Talk:Temple of Apollo Palatinus/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 13:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This looks like an article on a very interesting topic. The recent work by UndercoverClassicist looks as if it may have brought it to Good Article status. I look forward to reviewing it. simongraham (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking this on. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a privilege. I will start the review now. simongraham (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments
This is a stable and well-written article. 95.5% of authorship is by UndercoverClassicist. It is currently assessed as a Start class article, but recent writing has raised the standard.


 * The text is clear and comprehensive.
 * It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style.
 * The article is of reasonable length, with 4.614 words of readable prose.
 * The lead is a reasonable length at 387 words.
 * Link Augustus (or Octavian, which redirects to the same page).
 * Done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct redlink archaic period to Archaic Greece.
 * They're not the same; the archaic period of Greek history is a different time period (and so named for different reasons) than the archaic period of Roman history. Compare the period of Chinese history known as the "Classical" period, which should not link to Classical Greece. UndercoverClassicist (talk)
 * Interesting. Would Archaic Rome be more appropriate? simongraham (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the disambiguation page for Archaic Period, there's no consistency in how we've formatted those titles: NA has Archaic stage and Archaic period in North America, Greece has Archaic Greece, Greek art simply has a subsection of Greek art. Given that the article doesn't actually exist, and this title would certainly end up as a redirect to whatever article does end up being written, my feeling is that it's much of a muchness at this stage. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC) Hadn't appreciated that Archaic Rome is blue (if a dodgy redirect): yes, it would. Changed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is less than ideal, but is the best we have at this time. Maybe it needs a page of its own at some point. 07:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The statement "Apollo was a favourite god of Augustus" seems stark, and the evidence in the following sentences circumstantial. Suggest rewording.
 * It's really quite well established in scholarship: he builds this colossal temple to him, slights the cult of Rome's chief god in his favour, has poets write about him, models his official portrait on him, declares him his protector and possibly thinks that he's his son. What sort of reword do you have in mind? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That looks compelling. Maybe a reference from the scholarship to that end? I do not feel that it is self-evident to a non-expert. simongraham (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point: added two big-name Augustan scholars. Zanker discusses the temple in some length; I expect I'll go back and add more from his book (which was leaving a bit of a gap in the bibliography) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That looks great. Thank you. simongraham (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The comment that the temple is also consider to be dedicated to Diana seems isolated. Suggest moving it to the first mention of Naulochus.
 * I see your point, but it really needs to go with the dedication (and so the name) of the temple, which is chunky enough that it has to be its own paragraph, in my view. Putting it with Naulochus wouldn't work, as the temple is only a theoretical idea at that point. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC
 * That seems fair. simongraham (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence "Bricks found…" seems incongruous. Suggest moving it to the section on building materials.
 * The point is to show the involvement of Cossutius (and so perhaps Pollio), not to make a comment on bricks. It therefore needs to be somewhere in the "Construction" section, though I'm not particularly wedded to exactly where. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Maybe reword to ensure that is the emphasis. simongraham (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * Thank you. simongraham (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at "The temple played a significant role in the Secular Games, a religious and artistic festival revived by Augustus in 17 BCE…" and clarify whether the Secular Games were both "a religious and artistic festival revived by Augustus in 17 BCE" and "held irregularly throughout the following periods of Roman history."
 * They are indeed both of those things. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Can that be reworded so that it reads more fluently please? It was not clear to me. simongraham (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Done, I think.
 * I feel that is a definite improvement. Thank you. simongraham (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Recommend moving the term purgamenta dari to the first instance.
 * Doesn't quite work grammatically, unfortunately: the dari bit is the actual word for "giving-out". We could in theory simply gloss purgmenta, but there's a nice and ritually significant semantic reciprocity between dari and accepi that's worth maintaining. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Can that information be made more explicit in the article? simongraham (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have a source for it, unfortunately (we're in a niche area of Roman religion with very few sources); readers who know Latin and Roman religion should be able to see it, and I doubt it would be of too much interest to most others. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a shame. I think that is fine. simongraham (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggest rewording "cast lots to determine…" to remove the need for "aforementioned".
