Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Secretum (British Museum)/archive1

Secretum (British Museum)

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The Secretum was one of those patriarchal and patronising pieces of Victorian nonsense, where they thought the sight of classical nudity would somehow stir up the base instincts of the lower classes and cause moral damage to women and children. While the museum set up the Private Case for naughty literature, the artwork, artefacts and statuary was stashed in backrooms of the museum and much of it locked away in cupboards so even the staff didn't see it. All comments welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
SchroCat is clearly on a continuing mission to corrupt our morals, a bit late in the day as far as I'm concerned. I reviewed this article at PR in February and my comments were all dealt with thoroughly. Rereading for FAC I spotted nothing else to quibble about except: Nothing there to prevent my support for this deplorable article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It is a cracking read, well and widely referenced, appears balanced, and as to the extensive illustrations words fail me.  Tim riley  talk   15:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "timeframe", which is two separate words in the OED.
 * "photostats" – which I am old enough to remember using but could do with a link for anyone under seventy.
 * "This acquisition continued from the nineteenth to the twentieth century" – the meaning is clear, but the phrasing could be more exact. From the 19th to the 20th century was a nanosecond on 31 December 1900. A swift change of prepositions will probably do the job.
 * Many thanks Tim, your comments at PR and again here are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review


 * File:The_British_Museum's_Secretum.jpg: was any attribution provided for this image at the source given?


 * File:Sàtir_i_nimfa,_intent_de_violació,_exposició_la_Bellesa_del_Cos.JPG needs a tag for the original work


 * File:Cup_decorated_on_the_interior_with_an_erotic_scene_-_3.jpg: where's that licensing coming from? It doesn't match the source site. Ditto File:Kylix_-_1b.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria.
 * File:The_British_Museum's_Secretum.jpg: No attribution at all.
 * File:Sàtir_i_nimfa,_intent_de_violació,_exposició_la_Bellesa_del_Cos.JPG Now added
 * File:Cup_decorated_on_the_interior_with_an_erotic_scene_-_3.jpg and File:Kylix_-_1b.jpg: that'll teach me not to accept Commons licensing. I've tagged both of these as copyright infringements, although I note the uploader has also uploaded numerous other BM images too. The licensing the museum puts on these annoys me intensely: these are not sweat of the brow creations (after all, that was done in around 500BCE); as recently as 2023 Justice Arnold brought judgement that creating a photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional public domain artwork does not create a new copyright, so the BM are being a little creative in their interpretation of copyright law here. I've tagged both the images for deletion on Commons, and it may be that a different perspective emerges from there to allow the images to remain. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * A thought: if we crop them enough so as to only show the image in the tondo (which is pretty much flat), can we then claim PD-ART? After all, such an image would allow no artistic input by the photographer in choosing an angle, shadows etc, which I gather is the guiding principle behind that licensing claim. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It certainly works for me., does that sound ok? The Kylix image is already like that, and a similar crop would work on the other? - SchroCat (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's possible to get a 2D work out of them, that should work. However the satyr needs a US tag in addition to the one added. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, The two now replaced with:
 * File:Erotic design in ancient Grecian cup.png
 * File:Red-figured kylix design in ancient Grecian cup.png
 * I've also added a US one on File:Sàtir_i_nimfa,_intent_de_violació,_exposició_la_Bellesa_del_Cos.JPG too
 * Are you happy with the licensing on these? - Cheers SchroCat (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Support from PMC
Hello! Comments within the week. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC) I'm calling this still within the week!


