User talk:UndercoverClassicist

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Kind Request for Review; Article: ARISTOPHANES; BIOGRAPHY | 3rd Review COMPLETED;

@UndercoverClassicist,

I have been addressed to you by Gerda Arendt . She kindly suggested your name, because I wish to edit the article on Aristophanes, but it is my first contribution to Wikipedia, after a long time. I would start to review and edit the Aristophanes Biography, and I kindly ask if you are available to review my draft before I publish it. With Kind Regards HeracleonGelensis. Thank you. HeracleonGelensis (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely -- send me a link when it's ready and I'll have a look. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed.I will proceed. --HeracleonGelensis. HeracleonGelensis (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

Dear UndercoverClassicist, here is the link to my sandbox. I have completed to edit the Biography of Aristophanes. Please review it and tell me your opinion about it. Thanks in advance and Kind Regards --HeracleonGelensis

User:HeracleonGelensis/sandbox HeracleonGelensis (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK - a few thoughts as I give it a first read:

The structure could be refined to make it easier on the reader. In general, try to make paragraphs consist of 3–6 sentences or so, and sections consist of around 3–5 paragraphs. We have a lot of material in a single big section: can you add some subsections to break it up and create structure?
Equally, try to make sure that a paragraph expresses a single idea -- if you're going to carry on talking about the plot of a play, for example, you generally want to stay in the same paragraph, unless you can find a way of changing the focus for a new one.
Primary sources, such as Aristophanes' works, are not generally considered usable for most of what we want to do. Presumably, you found most of these references in other scholarly works, so cite those directly -- there's nothing wrong with then including the primary reference as well to allow interested readers to follow it up.
Formatting: citations go after the punction, in general, like this.^[1]. See MOS:CITE for details. The formatting of the footnotes is quite inconsistent -- using citation templates would help here.
Images need captions and alt text. Given the quantity of material here, it would be good to find a few more.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

Thank you very much for your suggestions: they are very precious indeed. I will start review the text taking into account the good points that you reported to me. I will need some days; then, when I am done, I will write to you back. Thanks, in the meantime, for your kind help --HeracleonGelensis 151.38.159.182 (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

Dear Mentor, Thanks indeed for your insightful proposals. I have made a 2nd revision of the draft of Aristophanes, Biography. You can find the revised text at User:HeracleonGelensis/sandbox.

I have divided the text in sections, as you stated well; added illustrations; amended citations, finding other more recent comments to Ar. works. I have not gone into much details of the surviving plays, because there are other sections of the article "Aristophanes" to be worked on. Indeed, I was afraid that the whole article would become too long; moreover, there are several separate articles on the surviving plays (Acharnians, Frogs. Clouds etc:): I preferred to give a complete but not over-detailed biography of the poet. Please, let me have your comments, at your earliest convenience. Kind Regards --HeracleonGelensis. HeracleonGelensis (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting much better -- still a few things to look at on formatting, particularly of subheadings and references. I would also try to make those subheadings as concise as possible -- it's unusual to use a subheading longer than five words. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

Dear Mentor, Thanks for your useful advices. I have revised the text according to them. The revision of subheading has made the system generate the Biography index by itself. I have also reviewed and grouped the citations as much as possible. Please tell me if the overall configuration needs an upgrade or it is ready to be published, in your opinion. Last, but not least, I have inserted several pictures, that I have made on my own, instructing Dall.E: when I uploaded then, the WIkipedia system accepted them. I would ask if you find appropriate that I add "made with AI assistance" in the picture description, or if it is immaterial. Thank you. --HeracleonGelensis

Here is the link to the revised draft. User:HeracleonGelensis/sandbox HeracleonGelensis (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI images are likely to be controversial, put mildly -- there is limited consensus on them at the moment, but in previous reviews, the general view has been that they should not be used when good images of real objects exist. In this case, there are plenty of artefacts, vase paintings, ancient sites and so on that can illustrate the article, so I would advise against including AI-generated images at all.

