

  Sure, link done. And specified "published in Florence". – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a number of inscriptions were discovered in Asia Minor, leading to the ritual function of the collection being established among classicists and historians of religion." - I think to say clearly - if I got it right - that these inscriptions mention deities addressed in the hymns and appearing only there might be helpful.

  these inscriptions mention deities addressed in the hymns and appearing only there: yes, or at least in most cases (a few of the deities which appear both in the inscriptions and the Hymns are also found elsewhere). I think the reason I didn't mention this here is that the incriptions mentioning the word boukólos were also quite important (eg., the bit about "led Rudolf Schöll to postulate in 1879 ..."), especially around that time in the late 19th/early 20th century. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Diligent work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Gerda! Responded on all points, and suggestions taken in almost all cases. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my pleasure! Looking forward to FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]