 * "The segregation was probably..." I know it's the lead, but I'm not sure we should be using an unattributed "probably" to give an opinion in wikivoice. Maybe "Modern scholars believe the segregation was..." or something similar?
 * Bless George Witt and his collection of 434 penis-based artefacts
 * Not something I thought I’d ever read at FAC! SchroCat (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I like to try to treat the audience to at least one unhinged comment at FAC whenever possible
 * "The Secretum collection began to be gradually broken up in 1912, with the transfer of items into the departments where they sat with other pieces from their own time frame and culture." The latter half of this sentence feels a bit tied up in itself. Maybe "with the transfer of items into departments appropriate for their time frame and culture"?
 * Hm. Grove says that some of the museum's sexual artefacts were never placed in the Secretum. Does anyone get into the reasoning behind this? Or perhaps what the segregation criteria were?
 * No, unfortunately not. If the BM ever actually had any specific criteria, it was never written down (or at least, it's not in the archives, as far as the sources cover it). - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "The classicist Jen Grove..." speaking of Grove, this bit feels slightly out of place where it is. It's more like analysis than history-of, so I think it might be better placed under the rationale section. She also gets into a bit more about how the museum intentionally acquired these objects (rather than sort of...incidentally receiving them in donations of other stuff), which I don't see touched on in the article
 * Let me think on this a bit, as the core part (for me) is the historical approach of still acquiring such items at the point the Secretum was supposed to be hiding them away. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why refer to the Naples Secret Cabinet in Italian the second time?
 * It's not - it's on the first mention of the Cabinet (as opposed to the overall museum) - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In the Background section you have "in the National Archaeological Museum, Naples...whose Secret Cabinet (Italian: Gabinetto Segreto)" (Secret Cabinet being linked here), and then under Break-up you've got "Unlike the Gabinetto Segreto". I'm not terribly bothered by it, mostly wondering if it was for a specific reason.
 * Ah, that one: It made more sense having it that way before the PR, but changes there swapped over the first reference to it. I've tweaked the second one now. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Peter Webb considers that" but "Victoria Donnellan considers the collection" - is there a reason for the inconsistent use of "that"?
 * Just a bit of variety in approach. If you think it's distracting, I can tweak if you like? - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nah, I was just wondering if there was a reason.

That's really all I have, it's generally well-written and interesting as always :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks PMC - Done except where commented on - feel free to push back on any of them. There's one I'm still mulling over at the moment as to whether to move, keep or split. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, it won't be a dealbreaker if you leave it where it is. I'm a support, I don't see anything to be hung up on. Cheers! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, as always, PMC; your thoughts are always welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Harry
Ooh I say! It's (not quite) enough to get one all hot and bothered! And that's all I've got. Excellent work! HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The first thing that strikes me is the past tense in the opening paragraph but no dates.
 * That's sort of deliberate, given it wasn't clear cut (with the separation starting before it officially started and beginning to end before it ended, so to speak!). It's covered within the (now shortened) lead, so it's all explained at the top of the page. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead is quite long for a ~2k-word article.
 * I've trimmed this down a bit: how does it look now? - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The journalist Laura Thomas observes the present tense is a little jarring there and a date might be useful
 * Dated and tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Cheers Harry, I've explained one and acted on two. Happy to talk through the first point further. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do think some sort of date would be helpful earlier in the lead just for context to establish that this was an historical practice, but I'll leave it up to you. Otherwise, support. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 15:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments and your thoughts Harry. In terms of the dates, how does this look? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I like that. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent. It covers the whole time period, while being vague on the specifics, so it covers both our concerns. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments from HAL
I feel rather guilty about going disappearing on the previous OHMSS FAC. I was completely consumed by a certain professional exam, and did not have all the time in the world. Regardless, here's what I noticed: Everything else looks great. ~ HAL  333  22:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Of all the possible translations of secretum, why "hidden away"? Why not the marginally more concise "secret"? Is one more dominant in the sources?
 * On the advice, at PR, of someone who know better than I! - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To explain myself a little: this is partly a matter of (classical) Latin accuracy, but also of the meaning in practice: the collection wasn't secret in the sense that nobody was allowed to know it existed; it was hidden away in the sense that they didn't talk about it and controlled access to it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a SOB with "antiquarian Sir Robert Cotton", but not sure whether it can be fixed.
 * I'm not sure there is either. My preference is to be flexible with the MOS on such stylistic points if the two separate links are likely to point to separate articles, as they do here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Oxford comma is used inconsistently: e.g. lacking with "a statue of Pan having sex with a goat and an erotic frieze from an Indian tantra temple" but present with "photostats, and the arrangements made".
 * I've omitted it everywhere, but the one after photostats is in a quotation, I could remove, if you'd prefer, but I'm lean towards a conservative approach to editing quotes and normally leave them be unless it's an outright error. - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "formation was possibly as a result of the new legislation" --> "formation was possibly a result of the new legislation" but disregard if it's the perennial AmEng/BrEng issue.
 * I think that may be a BrEng thing (or, at least, a formal style thing) - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Hal. Don't worry about the OHMSS - RL events meant I had to close off the FAC and the PR for this for a short while. Thanks very much for your comments: all addressed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Happy to support. ~ HAL  333  13:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your thoughts are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

