Talk:Parthenon Frieze/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Nikki  ♥  311   03:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I will be reviewing this article. I like to do my reviews in two parts; the first part consists of more general suggestions, and the second part is more in-depth. Here is the first set of issues that need to be addressed: As always, the authors of this article will have seven days for improvements. Good luck. Nikki ♥  311   03:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a citation needed tag.
 * In general, the article is under referenced. There are giant blocks of text with only one or no in-line citations.
 * Between ranges of numbers, use an "endash" rather than a "dash". See MOS:ENDASH.
 * While it is by no means a requirement, it would really benefit the readers' understanding to include a picture that demonstrates the numbering system.
 * "See also" should be above "References".
 * References should be located directly after punctuation with no space between.
 * No new information should be presented in the lead without it being mentioned elsewhere in the article. Therefore, the information about the Frieze's bombing and later history should probably be briefly mentioned in the lead and presented in full in the article itself.


 * I may not have time to do this after all, but I'll try to address any reasonable concerns. Some points of clarification though…


 * In general, the article is under referenced. There are giant blocks of text with only one or no in-line citations.

Comment. This is a little bit handwaving. So far as I know there isn't a requirement for the density of references, and trying to make one would just be referencing for the sake of it. What specifically do you think needs citing?
 * Between ranges of numbers, use an "endash" rather than a "dash".

Comment. All the dashes on the page are endashes.
 * While it is by no means a requirement, it would really benefit the readers' understanding to include a picture that demonstrates the numbering system.

Comment. The illustrations are all numbered according to this scheme. So what did you have in mind?
 * Therefore, the information about the Frieze's bombing and later history should probably be briefly mentioned in the lead and presented in full in the article itself.

Comment. That would really require a new section which itself would just be a repetition of the information in the Parthenon article. Perhaps a footnote would be more appropriate? Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 12:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Response Nikki ♥  311   01:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like endashes are in the article. The following number range was copied directly from the article: "13.4-9". An endash makes it look like this: "13.4–9".
 * I agree with the citation tags places by the user below, and I've added some of my own.
 * As for the illustrations, I had in mind an image that shows the whole frieze with the numbering scheme. I realize this might not even exist, but it seems like the author who derived the scheme might have included an image to help the reader understand the numbering better.

This article uses "we" inappropriately. It is not encyclopedia to talk to the reader as "we". See Manual_of_Style
 * Outside comment

Also, it is incorrect to give instructions to the reader, as in "Note" such and such. See Manual_of_Style

References should go after sentence punctuation, not before.

Many statements that are opinions or conclusions are not cited. More references are needed. I have marked a few.

MacDaid (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have to confess I'm not seeing the difference between the two dashes you've used there. The only dashes I know are endashes "-", alt - on my keyboard. And emdashes, "—", alt shift _. All the dashes I've used are endashes.


 * The MoS, which is a guideline not policy btw, draws the distinction between the inclusive authorial we and the editorial we. I'm not setting my face against rewriting it, but I strongly dispute that it's inappropriate to use the inclusive authorial we when drawing a priori conclusions.


 * I note your point about instructional language.


 * I'm not sure to whom you're referring with your "who" tags.


 * I thought of creating a gallery when I first wrote the article, but decided it was impractical. The best labelled diagrams/photo sets I know are in Niels and Jenkins in the bibliography. The best we can hope to do is gesture the serious reader towards them.


 * Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 06:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Response


 * who tags mean "who said this?" or "according to whom?" etc. It's another way of saying citation needed


 * MacDaid (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Alright, I think I've addressed the referencing issue. I've also dialled down the "we". I'm resistant to completely replacing them because: 1) It's not a absolute requirement, 2) as I've argued it has a legitimate use, 3) It would disrupt the idiomatic flow of the piece and 4) taking it out would lead to an excessive reliance on the passive voice. But I can, reluctantly, do it if it's a deal breaker. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 18:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope the reviewer(s) don't mind me butting in. First, it would be helpful if proper indenting were utilized during the review per WP:TALK. The current layout is somewhat muddled, and it takes longer to sort out who is saying what to whom and in reply to what. I've fixed some of it, but do take care in replying.
 * Comments from Maria

A major issue I see is in the formatting of the references. For example, look at "Jenifer Neils. The Parthenon Frieze, 2001", which includes several errors: the surname should always be first ("Neils, Jenifer"), and missing is the city in which it was published, by what publisher, and the ISBN -- all of this information is readily available at Worldcat, so it shouldn't be difficult to add. This is to be said of all works listed under "Sources"; works cited should be as descriptive as possible to allow quick and proper identification of the sources used.

