Talk:Pydnae/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Golden (talk · contribs) 12:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lead & Infobox

• In Note 1, it may be helpful to specify that Gâvurağli is the local Turkish name, as some readers may not know the local language in that specific area of Turkey. Y

Done. AM

• Is there a reason why 'Kydna' is listed outside the note, unlike the other alternate names? Is it a more prevalent alternate name? Y

There's no reason, so I'll include this alternative within the note. AM

• The settlement was mentioned twice during the period when the region was part of the Roman Empire. - Mentioned by whom? This sentence needs more context. Y

Done. AM

• The lead should be expanded to provide a better summary of the article. In particular, more information about its history should be included in the lead. Y

Done. AM

Great job. However, it might be more appropriate to move the second sentence (During the period when..) in the first paragraph to the end of the paragraph to follow a chronological order. Additionally, consider changing it was included in the to "it was mentioned in the" for better readability. — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

Done. AM

• If 'Kydna' is indeed a more prevalent alternate name, it can be kept in the infobox. However, it should be moved from the 'name' parameter to the 'alternate_name' parameter. Y

I have simply removed 'Kydna' from the infobox, and left it to the note to explain any alternative names. The issue of names is confusing for all these kind of places—you have variations produced according to language, author preference, and spelling style for the period the source was written, as well as transliteration issues, modern changes in official names, etc, etc.... AM

History

• Typo: which was situated near the mouth the River Őzlen. -> "which was situated near the mouth of the River Özlen." Y

Sorted. AM

• It was mentioned - Consider adding the word 'first' after 'It' to provide context that this was the first-ever mention of the fort. Y

Sorted. AM

• Wikilink Xanthos and consider providing context by including the phrase 'city of' before 'Xanthos' in the sentence. Y

Done. AM

• Wikilink promontory. Y

Done AM

• What is Bükses? Provide information about it in the article. Y

Note added. AM

• Wikilink Karadere and provide information about how it's relevant. Perhaps adding "nearby" may help to show that it's close to Pydnae. Y

Done. AM

• The Byzantine church indicates the fort was once used to protect the local Christians population. - Since this is the first mention of the Byzantine church in Pydnae, consider restructuring the sentence to: "There is a Byzantine church in Pydnae, indicating that the fort was once to protect the local Christians population." Y

Done. AM

Discovery

• Is there a reason why the sentence starting with Within the walls is separate from the first paragraph, even though they both discuss Fellows's discoveries? Y

Not really, so paragraphs combined. AM

• Break up this sentence with two relative clauses Within the walls, Fellows found an inscription, which was not seen again, which he translated as "To Poseidon; the vow of Mausolus, the Alabarches". to something like this: "Within the walls, Fellows found an inscription that was not seen again. He translated it as "To Poseidon; the vow of Mausolus, the Alabarches". Y

Done, thanks. AM

• Pydnae was identified by Charles Texier -> "Pydnae was also identified by Charles Texier". Y

Done. AM

Archaeology

• {{tq|were among those 19th century scholars}} -> "were among the 19th-century scholars" Y

Sorted. AM

• and to be made of rubble with mortar -> "and made of rubble with mortar" Y

Sorted. AM

• but at Xanthos shows evidence of having undergone alterations at different times -> "but the tower at Xanthos shows evidence of having undergone alterations at different times" Y

Sorted. AM

• Evidence for an aqueduct at Pydnae has been found - By whom? If it's unknown, consider restructuring the sentence to something like: "There is also evidence of an aqueduct at Pydnae." Y

Done. AM

Description

• The site at Pydnae - Isn't Pydnae itself the site? Y

Agreed, text amended accordingly. AM

References

• For consistency, convert all non-sfn sources into sfns. Y

(not done) I'm not clear about this point, which sources are you referring to? Where the source I used is transcribed (e.g. Ref. 6 (Princeton)) or simply a website (e.g. Ref. 7 (Digital Atlas of the Roman Empire)), I have cited the website, and have consistently not used the sfn format in these cases. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've been clearer: I was referring to website sources. It would have been better to use sfn format for every source in the article, but this is not required, so it is fine.

• The G.E. Bean source appears to have been originally published in 1976. Please add this date to the reference. Y

Sorted. AM

• What is the source for the statement which was not seen again in reference to the inscription found by Fellows? Our only source for this sentence is Fellows's own book, so we need another source. The Benndorf & Niemann 1884 source states that they couldn't find the inscription, but is there any evidence that it has not been found since then? Y

I've looked but found no further evidence, so have omitted the detail. AM

• I checked the majority of the references, and they all appear to be accurate and support the claims for which they are cited. The sources are reliable, but there is an overreliance on primary sources. While there are no serious issues with the user's interpretation of these sources, it would be better to replace the primary sources with secondary ones.

Additional comments

• The article appears to mix British and American English in several instances. For example, it uses 'recognized', which is American English, but also 'defence', which is British English. Y

'Recognized' amended (although please note such forms are actually acceptable in BE). I couldn't spot any other words. AM

• Add {{PD-US-expired}} to File:Pydnae - Fellows (1841).jpg Y

Sorted. AM

• Earwig has identified some issues with copyright and close paraphrasing in relation to this source:
  • Original: "Four or five inscriptions have been found in and around the fort; all are of Imperial date." vs Article: The inscriptions found in and around the fort all date from the Byzantine period.
  • Original: "occupying the E slope of a hill near the shore;" vs Article: and occupies the eastern slope of a hill near the shore.
  • Original: "the wall is in excellent and well-preserved polygonal masonry, with eleven towers and seven stairways leading up to the battlements. The only building in the interior is a small church." vs Article: The walls are of well-preserved polygonal masonry, with 11 towers and seven stairways leading up to the battlements and parapet. The only building in the interior is a small church. Y

Texts now amended. AM

— Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Most concerns have been appropriately addressed by Amitchell125, and the article is now ready to pass. Congratulations! — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 11:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.