As for the substance of the section, it looks pretty good. A good proof-read, for formatting, MoS compliance and natural English, would benefit it greatly: I'm happy to volunteer to do that, but as it would involve making more than trivial changes I would want to do so once you're happy that you've done most of what you wish to with it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

Thanks again for your precious suggestions. I will do as you told me: either for the images and for the proof-read. I will try to improve the text by some attempts of mine first; then, when I am done, I will leave it to your final revision, if you agree. Thanks, in the meantime --HeracleonGelensis HeracleonGelensis (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

I have completed the 3rd review according to your suggestions (MoS and natural English) as much as possible; I have also modified the titles of Aristophanes' works, deleting "The" as it is incorrect (in Greek they do not have article, nor the scholars use "The" in translation: therefore, "Clouds", not "The Clouds"). I have completely revised the citations, grouping and simplifying and now.. I wait for your opinion. Thank you. --HeracleonGelensis. The link to the draft is User:HeracleonGelensis/sandbox HeracleonGelensis (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I'll give it a look. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, two things to look at, one easier to fix than the other:

Don't use punctuation or bold font in titles -- they should simply be e.g. ==Early years==.
Much of the draft is uncited, which will pose a problem. Each sentence needs at least one citation to a reliable work of scholarship. If two sentences use exactly the same work and page, you can save the citation until the end of the second one, but there always needs to be a citation no later than the end of the paragraph (see WP:CITE for detail).

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

Thank you very much indeed: instructions are very clear! I will proceed as per your suggestions; then, I will revert to you by the end of September. Kind regards. HeracleonGelensis (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

I have made the requested amendments. In the case of sub-titles I have kept parentheses for the sake of clarity. As regards the citations, I have enriched the citations of sources as much as possible: please tell me if now the draft is acceptable. If not, please specify which sub-paragraph needs more citations. Thanks for your help until now HeracleonGelensis (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

I apologise: this is the link to my draft User:HeracleonGelensis/sandbox. Thank you HeracleonGelensis (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

21/10 Dear mentor, I have written to you that I have amended my draft, but I have not received any reply from you until now. Is there anything I can do? Any problem with my draft? Please reply me when you have time. Here is the link User:HeracleonGelensis/sandbox. . Kind Regards. HeracleonGelensis (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise -- I meant to drop you this comment when I first read the latest version. In essence, it's certainly going the right way. I'd suggest building it into the article (you will, I think, be able to make good use of some elements of what is already there), and perhaps then running the finished product past the Guild of Copyeditors. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

Thank you very much for your insightful comment and suggestion: I will follow it. Kind regards. HeracleonGelensis (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Source details

Question from Comrd Alee'u Yunuth Are'lee (14:55, 22 October 2024)

E library catalogue projects --Comrd Alee'u Yunuth Are'lee (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Ridgeway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King's County.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Handmade burnished ware

Just wanted to let you know I filled in the red link at Handmade Burnished Ware. Most of the sources that I found readily available online were from the late 1990s; go ahead and make whatever updates or changes you think necessary. Ifly6 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. I think I'll need to make some edits in the Dorian invasion article; as you identify in that article, the consensus as to where it comes from seems murky. There's a 2011 PhD here that tries to have both, and say it represents a foreign population that was already within Mycenaean society; likewise, this 2018 article by Bartłomiej Lis is ambivalent as to exactly which foreigners and what mechanism could have brought it into Mycenaean society, but (perhaps worryingly) insistent that some sort of foreign group has to be involved.

You might wish to be a little more cautious on the "Sea Peoples" -- almost nobody nowadays (perhaps except Eric Cline) thinks that these people existed in the way that they were traditionally imagined (as large, city-destroying armies of foreign invaders). Lis's framing is more typical: that there might have been a phenomenon of migration among individuals or small groups that later became blown up into the stories we have of the "Sea Peoples". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Edited some remarks there since I didn't want to imply that the "Sea Peoples" were migratory hordes^[sarcasm], just that they were non-native groups travelling in the eastern Mediterranean. Ifly6 (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phryne?

Hope you are doing well! If you have a moment I'd appreciate if you could just cast a quick eye over Phryne – I've done a fair bit of work on it after reading the two(!) monographs on her published this year, and I'm wondering whether it might hold up to FA-level scrutiny? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Kkololo (09:26, 1 November 2024)

Hello! --Kkololo (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George E. Mylonas

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 28 December 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Tim riley submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week

I nominate UndercoverClassicist to be Editor of the Week for two reasons: first, for writing top-flight articles on Ancient Greek archaeology and its archaeologists – articles that sail effortlessly through Featured Article Candidacy – and secondly, for astoundingly thorough and helpful contributions to other editors' FAC pages. UC certainly puts editors through their paces at FAC good and proper but the end result is always a much improved article. I personally always value the gracious manner in which UC takes the occasional bolshie riposte. This is an editor who understands what it is to be a colleague, and one who can write FAs with clarity and elegance. UC has been on Wikipedia for less than two years; I have been here for eighteen. I doubt if I'll be around to celebrate UC's eighteenth anniversary here, but I feel the future of Wikipedia is in safe hands.