Also, why also are some writers'/editors' full first names not listed, in the shorthand citations as well? Last point: if the full bibliographic information is listed under "Sources" (which it should be once my previous concerns are taken care of), then there is no need to repeat the year of publication in the shorthand refs. Therefore, "J Neils, The Parthenon Frieze, 2001, p.87" can simply become, "Neils, The Parthenon Frieze, p.87". Hope this helps, María ( habla con migo ) 15:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Response. I quite agree on the need for consistency of style in the references. Unfortunately I'm going to have to rely on the kindness of strangers to do it, since I won't have the time in the near future. I have no strong preferences about the matter, and would invite anyone interested to do what they like with them. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 19:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Consistency of style in the references, while good, is not a part of the Good article criteria, so lacking consistency should not prevent an article from being passed. MacDaid (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It may not be required, but it certainly doesn't hurt; in fact, it does the complete opposite. It's such a minor fix that makes a huge impact, so I see no issue here.  Of course citations should be consistently and/or correctly formatted, and important publication information should be listed for book sources.  I wouldn't promote an article to GA if this wasn't the case.  In fact, the criteria says nothing about WP:DASH, that references going directly after punctuation, or the dismal use of the second-person tense, yet these are all points (correctly) brought up during this review so far.  Don't read the criteria so literally.  Improve articles. María ( habla  con migo ) 20:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the nominator would have a cause to request WP:GAR or could merely renominate the article if it fails for something not in the Good article criteria. I would encourage him to do so. Please improve the articles, rather than applying standards that are not in effect. An article could not be failed for having misused WP:DASH either. Some of the issues, such as the "the dismal use of the second-person tense" fall under "prose concerns" and therefore can be legitimately addressed. MacDaid (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's not difficult to reformat/add additional information to already present citations; in fact, it's far less arduous than asking a nominator to find entirely new sources for previously uncited material. MacDaid, I've reviewed dozens of GACs in the past few years.  I have never failed an article for inconsistent/incorrect citation formatting because if I notice an issue, it's always fixed -- much like dashes, word choice, etc, it's a common concern, and one that is easily remedied.  No big deal.  Once Twospoonfuls (who agrees with its necessity) or another major contributor finds the time, I'm sure they will be able to implement these changes in time for the article to be promoted.  I don't think anymore needs to be said/argued over such an obvious point. María ( habla  con migo ) 20:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm alarmed to learn that my prose style is "dismal" (though it's the first person plural, since we're counting). I'm all for improving the piece, that's why I'm nominating it after all, but this non-specific criticism is just an assertion of preference. Where is the prose unclear? Where are the references inadequate? Where are they ambiguous or confusing? Please explain. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 21:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gah, I'm sorry. Your prose is not dismal, nor did I intend to say it was; I apologize for the unclear comment -- it was not intended as part of my additional review comments, but as an exasperated reply to MacDaid to demonstrate that while some things -- such as dashes and "dismal" (read: un-encyclopedic) POV -- are not part of the GA criteria, they may still be issues during a GA review.  I have already stated why I believe the sources should be consistently formatted, with missing bibliographic information added where necessary, with examples above.  Does that clarify things?  I'll step away now, as I'm obviously only causing confusion.  María ( habla  con migo ) 22:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Being neutral, that is, avoiding POV, is part of the Good article criteria. But I don't see any POV in the article. The decision to pass is totally up to the original interviewer, Nikki  ♥  311 . The rest of us are butting in you and can  ignore our comments! MacDaid (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * MacDaid, my above comment re: "POV" obviously refers to the first person plural point of view (POV), the collective "we" which you yourself brought up earlier in your additional comments, and which is not explicitly part of the GA criteria. Not WP:POV, which is obviously policy.  References still need to be fixed.  Anything else you would like to say on this matter, you can bring to my talk page. María ( habla  con migo ) 23:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yllosubmarine|María, my comments above were directed to Twospoonfuls (ειπέ), not to you. Sorry for the confusion! You are free to "step away now" as you said you were doing above. There is no need for me to contact you on your talk page. My dialog is with Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) and concerns the Good article criteria. :~) MacDaid (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Proposed essay to help reviewers  stick to GA fundamentals. People have a tendency to add their own "requirements to a GA review. It helps to stick to the actual criteria.  MacDaid (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Review 2
I'll look back over the article in the next day or so (or maybe later today if I have some time) to assess the changes made. Nikki ♥  311   18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay, but I'm having some internet issues. It should all be fixed in the next couple of days. Nikki  ♥  311   02:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being so patient! Here is the second part of my review:


 * Construction
 * Significantly the description was not architekton, the term usually given to the creative influence behind a building project, rather episkopos. - Architekton is defined here, but what about episkopos?
 * Define in situ.
 * It was finished with metal detailing and painted, no colour survives so we must argue by analogy, the background was perhaps blue judging by comparison with grave stelae and the paint remnants on the frieze of the Hephaisteion. - This sounds like original research. Perhaps, it should say something like It was finished with metal detailing and painted, but no colour survives. According to [insert scholar here], the background was perhaps blue judging by comparison with grave stelae and the paint remnants on the frieze of the Hephaisteion.