UC
A marker for now. I reviewed and enjoyed this one at PR< where SC was very patient with my nit-picking: further tests of patience to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : this is another classicist nit-pick, but "X was the god of Y" doesn't really work well for Greek and Roman religion: there are lots of gods connected to or responsible for fertility. The easy workaround is to call him a god of fertility, rather than the one.
 * But wasn't he the one for both fertility and male genitalia? Agree on the fertility point, he was only a minor deity on that score. Happy to be overruled if you think "a" is still the better option. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Dionysus/Bacchus would be the obvious alternative: he's closely associated with male fertility and there are stories of him afflicting men's genitalia when they refuse to worship him. Particularly in Greek culture, the phallus is often his symbol. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 10:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinite article: see Doris, A Goddess of Wind. Authoritative.  Tim riley  talk   13:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * IA it is! - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : Suggest cutting as indicated, as I think the second group of clauses covers everything in the cut bit. A slightly different point: didn't they also allow clergy to access it, as well as scholars?
 * I'm not sure about the word "phallocentric": most of the definitions I can find say that this means not just "to do with penises" but as having some kind of ideological statement about the phallus/male dominance being a dominant or desirable part of society. Is that accurate here?
 * Yes, I think so (as far as they go down that route); one of the sources describes the collection as being "phallocentric", so I think we're probably OK with it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Very well -- following HQRS is usually the best way to go about things. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A small nitpick, but the Rosetta Stone was neither donated nor sold to the BM: it had been seized by British troops and was placed in the BM on the orders of Lord Hobart.
 * Quite right - struck. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : holdings is plural, so were separated.
 * : suggest getting the word known or agreed in here: there is an accurate date, we just don't know it.
 * : I would remove the second Naples, especially as it's not really a separate museum: it's a room within the NAM. To that end, might consider using the more literal translation "Secret Cabinet".
 * : contains or containing, is better, as it still does. It includes a lot of other things as well: is there an elegant way to rephrase so that we don't give the impression that it only exists to showcase Vesuvius artefacts?
 * : long sentence: suggest splitting after images.
 * : pace the BM themselves, his title is universally given as "Keeper of Antiquities" in contemporary and later sources: I would probably follow suit with them, but not insist on doing so.
 * Many thanks. All done, except where explained above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Suggest giving the lead image a caption with its date and what exactly it was (is it Cabinet 54/55?), if known.
 * It's not given, unfortunately. The caption in the original reads "Under lock and key: the BM's Secretum cupboard in the Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities." - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Surely that dates it at least to post the 1960s, and means that this is indeed either Cabinet 54 or 55? To be specific, the Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities was established in 1969 (cite here, p. 130). Per our article: . As the photo is in a 2000 article, would it be ridiculous to say ? Either way, there's more we can say here about which phase of the Secretum is depicted. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 09:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added a caption, but I'm not convinced abut it. Partly because we don't know enough about the state of the collection whenever that was taken (was this all that remained, or was this just part of it); we're unsure of the date (between 1969 and 2000 is a wide range to have) and we're not sure of the location (was it cupboard 54 or 55 - or even somewhere else). I've gone for vagueness to fudge over these gaps in the knowledge. - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "after its transfer to the Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities"? Agreed that all of these things are tricky considerations. I'd probably be bullish enough to assume that the photograph was taken for the HT article (especially looking at its colour and quality: it looks pretty early-2000s to me), but appreciate that you and others might be more sensible. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 22:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In terms of dating, isn't that a little more obscure than 'late C20th'? "after its transfer ..." presupposes people know when the transfer was, or even what that means. - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "After its 1969 transfer", then? I'm not suggesting binning the date we already have: instead something like . The second part is about where the collection was as well as when, though you're right that readers will have to read the article to fully understand that. If that's totally unacceptable, a footnote could be used. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 08:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, that works for me. - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : surely not famous enough to be the Robert Harley?
 * : I'm not sure I see the significance of separated from the rest of the donations, given stored apart from the museum's public displays. What does the first add to the second?
