Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Typology of Greek Vase Shapes

Typology of Greek Vase Shapes
Self nom, I believe it's one of the best guides to the subject available on the internet, and the high quality of the photography deserves wider recognition. Twospoonfuls 09:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It doesn't sufficiently cross the line between a gallery (such as the common's category linked at the bottom) and a List. The two external links are better "guides" - they give descriptions of the identifying shapes, emphasise the aspects that are unique, explain the origin of the word and explain what the vase was typically used for. Some of the photos are good but several are very blurred — the camera has focussed on something else. The "key terms" table has an odd looking first column. The rest of the list doesn't use those terms.
 * 1a: either "bring together a group of existing articles" or "contain a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the set's members are not notable enough to have individual articles". It fails the former since very few vases are linked. It fails the latter since this isn't a finite set.
 * 1b: comprehensive. Taking "Oinochoe" as one example, the list only contains types 1, 2, 3 and 7. One of your external links lists many more types.
 * 1f: well structured. There is no structure to the table, just alphabetic ordering. Both external links have a hierarchy of types, as did an earlier version of this list.
 * To be a FL, it would need to concentrate much more on words (and perhaps some diagrams) and less on the photos. Colin°Talk 15:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To compare the article to other web-sites was perhaps a lapsus linguae on my part, I don't think it is a featured list criterion to be better than any other web page. It is true there are a dearth of articles on ancient Greek pottery types. It ought to be asked if it is worth having an article for each type since there is little to say about some of them beyond bare definition which would have little explanatory value without direct visual comparison with similar vases; hence the gallary, and hence it meets the second criterion of 1a. "It fails the latter since this isn't a finite set", I'm sorry I don't follow you there - there isn't an infinite number of types. As for structure, as I mentioned in the lead these names are conventions not historical fact - it is often the case that their historical use is unclear, or they had a multiple uses; I abandoned the division into uses for that reason. Other web-sites will have to answer for their own divisions of type. The blurry pictures are probably mine, mea culpa. I would suggest that they are not illegible though and can be readily replaced when better substitutes emerge. I can add descriptions to the thumbs, if that is a requirement. Twospoonfuls 17:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The lead requirement is "exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation." That gives reviewers scope for subjective opinions, along with the more objective criteria that follow. The fact that there are better guides, makes one suspect that this isn't the "best" that Wikipedia can do. The blurry pictures do not IMO meet "professional standards of ... presentation". The two other guides seem to divide on container-type and then by shape. Perhaps the list should be reworded to "Typology of Greek Vases". I said "this isn't a finite set" because I believed that the division of shapes was an artificial construct that resulted in a different number depending on who you asked. If perhaps there is some authoritative definition of all 42 (to pick a number) shapes that all museums use when classifying Greek vases, then I will accept it as a finite set.
 * The main problem is summed up by your closing sentence. The list is currently defined by the available pictures. The pictures need to be added to the prose, not the other way round. Colin°Talk 21:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. No in-line references. Todd661 08:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Todd, nothing is being asserted here other than existence and form; the forms are self-evident, their existence can be verified from either of the links or the Richter-Milne book. So what exactly is it you want cited? We really need to get beyond this pavlovian love of footnotes and ask what function they serve - in this instance none whatsoever. Besides which there are many FA lists without notes. I'll come back to the other points raised later. Twospoonfuls 11:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are quite a few featured articles without in-line citations too - and they are being gradually demoted. If you dislike in-line cites, you need to go somewhere else because it is a long-held and entrenched view that they increase the verifibility of an article. Anyway, the lead is way too long not to be specifically referenced. Also, Avoid Weasel Words such as "The task of naming Greek vase shapes is by no means a straightforward one". WP:L says that a list can used as a See Also list, but there are hardly any wikilinks, so how can this be the case. Also have a look at WP:NOT, specifically point 4. Todd661 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)