 * Description
 * Sometimes the Frieze is capitalized and sometimes it is not. In the first sentence of this section it is not. It needs to be consistent.
 * The next groups E18–23, E43–46, are highly problematic. - WP:PEACOCK.
 * This is usually understood to be the presentation of Athena’s peplos by the arrhephoroi. - by whom? citation needed.


 * Style
 * The Parthenon Frieze is the defining monument of the High Classical style of Attic sculpture. - according to whom?
 * A hotly contentious subject in the field, Connelly's solution to the problem of meaning poses as many problems as it answers. - Hotly contentious? Citation needed.
 * which shares the quiet dignity of the best of High Classical sculpture. - too opinionated. Needs an attribution.


 * Influence
 * It is natural to look for resonances of the Frieze in Attic relief sculpture of the late 5th century - Too editorial

Thanks. Nikki ♥  311   05:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll see what I can do with that. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 14:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This review has been open a while. Has everything been addressed, are we near a pass or fail? Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 18:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not everything has been addressed, but I was allowing more time than I normally would because it took awhile for me to do the second half of my review (due to internet issues). I'll contact Twospoonfuls soon, if they do not reply here first. Nikki  ♥  311   19:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've just glanced over the article and I find that it has issues which should not be present at this stage of a review. The lead does not adequately summarize the topic, per WP:Lead. There is an authorial viewpoint which is at odds with WP:NPOV - statements such as: "The contention that the scene is a document of Athena’s festival is fraught with problems,"  and "It is natural to look for resonances of the Frieze in Attic relief sculpture of the late 5th century", contain opinions which appear to be that of the author. The Frieze is part of the Elgin Marbles, but that is not discussed in the article, and so the article does not have broad coverage. There is the question of the relationship to the Elgin Marbles article. The location of the various parts of the Frieze is mentioned in the lead, but not developed in the article - why are there bits in various institutions - how did they acquire them, and when? Some statements which can be challenged are not sourced. The images are squeezing the text, and are forced. There is jargon being used - "the cella carries an Ionic frieze over the hexastyle pronaos rather than Doric metopes as would have been expected of a Doric temple. Judging by the existence of regulae and guttae  below the frieze on the east wall this was an innovation introduced late in the building process and replaced the ten metopes and triglyphs that might otherwise have been placed there." If this were the start of a review there would be serious questions asked about the possibility of doing the work required in a reasonable time, but an attempt could be made to see if sufficient progress was being made. In the period since the review started, some editing has been done  -  - though it is mainly minor cosmetic stuff. I am always fully supportive of the notion of keeping a review going if it is motivating people to work on the article, and there is reasonable progress being made. However, in this case, given that the article needs a rethink, a restructure, rewriting for appropriate tone, closer more reassuring citing, expanding content, copy-editing for clarity of language and explaining jargon where needed, and consideration given to the relationship with Elgin Marbles; and that there has been a lack of significant progress in the past month, I feel it might be more appropriate to give some pointers for future development, and close the review as a fail.  SilkTork  *YES! 22:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been remiss in addressing Nikki's points and will hope to do so this weekend at the latest. I'll deal as summarily with SilkTork's points as he seems to have read the article. The Parthenon Frieze is NOT the same thing as the Elgin Marbles, there already is an article that deals with the Frieze's relationship with the Elgin Marbles, this one. There is no need for two articles on the Elgin Marbles, and the relationship to the the British Museum collection is explicitly state in this article. If you disagree that there is an essential difference between these two things then feel free to tag a speedy delete to one or the other. " There is jargon being used" that's what those things are called, it isn't employing jargon to call a chair a chair, and these terms are mostly linked to the relevant explanatory articles. Just how ploddingly pedantic, and crudely reductive must a definition be? "There is an authorial viewpoint...such as: "The contention that the scene is a document of Athena’s festival is fraught with problems,"" you will have to explain that one since the article then goes on to detail the problems with that argument in the literature. How is this NPOV? Am I supposed to take this criticism seriously? Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 23:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Nikki's questions have been dealt with now. Please check. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 18:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll do my final look-through tonight after work. Nikki ♥  311   18:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Final review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * All MoS problems have been corrected. I believe that problems with the prose brought up by other editors have been fixed or clarified.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Most sources are from published books by experts in the field. All statements that sounded like original research have been referenced.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All major topics mentioned. it may not be comprehensive, but that is a FA requirement, not a GA requirement.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Great work! The article has improved a great deal since this review started. Nikki  ♥  311   04:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Great work! The article has improved a great deal since this review started. Nikki  ♥  311   04:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)