This noination was seconded by Gog the Mild, SchroCat, TechnoSquirrel69, AirshipJungleman29, Queen of Hearts and theleekycauldron

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

UndercoverClassicist

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning November 3, 2024

Writes top-flight articles on Ancient Greek archaeology and its archaeologists. Thorough and helpful contributions to other editors' FAC pages resulting in much improved articles. A gracious manner and understanding of collaboration who can write FAs with clarity and elegance. The future of Wikipedia is in safe hands.

Recognized for

DYK for Blanche Badcock

On 2 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Blanche Badcock, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a poultry farmer was the first woman to compete for the Sovereign's Prize, the highest honour in British rifle shooting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Blanche Badcock. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Blanche Badcock), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"...add every object in the British Museum to Wikiproject UK), and even less to Catholicism"

Actually you'll find that (probably) every object in the British Museum and National Gallery has been added to Wikiproject London (27k low-importance articles), likewise the Met and New York, and most religious ones to Catholicism or something. Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go figure -- but then I suppose "London" is better than "UK" (though equally I suppose that whether Rome can be considered to be "in" the Vatican to be a matter for the philosophers). If you believe Constantine, Augustus was really just an early draft for Christ, but hopefully he's not editing on here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Anactoria

Congratulations, UndercoverClassicist! The article you nominated, Anactoria, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation shares ANI lawsuit updates; first admin elections appoint eleven sysops; first admin recalls opened; temporary accounts coming soon?

In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel

Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship

Gallery: Why you should take more photos and upload them

In focus: Questions and answers about the court case

Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?

Technology report: Wikimedia tech, the Asian News International case, and the ultra-rare BLACKLOCK

Humour: Man quietly slinks away from talk page argument after realizing his argument dumb, wrong

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Fun-galEnjoyer (00:38, 11 November 2024)

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia editing and wanted to get caught up on how you go about citing sources, what kind of sources are citable, and when it's applicable to add citations. My passion is to give and correct info on fungi, while providing concise and readable content regarding limited info on some of the things I've read up on, and im hoping you can help me along the way! : ) --Fun-galEnjoyer (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- welcome to Wikipedia.

Citation is one of those things that can be done at a few levels -- there are simple ways to do it and more sophisticated ones. The key principle is that sources should be reliable, published and free of any conflicts of interest. It is usually best to cite the highest-quality sources possible, such as academic journals, books published in scholarly presses, and so on.

In terms of the mechanics, the best way to get started is to use the <ref> ... </ref> tags: simply put the information about the citation between the two angle-bracketed tags. Don't worry too much about the citation style: what matters is that a reader or future editor can find and verify the information if needed (page numbers are good wherever possible). If you're starting a new page, or the page doesn't have any references yet, make a new section called "References" and put {{reflist}} at the bottom.

There are a couple of guides to this here, for the source editor, and here, if you use the visual editor.

The other ways of doing referencing normally involve using templates, which can make some of the repetitive jobs easier and help maintain a consistent style. Once you've got your head around "normal" references as above, you might want to have a look at some of the documentation on the following templates:

Happy editing! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 65

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 65, September – October 2024

Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Wikipedia Library
Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
Tech tip: Mass downloads

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Katzenjammerrrr (20:29, 16 November 2024)

wassup braaaaahhhh --Katzenjammerrrr (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

News and notes: Open letter to WMF about court case breaks one thousand signatures, big arb case declined, U4C begins accepting cases

In the media: Summons issued for Wikipedia editors by Indian court, "Gaza genocide" RfC close in news, old admin Gwern now big AI guy, and a "spectrum of reluctance" over Australian place names

Recent research: SPINACH: AI help for asking Wikidata "challenging real-world questions"

News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports: FY 2023–2024

Traffic report: Well, let us share with you our knowledge, about the electoral college

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from YourMumInternational (09:50, 21 November 2024)

hi ive never done this before but im eager to learn what is the best way to do that --YourMumInternational (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Source details

[1]