 * Because the separation was both from the rest of the donations in storage (ie. in the non-public areas) and in the public displays. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course: very sensibly framed, then. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 09:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : profane is potentially ambiguous (do we mean "rude" or "non-sacred"?) and, more seriously, I think possibly non-NPOV: an ancient Roman would have seen nothing obscene about an amulet with a phallus, nor would a Hindu worshipper consider a frieze from a temple to be disreputable or morally tainted. Suggest something like "material considered obscene".
 * : a false title, which sounds like it could be analogous with "the Keeper of Antiquities" (which it isn't): suggest George Witt, a collector of antiquities...
 * No false title there, but the point on the BM's position of the same name is taken. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : does this really need to be a quote? I can't see that the particular formulation here is important or interesting, beyond the bare facts it conveys, so WP:NONFREE would encourage us to take those facts and put them into our own prose. There's also a tone and readability benefit to not switching the narrative voice when we can help it.
 * : the second consecutive sentence to start with Witt's abstract noun: simply Witt believed that...?
 * : see above on profane, except that it's particularly ambiguous here. Given that we've said his whole collection was phallocentric, I think the idea can be taken as read: removing profane here would also avoid the implication that the Greek, Roman etc objects were not-profane.
 * : plurals are awry here.
 * : them doesn't have a grammatical antecedent: could add [his objects] afterwards, or rework the sentence before the quotation to provide one.
 * : a neat hendiadys, but how could they promote it without advertising it?
 * : does outside in this context mean "not employed by the BM"? If so, could cut: I'm sure those employed by the BM didn't have to apply to walk down the corridor to see the collection.
 * Done down to here, bar one . - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : there's a buried lead here, if the phrasing is correct, that some sexual antiquities were not placed into the Secretum. What's the story there? Grove seems to mention it: I get a 503 when I follow the link to her thesis, but maybe there's a bit more detail or bibliography there?
 * That's exactly what happened. The museum acquired more pieces, most of which didn't go into the Secretum. The link works OK for me - I've added a link to an archive copy, so you should be able to see it now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's getting a bit late here, but I want to have a look at that source so that I can (in a break from my usual habits) have some idea what I'm talking about before I chip in again. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : they still do acquire sexual antiquities (or at least have no prohibition on doing so), so we need some kind of adjective like "enthusiastic acquisition" to make clear what stopped (the enthusiasm, not the acquisition)
 * : suggest "the period between ..." to remind the reader: I had to scroll back up to remember exactly when this was.
 * : it's not totally clear, at least as written, what the relationship of these prints/cartoons to the Secretum holdings was.
 * Done to here - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : is this really a fair comparison? After all, the point is that the Napoli museum essentially still has a Secretum. To me, this paragraph is really saying that, from the 1970s onwards, the BM chose to display sexually-explicit objects integrated into its main displays, in contrast with the NAM, which segregates them into a single room. Happy to suggest an alternate phrasing if you like: I'm chewing on it at the moment, but I'm sure you'll be able to do it more elegantly than I would.
 * "from the 1970s onwards, the BM chose to display sexually-explicit objects integrated into its main displays, in contrast with the NAM, which segregates them into a single room": I think that's what the sources say too. The difference is that their "sectretum" isn't either secret nor hidden away! - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the confusion/awkwardness I'm seeing here is a relic of what we had earlier: the "Secret Cabinet" isn't really a separate museum from the NAM, but our framing only really works if it is. You could go for something like : including that detail was a nice touch. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 09:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, reworked. - SchroCat (talk)
 * : this framing implies that others, beyond G. and J., have: do any of the sources cited support that?
 * Yes, at least one other, and I think others too. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Could at least one of those be cited for this sentence, then? Or do Gaimster or Johns say "other people have also said that..."? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 09:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Added another. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : per MOS:QUOTEPOV, I'd lose at least the quote marks on the last part, and make it something like.
 * : doesn't quite read right to me: that a paternalistic approach was...?
 * : the second sentence of the quote has lost the grammar, because it no longer follows from "he sees the collection as...". Suggest breaking the quote after "culture" and saying something like
 * : following the principle of show, not tell, I'd cut was disgusted by the book: almost any reader will pick up that disgust from the quotation, so we don't need to pre-push them towards what they should think.
 * All done, except where commented on. Thanks for these new comments: all very useful. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oops - support, hopefully unsurprisingly. Another excellent article. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 19:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks UC - that’s very kind. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz
I ordered in some smelling salts before attempting to read this. They've arrived so I'll see if there's anything left to nitpick. JennyOz (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat, only a few very minor comments from me...

