Talk:Beulé Gate/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ppt91 (talk · contribs) 18:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Very excited to start this review of another valuable contribution by the nominator. From my first impressions, the article is very well written (which is to be expected from this author), makes extensive use of reliable scholarship, and covers the subject in great (but not excessive) detail. The visual material is also really helpful. I don't anticipate major edits, and my comments will likely focus on organization and structure, which I think can be improved somewhat to make the article a bit more accessible to a non-specialist reader. I plan to have the first batch of my comments by tomorrow if not earlier and I am looking forward to working together! Ppt91^talk 18:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Resolved items

General comments Regarding structure of the article, I am wondering whether the nominator would be willing to adjust/edit some of the sections. It might be a good idea to include Date, Inscription, and Construction into one large section titled History with subsections Dating, Construction, and Inscription. That way, the reader will be able to navigate the content more easily while the modern content of Excavation can remain as is. Below is my suggestion for content organization as bullet points. I am open to other ideas, but I would like to see content moved around for more clarity. Description History Dating Construction Inscription Excavation Ppt91talk 16:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Hi Ppt91 - thanks for taking this on. It's a thought: the key consideration in section hierarchy is section length, and the consequent effect on readability (from a strict GA point of view, the caveat should be added that the criteria only require a frankly bottom-scraping standard here). The "Date" section is certainly, in my view, too long to be anything other than L2 (as it currently is) given the overall size of the article; the "Construction" section could go either way but is certainly more than long enough to be L2. However, I can see an argument for making "Inscription" (which is probably too short for an L2) a subsection of "Description": so we would have: Description Inscription (since this follows the same logic of describing what can/could always be physically observed on the monument) Date Construction Excavation To me, that structure makes probably the most sense. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC) ::I've gone ahead and done this: for various reasons (including disambiguating with another inscription mentioned further down), moving "Inscription" in this way seems pretty clear-cut. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Thanks for addressing this! I still would like to suggest a few tweaks. 1. It might be a good idea to change "Inscription" to "Dedicatory inscription" (a term you use in the section and in the image caption) for the sake of clarity and specificity. 2. Are you fundamentally opposed to changing "Date" to "Dating"? Speaking from an art historical standpoint, the term dating (as in chronological dating) is commonly used to describe the process of determining an artifact's date range. I imagine the standard would be the same for archaeology--or is there is a specific reason as to why "Date" would be preferred? I'll start section-by-section feedback as soon as we clarify this. Ppt91talk 14:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC) ::::1 done (good idea, especially as there are other inscriptions mentioned in the article). 2 - yes: as you describe, dating is a process, and this isn't a historical section as to how the date of the monument has been established: its aim is to give, as far as possible, the reader a chance to form a conclusion as to its date. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Lead As is known, I am a stickler for linking, but I do think “fortified gate” deserves a link Done UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Link medieval period Done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Prose suggestion: “during the Ottoman times”; also, I think it would be helpful to give some date ranges or at the very least a starting date for the Ottoman times Date added in the body; not sure it's right for the lead, especially given the Wikilink to "Ottoman Greece". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I’d like to see a few more words of explanation for spolia and entablature Done for spolia. Not ideologically opposed for entablature, but it's difficult to think of a succinct definition (mindful of MOS:LEAD: we should be brief here) that adds value to the cohort of readers who don't know the word: I think it's inferable enough from context that it's a part of the gate. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) BCE and CE should be linked I think that would go against MOS:OVERLINK, since those are both commonly-understood terms: it's certainly unusual across Wikipedia (by way of comparison, see Archimedes and Chariot Racing, two randomly-picked Greece FAs: neither does it). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) “Its construction marked the beginning of a new phase in the Acropolis's use, in which it came to be seen more as a potential defensive position than in the religious terms that had marked its use in the Classical period.” Might be a good idea to split into two sentences for clarity Possibly, though the 'obvious' fix - "Its construction marked the beginning of a new phase in the Acropolis's use. In this phase, the Acropolis came to be seen more as a potential defensive position than in the religious terms that had marked its use in the Classical period" - introduces a new problem of being repetitious. Did you have a particular formulation in mind? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I would link “archaeologist” Per MOS:OVERLINK, it's a common occupation, which the MOS tells us not to link. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) “though archaeologists and Greek commentators criticised the aggressive means by which Beulé had carried out the excavation” what kind of means? This should be briefly clarified for non-specialist audience This is set out in detail in the body text, of which the lead (per MOS:LEAD) is only meant to be a summary: going into much detail here would break WP:DUEWEIGHT, as the criticism of Beulé's methods is a comparatively minor part of the material in secondary sources on the gate. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Responding to all points here. If you'd like to leave entablature as is, that's fine with me! I still believe "aggressive means by which Beulé had carried out the excavation" sounds somewhat vague; perhaps "dangerous and potentially destructive"? You might know an alternative better suited for this context. Ppt91talk 16:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC) On further thought, I agree it can be expanded a little: I've added a short sentence to clarify that we're particularly talking about his use of dynamite. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Description Might consider linking staircase to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stairs#Stairs_in_art_and_architecture WP:OVERLINK would advise against that, as it's a common word. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC) There are several instances of specialized vocabulary in the second half of this section and I wonder if there is a way to be more descriptive; again, I am thinking about non-specialist audience in this case Yes: we've got the problem here that these are specialised words which exist for a reason, namely that there isn't much of a good way of describing what they refer to in everyday English. Open to suggestions, but I think any solution which explains them all fully would end up being rather ridiculously bloated. Looking at one of our few building FAs (Biblioteca Marciana), that also has an "Architecture" section which makes fairly unapologetic use of technical terms, which are (as here) wikilinked to provide an easy means of looking them up. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Fine with me! Ppt91talk 19:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Could we use an additional adjective for Doric order to immediately distinguish it from the other two canonical column orders? For instance, “non-ornamental” or something similar I think that (or any similar short description) would be an oversimplification: it's simply a different visual idiom to the Ionic and (later) Corinthian. It's not just about columns: the fact that the frieze is made up of metopes and triglyphs rather than a continuous band is itself, for instance, part of the Doric Order. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Inscription I’d like to see more on Choregic Monument of Nicias, including date ranges which are mentioned in the lead as well as relevant historical context; the transition here seems a bit abrupt and the reader would benefit from a more detailed historical account The date of construction (which is relevant here) is (now) mentioned; the date of demolition is more controversial and is discussed under the Beulé Gate's construction, to which it's most relevant. In terms of context, is there something particular you had in mind that would be relevant to this monument, rather than the 'original' Choragic one?? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Further to this, I've added a little bit as to what the original monument looked like: it's helpful to be clear that it wasn't a gate, I think. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Link choregos in quote; it’s separate from the monument already linked Ppt91^talk 15:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  • It's already linked immediately before, so shouldn't be linked twice. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Generally re linking, a few words of explanation. One, I am aware of MOS:OVERLINK, which I think I've mentioned a few times before, including my propensity to link more than generally advised. However, I find that specific guidance to be quite limiting. Its definition of "general terms" is very expansive and has resulted, at least from my GAR experience, in underlinking of phrases that a reader can find very helpful. In particular, the examples listed there to me seem contrary the following guidance A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. On the one hand, we're encouraged to break the rules if it makes en-wiki better, but on the other, everyone seems to be self-policing the linking guidance to a point where it has a detrimental effect on the (particularly unfamiliar) reader. And the evidence used support the rule relies on a single study from 2016 which is hardly a sampling sufficient enough to make a unilateral judgment regarding the ways in which people navigate en-wiki. I think it is perfectly fine to link BCE or CE to further WP's educational mission and I generally think the same for every term I include in this review. Of course, if you're strongly opposed based on your own judgement of the term's potential usefulness, I will be happy to concur, but I would also appreciate it if we could avoid referencing MOS:OVERLINK policy for every link suggestion I make in the review moving forward.

