Talk:Ludwig Ross/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 14:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig finds no issues.

File:Ludwig Ross - Imagines philologorum.jpg has a source link that isn't very clear, but it appears the image is taken from Gudeman's 1911 Imagine Philologorum. The license given is fine but you might add a US tag as well to show it's PD in the US. Not required for GA.
- Done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
eastofjordan.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/l-ross-at-petra-in-1854/ is a blog; what makes it a reliable source?
- The author is David L. Kennedy, who is a very respectable academic: he's a professor emeritus of archaeology at the University of Western Australia. In this particular case, we're only verifying that Kennedy has correctly read the name 'L. Ross', and that he believes that it could have been Ludwig. I don't have access to Blau's article Inschriften aus Petra, but in the event of any dispute, that would clear it up immediately. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link to Pyrgos goes to a disambiguation page.
- Fixed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:PLURALNOUN, it should be "Ross's", not "Ross'". The MoS page says "pronounced s", but I think they mean "voiced s".
- I'm quite a fan of the classicising possessive, but you're right that the MOS doesn't like it; changed under mild protest. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the long sentence starting "In January 1834 ...", when we get to "afterwards, he confirmed", it's not syntactically clear that "he" refers to Falbe rather than Ross. I would suggest splitting the sentence in two and reworking a little.
- Split and very mildly reworked: I'm not happy with how often "the state" props up there, but can't immediately think of a good alternative. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"... and tensions between Pittakis and Ross. Tension existed between ...": can we avoid the repetition?
- Now "animosity". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Klenze's proposals advocated for the removal of ...": any reason not to simplify this to "Klenze advocated for the removal of ..."?
- Very minor accuracy; what we're really saying is that Klenze wrote this down in January, and Ross/Pittakis were acting on that written document in March/May; the alternative might imply that the advocacy and the construction took place at the same time. At least in theory, Klenze could have changed his mind. But it's a pretty minor distinction. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"which was inaugurated on 15 May [O.S. 3 May] ... Ross' first lecture took place on 10 May [O.S. 22 May]": one of these is surely backwards as the date difference of 12 days is in opposite directions.
- The second; fixed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"this criticism has been posited to have been part of the reason why he delayed the publication of the second volume": suggest simplifying to "this criticism may have been partly why he delayed the publication of the second volume".
- Done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The project was financed by the Prussian Ministry of Culture and the Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm IV, to whom Ross' friend Alexander von Humboldt had introduced and recommended the project." Should the object of "introduced" be "Ross"? If not the sentence is correct, but I would suggest cutting "introduced and" as unnecessary and slightly distracting.
- It's the project; cut as you suggest. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know why he committed suicide?
- The source implies, in a slightly nineteenth-century way, a combination of his increasingly painful physical condition, general Weltschmertz, and a slightly odd bit where it praises him for emulating the great Roman philosophers. Frankly, I don't think they were doing anything more than guessing; we've got the juxtaposition of his health and his suicide, but I don't feel that the source has any claim to be reliable on Ross's motives. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a GA issue, but check the bibliography for alphabetical order -- Baumeister is after Brandl.
- Now in the right place. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

FN 80 cites "Ross' views were, however, supported by the historian Julius Braun in Germany and by the archaeologist Desiré–Raoul Rochette in Paris." Verified.
FN 9 cites "He remained closely connected with the Ottonian court": can you quote the supporting text?
- Er verkehrte viel in Hofkreisen UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FN 32 cites "which he spoke sufficiently fluently that Greeks often mistook him for a native": verified.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes and spotcheck look good. I fixed another O.S. date; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]