 * I can't see a good way of doing that which doesn't put the cart of distribution before the horse of casting lots, but very open to suggestions here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If it is not possible, then that is OK. My guide is WP:MTAU. simongraham (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you think readers might find tricky to understand here? I agree that "aforementioned" isn't particularly elegant, but given a choice between being clear and being stylish, I've tried to go for the former. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. That is fine. simongraham (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Recommend moving the citations in the lead to the relevant main body as per MOS:CITELEAD.
 * Both citations are direct or implied quotations (the first to the fact that some sources use "Temple of Actian Apollo", and the second to Ward-Perkins: MOS:LEADCITE is a little ambiguous on this point but I read it as making an exception for these (The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.).
 * As a lead should be an "introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents" as per MOS:LEAD, I suggest that these be in the main body as well, which would remove the need for the citation. simongraham (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Ward-Perkins quote is cited in the body, but MOS:LEADCITE and (more importantly) WP:NONFREE would still like it cited in the lead, which is quite normal in GAs and FAs (it came up fairly recently while doing the FAC of Panagiotis Kavvadias). We don't normally include alternative modern names, spellings etc in the body text: it's covered under "Construction" that "Actian Apollo" was a perfectly good Roman name for the temple, but the lead is the place to spell out that that's a plausible alternative name (and a redirect) for this article itself, which the others (e.g. Temple of Apollo Navalis) are not. As I read MOS:LEADCITE, especially {{tq|The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis ... The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.]], it's about giving us permission not to use citations, not insisting that we can't use them. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That all looks fine. I understand your reasoning and think it seems very appropriate. simongraham (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "one of the earliest and finest of the Augustan temples". Is correctly punctuated as per MOS:LOGICAL. Please check the others.
 * I'm afraid I'm not totally sure what you're asking here, but I agree that it's correctly punctuated on both uses. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the link to Wikidata should be removed from Gianfilippo Carettoni and Stephan Zink as Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2.
 * Removed.
 * I think that "Greek world." should be a comma.
 * Yup: fixed.
 * I believe there should be no comma in the following:
 * "Octavian declared that portion of his property to be public land, and initiated the construction of the temple."
 * "Octavian constructed a new sanctuary of Apollo at the site of his camp at Actium, and restored the god's existing sanctuary at the entrance to the Ambracian Gulf"
 * "included two libraries of Greek and Latin literature, known collectively as the Library of Palatine Apollo and considered among the most important libraries in Rome."
 * "Augustus later tried to reduce its prominence by constructing the Theatre of Marcellus to block the view of its façade, and rebuilt the adjacent Porticus Octaviae"
 * All of these follow the same principle: they're long, independent clauses, so the comma is optional. I've put it in because it aids the flow and readability. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In which case, I suggest adding a subject to the clauses or breaking the sentences up. simongraham (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I gave that a go; I don't think it helps in any of these cases. The use of the comma like this is well in line with standard English and the Wikipedia MOS (from MOS:COMMA: {{tq|A pair of commas can bracket an appositive, relative clause, or parenthetical phrase ... [a]lways use a pair of commas for this, unless another punctuation mark takes the place of the second comma.}}) In the last case in particular, adding the subject ("the Temple of Apollo Sosius") would make the sentence extremely unwieldy. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it now reads well. Thank you for taking the time over this. simongraham (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There seem no other obvious grammar or spelling errors.
 * Text seems to be neutral.
 * The article relies on a range of sources.
 * Spot checks with Babcock 1987, Ward-Perkins 1981 and Zink 2015 confirm sources.
 * There is no evidence of edit wars.
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector states copyright violation is unlikely, with a score of 37.1%. The highest match is with an article by Crawford-Brown that shares many of the same sources, and these references are the shared content.
 * All accessible sources seem live.
 * The images seem appropriate and relevant.
 * All the images have relevant CC or PD tag.

{{ping|UndercoverClassicist}} Excellent work on this article. Please see my comments above and ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. I think I've replied to everything: lots of edits, a few counter-quibbles, and some points where I'd be grateful for a steer. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * {{ping|UndercoverClassicist}} Thank you for engaging with this so well. A few responses. simongraham (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks once again; I think I've got to them all. Made a few edits and expansions to bring in more of Zanker's work, so you might want to give it another quick read. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * {{ping|UndercoverClassicist}} That looks great. I feel it reads even better than before. Are there any more tweaks you would like to make before I complete my assessment? simongraham (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not as it stands - thank you for your replies and advice. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * {{ping|UndercoverClassicist}} My pleasure. I will start my assessment now.

Assessment
The six good article criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonable well written.
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * it contains no original research;
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view.
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass  simongraham (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)