Background Pre-Secretum, 1750s to 1865 Official formation, 1865 onwards Break-up, 1912 to 2000s Rationale Academic discipline Captions Possible categories
 * Priapus, a Greco-Roman god of fertility - Roman not mentioned in body text? ie "subject of Priapus, a Greek god of fertility"
 * (Unsolicited comment) Greco-Roman is correct: he's quite prominent in Roman culture, and indeed the -us spelling is Latin. Let me know if you need a source for the Roman side. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks UC. Oh, I'm not at all doubting correctness, just suggesting for consistency that Roman be added in body. (Lede being summary of body consideration.) JennyOz (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * covered a wide part of human history - 'period' a better word?
 * practice of locking up such works - locking away?
 * separating works away from public collections had - insert 'access' after public? (possibly hyphenated ie 'public-access' or 'publicly accessible').
 * Sir William Hamilton, who sold his part of his collection - is first "his" needed?
 * statue of a nymph and satyr that depicts - add links (they are only linked in caption)
 * a statue of Pan having - link Pan (god)
 * Department of British and Mediaeval Antiquities and Ethnography, headed - just checking it was spelt at that time "Mediaeval", ie, as opposed to the later Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities
 * Yes, that was the spelling at the time (See https://wellcomecollection.org/works/cgxyvvdq for one of their catalogues) - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * was from an scholar who - a scholar
 * the relevant museum department - (there are 3x "relevant") - mention some examples eg time period, culture, geographic? The only hint of what a "relevant department" might allude to is in lede which has "appropriate for their time frame and culture"
 * Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities - is its proper name 'Department of Greece and Rome'? per BM (though its curator was "Keeper of the Greek and Roman Antiquities") or did the name of the dept change at some stage?
 * (Another unsolicited butt-in) They seem to use both, but this page suggests that GRA is the "proper" name, and older books (see here from 1892 and here from 1912) use "Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities", so it's probably at least period accurate. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * some 18th-century condoms being used as bookmarks - "being" sounds contemporary? how about 'which had been used'?
 * they were housed in cupboards - insert 'locked'
 * cupboards 55 and 54 of the museum - swap order ie 54 and 55? (I'm guessing 54 was first then 55 became necessary to house overflow or did one hold eg images and literature and the other curios?)
 * I also think it likely that 55 was the first, but the sources are annoyingly silent on the point. It would certainly explain why one of the nicknames was "Cupboard 55", rather than 54. I'll mull on this if I can - the sources tend to have it in this order too (although, again annoyingly), they don't explain why they do. - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Neapolitan National Archaeological Museum - in Background section it is formatted "National Archaeological Museum, Naples" - different intended?
 * Yes. It's just a bit more cumbersome to read "in contrast with the National Archaeological Museum, Naples, which". I don't have a problem on the first use, but this one just rolls a little more easily - SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * chose to display sexually-explicit objects - remove hyphen? there are 5x "sexually graphic" without hyphen
 * segregate the sexually graphic items out of the main collection - from the main collection?
 * writes that the contents of the Secretum were the first steps in the scientific - contents themselves are not steps? Parkinson is saying the eg analysis of, scholarship of, examination of, documentation of the contents? Or 'the contents of the Secretum were helped enable the first steps in the scientific...
 * he wrote that the collection as "a product of its time - not "as"? Should be is or was a product?
 * interior of a kylix made - italics on kylix?
 * purchased by the British Museum from Pierre Louis Jean Casimir de Blacas in 1867 - he died 1839 and his son Louis, Duke of Blacas died 1866. His article has "After the French government refused to pay for its acquisition, his collection was sold by his heirs to the British Museum in 1867 for 1,200,000 francs.[3]" BM (per link at Commons) has "Purchased from: Louis, Duc de Blacas d'Aulps". Maybe add 'heirs of' or 'estate of'?
 * Category:Erotica
 * Category:Censorship in the United Kingdom
 * Category:Pornography in the United Kingdom
 * Category:1865 establishments in England
 * Category:2005 disestablishments in England