  • I do see your point. There's an accessibility trade-off in adding links: firstly, creating a mosaic effect of black and blue text (or whatever alternative a given user's browser might create) compromises readability, particularly for viewers with certain conditions and visual impairments. There's also a clarity trade-off: we tell readers that we've linked things which will have some level of value to them if they click on them: the lower we make that threshold of value, the less confident they will be that clicking on the link is worth their time, and it becomes harder for them to tell really useful links from those that are less so. As you point out, nobody's under any obligation to follow practically any of the site's guidelines, but it's generally a good udea to respect large-scale community consensus where it exists. Please do point out if you think there are any other cases which would be worth a link. I'm happy to handle them case by case, though I'll be quite open and say that I think WP:OVERLINK is worth following because it's generally good sense, not simply because it's a guideline. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

More to come soon. Ppt91^talk 19:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Date

• Great job summarizing all of the scholarship here. I wonder, is it possible to mention current scholarly consensus at the outset? Infobox mentions 3rd to 4th c. I recognize it might be challenging, but I was thinking of a sentence along the lines of "Contemporary scholars generally agree that the gate was originally constructed in..." If not something you're comfortable with or you think it's an oversimplification, no pressure to add.
• I think you should briefly identify when and where the archaeologists mentioned here lived and worked, "nineteenth-century French..." and so on
• An inscription found on a stone later reused in the Ottoman fortifications of the Acropolis preserves an inscription commemorating Flavius Septimius Marcellinus for having constructed "the gateway to the Acropolis, from his own resources." This sentence is a bit clunky and I think a repetition might have sneaked in. Also, period should be outside of the quotation mark (as much as that irks and confuses me on daily basis), i.e. from his own resources".
  • It goes inside the quotation when the quotation is itself a complete sentence, which is the case here, or outside if it's not: see MOS:LQUOTE for a fuller explanation. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Where is the full sentence? I am only seeing "the gateway to the Acropolis, from his own resources" while the rest is paraphrased. To use an example from MOS: Miller wanted, he said, "to create something timeless". vs. Miller said: "I wanted to create something timeless." Ppt91^talk 20:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  You're quite right; the quotation isn't quite what I thought it was - changed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Glad we figured it out. Again, I am not a fan of this policy, so sorry if that seemed pesky. Ppt91^talk 20:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• might say a few more words about Panhellenic games?
  • Done: it turns out that it's a little more complicated than I thought, so I've put the key info in body text and added a footnote for the minutiae. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Ppt91^talk 20:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)