Wikipedia:Peer review/Mosaics of Delos/archive1

Mosaics of Delos
After a successful GA nomination, I'm seeking some help in getting this article into tip-top shape for an FA candidacy. If you like history, ancient Greece, or ancient artwork in general, then this just might be the article for you! Step right up! Take a swing at her. I won't mind. :D I think the section on the Houses and city quarters could use some work, perhaps some more additions to beef up the small sub-sections, but I'm not terribly sure about it. The lead section could probably say a few more things, but I'm not sure what else that should be! Perhaps material should even be removed from the article for one reason or another. I don't know! I need some serious feedback, because it is hard for me to critique my own work. You know how it is. Unlike cooking, where too many cooks spoil the broth, I honestly would prefer to have as many decent and competent editors as possible looking over my shoulder and judging if certain material is crap or not. Hehe. So then, do your worst! Or best, I meant best. I hope you enjoy reading the article as much as I enjoyed writing it!

Thanks, Pericles of Athens  Talk 07:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Caeciliusinhorto
I did a little bit of copy-editing in a few places while reading this...


 * "Delos, Greece, an Aegean island in the Cyclades": can this be simplified to "Delos, an island in the Cyclades"? The first sentence has already established that the mosaics are ancient Greek.
 * If the "nominally undated" pieces are dated by their style to the late Hellenistic period, how are the other mosaics dated? Archaeological context?
 * Lots of the claims made in the article are cited inline as being the opinions of particular scholars when I am not sure they really need to be. For instance: "Hariclia Brecoulaki asserts that the Delos mosaics represent the single largest collection of Greek mosaics".  This claim is either correct or not; I can't see how there can be any scholarly debate over it, and it is enough to just cite the work the claim comes from in a footnote.  I generally only give in-text attributions for either specific quotes, or for questions where scholarly opinion differs.
 * In the section on connections to other forms of Greek art, red-figure pottery is discussed, but not Hellenistic pottery styles. Is there anything to say about those?  (It looks like West Slope Ware is closer, and that also used a black ground...)
 * There are loads of good pictures used in this article, and this is exactly the type of article which benefits from that, but... do we really need three separate pictures of the dolphin-and-anchor mosaic from the House of the Trident? What do the last two images in that section add?

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)