JennyOz (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As always, JennyOz, a huge thanks for these comments - they are on point as usual and I hope I've done them justice with these changes. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks SchroCat (and UC). (The only other comment is re "relevant department", a lede but not body issue, but it is not important to Secretum itself.) I am very happy to s'port promotion. JennyOz (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks JennyOz. Sorry - my eye slipped over the "relevant department" comment. I've adjusted the ones in the body to match more closely the lead. The range of goods in the Secretum was broad and covered multiple timeframes and geographies, so it's not possible to adequately cover details of all of them, so leaving it broad and vague is possibly the only solution. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those bonus tweaks! JennyOz (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

750h+

 * Hi SC, I've taken a read of the whole article, and I don't see any problems (most of them have been addressed above). So, I support this nomination. Great work as always!  750h+ &#124;   Talk  12:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, that's very kind of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Source review
On the case. A Private one, of course. ——Serial Number 54129 15:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Overall, all the sources are impeccable representations of the field, with one exception perhaps, and there are no immediately apparent gaps in the literature. Books and chapters are all late 20th/21st century studies by the above-noted "renowned academics" and published by reputable academic presses; newspapers are of record; it's a welcome surprise when only one out of so many works is Antiquarian.Happy to pass the source review. Cheers,  ——Serial Number 54129  17:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Formatting spotless.
 * Page range for Wright's contribution.
 * Done - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess it's OK for FAC ("But the author is a renowned academic"), but History Today is not considered a scholarly journal. Academics write in it, but it's what they do when they want to reach a wider audience. It's very rarely cited in academic monographs/journal articles. Sure Gaimster doesn't develop his ideas elsewhere at a later date? It seems odd, all things being equal, that anything he considered important in HT in 2000 didn't make its way into the Bayley chapter the following year.
 * Unfortunately there wasn't much more he wrote on the general topic. - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent use Grove's thesis, no shying away with that!
 * Many thanks. Your points addressed or sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

 * "Items from other cultures covered a wide period of human history, including ancient Egypt, the classical era Greco-Roman world, the ancient Near East, medieval England, Japan and India." I am not sure that "a wide period" really works. It may just be me, or it may be worth tweaking the wording. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Tweaked - although it’s definitely just you ;) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)