Early life and education[edit]
I write out the full name at first mention. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any dates for his university studies? Modussiccandi (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Frustratingly not: I've included every drop of information on this subject I can get from the sources (which is to say, not a whole lot). It would be WP:OR to attempt to do so, but it's not easy to reconstruct the chronology here: Munich was clearly his 'main' academic training (and presumably his doctorate?), but the others clearly have to represent different sorts/lengths/formalities of training, and I can see no means in the (again, highly limited) sources to be any more precise than the article already is. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be better to re-word the information on Heinrich Brunn in a way that is more neutral and explains more clearly what he worked on.Modussiccandi (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - which also involved a bit of a re-work and expansion.
Archaeological career[edit]
Does 'ephor' need to be italicised? My hunch is 'no' because it's already the anglicised version of the Greek word έφορος. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've de-italicised: my reading of MOS:ITALICS is that it's an either-way decision (basically revolving around whether the word is in common English usage), but it should be consistent, and both ephors and 'Ephor-General' read oddly to me. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ephor needs more explanation in the text. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done , though it's tricky: part of the point is that ephors never really had a 'job description' in this period, and Kavvadias was at any rate the first of them. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need a very short introduction to Pausanias (e.g. 'the Greek travel writer'). Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need an explanation for abaton. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Introduce Valerios Stais (and all other scholars mentioned later. I saw you did this for some, so it won't be that much work). Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is done - would appreciate fresh eyes to see if I've missed any. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I will do another read through later! Modussiccandi (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would do away with 'Homeric' and give a short explanation of what exactly this means. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The specific word "Homeric" is important in this context: firstly, it's Kavvadias' own word for what he was doing, and secondly it's about the (then considered obvious, now considered highly dodgy) assumption that a) the Homeric poems are historical and b) that they 'happened' in the Late Bronze Age and so that c) sites from the LBA can be called 'Homeric'. I've added an EFN and clarification that Kavvadias used the term to frame (and justify) his 'research questions'. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
near that is unclear. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd spell out 'Roman era' vel sim. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps reconsider the use of 'that' in when he discovered the two small Mycenaean tholos tombs at Kokkolata. It seems as if readers should somehow know what these are. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider breaking the sentence before footnote 21 into two shorter ones for ease of reading. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 'ever' in with no issue ever published for 1886 or 1887 appears superfluous. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excavations and Restorations on the Acropolis (1885–1909)[edit]
pediment of 'Hercules and the Hydra' is unclear. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think kouros/kore can be left without italics since the terms have for some time been used as English-language terms. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The repetition of 'ramains' in remains of an early Christian church, as well as significant remains is somewhat infelicitous. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to leave out the word 'arrephoroi' since the linked article is poor and the explanation given on the Arrhephoria is sufficient.
- I'm not sure here: changing it to 'used during the Arrhephoria' removes precision and information (was it the arrhephoroi who used it, or the spectators, or other participants in the ritual?) I take the point that the link isn't to a great article, but we'd leave a redlink in because that article might be written in the future (and indeed the link might encourage someone to write it): I think the same applies here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
separating ensembles in their construction comes across as unclear to the general reader. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'1896–1897' should be turned into prose. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In its current presentation, the translation 'under the cliffs' is disorienting. Could we somehow make clear that this is a cult title? Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
given the site the name of the 'Archons' Cult' the prose could be clear here. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'1887–1888': see above.
a method of which Kavvadias later wrote in favour can be phrased more simply. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The adjective in three-member supervising committee is not needed. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'1898–1902': see above.- Most of the passage on Nikolaos Balanos seems like it doesn't belong in the article. The section is already long and technical, so I think the best solution would be to move most of this sub-section to Balanos' article and replace it with one paragraph. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The key idea here is to focus on Kavvadias responsibility for/complicity in the restorations, both in that they happened at all and because of the damage that they eventually did. I've reworked it a little to try to make that point clearer: it's fundamentally Kavvadias project: his Service gave the job to the three-man committee, allowed Balanos to dominate it, and signed off on the methods he used.
Ephor General of Antiquities (1885-1909)[edit]
Is it Ephor-General or Ephor General? Modussiccandi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
has been interpreted introduces a seemingly controversial claim. Could we be more precise? Modussiccandi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've more explicitly sourced that claim to Petrakos, who does have something of a horse in this race. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'When' > 'where' in where Kavvadias intervened? Modussiccandi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear whether the 'he' in he assisted with the planning is Kavvadias or his predecessor. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'1–13 April 1905': See my comment on numbers above. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps reduce the use of relative clauses in this section Modussiccandi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stop harping on about the numbers. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]- Crete would not be part of the Kingdom of Greece until 1913: is this relevant? Modussiccandi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think so - the point is that it wasn't Kavvadias' 'patch'/responsibility (though this gets a bit technical/academic), but was nevertheless a major moment in 'Greek' archaeology. Happy to take advice on rephrasing to make that clear. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganisation of the Archaeological Service[edit]
The meaning begun with his own appointment in 1879 under Panagiotis Efstratiadis was only clear to me after two read-throughs. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- My general feeling is that there is a slight over-use dashes. I would take some out in this section, particularly the one at — and the Ephor General.
Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I quite like that one specifically: I think it does a good job of illustrating how Kavvadias' professionalisation of the service went hand-in-hand with his own control-freakery. I've taken a few out elsewhere, though. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need the inverted commas at private 'owners'? Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that there's competing ideas of 'ownership' here: in legal terms, because the state and the private citizens were joint owners, the latter had (in theory) the rights of usus and (probably) fructus but not (according to the state) abusus. However, because they were technically the "owners" of the antiquities, many of them acted as if they did have the complete right to dispose of their own property, and it wasn't completely agreed how being a "co-owner" with the state was materially different from just owning the thing. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- (1864–1884) can probably go. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure; I feel like there's two important facts here - a) that the Greek archaeological service tried (and failed) to combat unauthorised/illegal antiquities trading between 1864 and 1884, and b) that Efstratiadis was the one who did it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't it make sense to refer to specific named artefacts in italics? Forms like 'Aineta aryballos' look quite unatural. I'm thinking along the lines of Iliad vs. 'Iliad' here, where the former is obviously correct. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the convention for works of literature, or for works with an original/VERY well-established title (e.g. Botticelli's Birth of Venus). This example is closer to e.g. 'Augustus of Prima Porta' or 'Rosetta Stone'. However, I've removed the inverted commas (following established use by e.g. Galanakis) and redlinked (which helps to clarify the relationship between the two words); the article's in my to-write pile. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for this. As you probably realised, I'm a classicist but not an archaeologist, so I'm not entirely aware of the conventions in this sub-discipline. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- 'joint ownership' seems superfluous since it's clear what loophole is meant. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps: I think it does make it clearer, though I'm sure many readers won't need that clarification. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'was appointed' > would be appointed? Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissal and exile (1909–1912)[edit]
The Goudi coup needs a bit more contextualisation. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since one person can only have one seat, the expression had a single seat should either go or be explained. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to 'vote', as one member of a board can have multiple votes: the point is to emphasise how diluted the Director's power was vs. the former EG. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The dates seem a bit incoherent at the end: the section runs until 1912 but includes events from 1920 and 1922. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - the later dates refer to his return from exile (physical and metaphorical) after 1912. Changing the dates in the section title would give a false impression of how long the latter lasted; equally, I can't see that a whole section for two lines or so is a good idea. Happy to take a suggestion here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- We could change the name of the section into something like 'Dismissal, exile, return' and then expand the date range given. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's very sensible. Done Y. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life, honours and legacy[edit]
A source is required for the paragraph on his children. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spell out Leipzig, expand the link for Cambridge. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We want to avoid very short paragraphs as much as possible. My suggestion would be to make one section out of §2 and §3, and then to merge §1 and §4 since the thematic connection is not strong. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved 4 into 1, which leaves three short-ish paragraphs: I think they're now fine, as each handles a distinct theme. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selected publications[edit]
- Books in this section should be formatted with the relevant citation template. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean
{{cite book}} That will trigger a Harvard error, since they're not cited. When you say should, are you referring to a specific MOS?
- Very smart - Y Done UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative names in the first sentence are quite clunky. I would only use the most common name and out all the rest in a footnote. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the third, which is just a (now outdated) variation in transcription. I think the second is important, since he's very commonly referred to by that name in sources, particularly from his lifetime. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove 'prominent', 'varius', and 'significant'. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Y Done UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kavvadias was known to be energetic, centralising and autocratic: here you're turning something presented as an opinion in the body into a fact in the lead. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've only given the article a cursory read through, but one thing that I noticed immediately is that a number of MOS:SANDWICH problems need to be rectified. In the context of that, I would recommend reducing the overall number of images since the article is on the verge of being over-illustrated. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Some images removed. There's still some minor MOS:SANDWICH going on, but I think it's an acceptable trade-off for the value and positioning of the images that are left. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Regarding the one sandwich that's left between the kore and the Persian rider, could you remedy this a bit by shortening the kore's caption? Modussiccandi (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Y Done UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References[edit]
- The bibliography includes three MA theses by Pierce, Van Engelenhoven and Zachariou. WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Is it possible to demonstrate this for these two theses? Citations in peer reviewed journals/books could be one way. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Pierce has got a few citations - here, here, here and here (which incorrectly says it's a PhD, but has the 2006 date, so is clearly talking about the same thesis.
- Van Engelenhoven removed: better source found.
- Zachariou removed. Most of her thesis is effectively translating/paraphrasing material in Greek, particularly royal decrees and the works of Vasileios Petrakos, which aren't massively accessible in English. As a result, we've mostly gone from easily-checkable English sources to practically-inaccessible (to most people) Greek ones. I wonder whether there's a case for building her back in in some places, as a sfnm with Petrakos where the two overlap? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- All things considered, I'd have nothing against this proposal. As you say, it would aid accessibility and thus warrants the use of WP:IAR. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- On the rolling-back (which I've now done again...) - I was editing the page while you were; I tried to resolve the conflicts manually, but didn't do a great job. I think I've manually un-undone those dehyphenations: I'll try to catch the others if not. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
b (citations to reliable sources): 
