Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beulé Gate/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 5 March 2024 [1].

Beulé Gate

[edit]
Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last major monument to be uncovered on the Acropolis of Athens, and indeed one of its last classical structures to be built. Constructed from the dismembered remains of the Choragic Monument of Nicias, the Beulé Gate was built to fortify the Acropolis in the Late Roman period, fiddled around with over the ensuing centuries, and rather ignominiously buried under an Ottoman cannon emplacement until 1852. Its discovery -- complete, as all good nineteenth-century archaeology was, with frankly irresponsible quantities of gunpowder -- led to celebration in France, indignation in Greece and a new hat (and possibly new trousers) for Kyriakos Pittakis.

Ancient buildings are not well represented at FA: I believe this would, if passed, be the third such article to be promoted and the first from classical Athens. From a rather selfish point of view, it's also my first go at a Four Award. The article went through a GA nomination with Ppt91 and a recent peer review with Tim riley, SchroCat and Choliamb -- it is probably fair to be upfront that it has changed significantly (I hope for the better) over the course of the latter. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (support)

[edit]

I may come back and do a full review, but for now, just a couple of quick comments about some of the images. In both File:Open street map Central Athens.svg and File:2496 - Athens - Acropolis - Beulé Gate from outside - Photo by Giovanni Dall'Orto, Nov 09 2009.jpg, I can't find the features described in the captions. In the first one, there's just a map with no visual indication of where I should be looking. The fact that the labels are in Greek doesn't help. Could you add some sort of visual marker highlighting the gate? Likewise with the other one. The caption talks about "part of the dedicatory inscription", but I don't see any writing at all. Please add some visual aid to guide the reader to where they should be looking. RoySmith (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roy -- the OSM image won't display the location when outside the infobox (it works in tandem with the coordinates: you should be able to see a - fairly small on my display, granted - three-dots ancient site symbol slightly SW of centre). I've added a label to that one, so it's now the same as the equivalent map in Temple of Apollo Palatinus. The inscription on the second image isn't easy to see, but I've added a note to help guide the reader in. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to be a pain about this, but I keep coming back to this to take another look and I'm still getting hung up on the inscription image. I get that there may not be anything better to use, and that it's important to show what does exist, but in it's current form, I just don't see it being of any value to most readers. The inscription is darn near impossible to read or even make out that it exists. I ran it by my standard judge of wiki-things (my wife), who couldn't see the enscription even after I pointed out where to look.
Short of dispatching somebody to Athens to take a better picture, maybe there could be a companion image showing the inscription traced out, as a visual key to assist the reader in finding it on the original photo? RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea: I'll have to make that traced image myself, but I might be able to do something to pick out the visible letters. I think it's also worth remembering the image isn't just showing the inscription: it's also the entire area described (now above) as The area above the central doorway is decorated in the Doric order. It consists of an architrave in Pentelic marble, topped with marble metopes and triglyphs made from a variety of limestone known as poros stone. Above the metopes and triglyphs is a geison with mutules, itself topped with an attic. Assuming that at least some readers exist who care about the architectural details (and I think for the FA criteria, we need to cater for those), it has quite a lot of value to them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I've had a go at something here: what do you think? UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. Thank you for going the extra distance to accommodate me. RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
[edit]
  • You explain here that spolia are repurposed materials, but need to also say that in the body.
  • "the Post-Herulian Wall, a late Roman fortification which reinforced the Acropolis as a military stronghold": Probably a nit, but while the body mentions the Post-Herulian Wall, it doesn't say anything being a "military stronghold".
    • There's a current in the sources about how the PHW is a (big) part of the transition between the Acropolis basically being treated as a religious sanctuary on a hill to basically being treated like a castle with a few temples in it, but I can't immediately find that phrased in a concise way. Fixed for now. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the Germanic Heruli people in 267 CE", maybe "approximately 267", since it doesn't sound like that date is certain.
    • It's either 267 or very early 268 (which would have been the same year to people at the time). Practically every source goes with 267, but then adds the "early 268" caveat: I've tried to make the level of uncertainty clearer. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the medieval period...", if I'm following right, you later talk about this as the "Middle Byzantine period". Are those two terms synonymous?
    • Middle Byzantine is a subset of medieval. Some of this stuff happened in the Early Byzantine period (also medieval) too (specifically, the Justinian stuff); some of it happened after the Byzantine period (under the Franks), but still within the medieval period. We've got space in the lead, but I'm not sure if the level of granularity is helpful yet? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a fan of short leads, so I'd suggest leaving the lead as is, but expanding the body to something like "during the Middle Byzantine period (c. 843 - c. 1261) of the medieval era ..." RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Happy to leave the lead, but I'd prefer to leave the body as it is: they're really two slightly different dating systems, so I can't think of a formulation close to "the Middle Byzantine period (c. 843 - c. 1261) of the medieval era" that doesn't sound wrong. We already have the dates of the M-B period so that anyone who's interested can see how that fits with whatever chronological scheme they're used to. "Medieval" is, almost by design, a pretty vague term (especially in Greece): we've only used it in this article by necessity, when dates are pretty uncertain. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Description
[edit]
  • "monumental staircase". Does the source use the word "monumental", or is that your own categorization?
  • "23 m (75 ft) in width" (and other similar examples). It would be more concise to say 23 m (75 ft) wide" (as I slink off to check that I haven't done the same in my own articles).
  • "are in turn joined": likewise, you don't need "in turn".
  • "The gate is ... The gateway itself is" what's the difference between a gateway and a gate?
  • "The area above the central doorway" how does a doorway differ from a gateway or a gate?
    • In both cases here, the whole structure is pretty big (it's a doorway, set into a wall, set between two big towers), so I'm trying to draw a distinction between that whole composite monument and the (far smaller) hole in it that people can walk through. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is your use of "door", "doorway", "gate", and "gateway" standard terminology? Either way, it would be useful to have some explanation similar to what you just wrote here, even if it's just a footnote along the lines of, "The literature is inconsistent in the use of the terms ...; in this article they are being used as follows ..." RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's anything so standardised in the archaeological literature (bearing in mind that we can't even agree on what to call the wall it's built into!). I've gone and standardised to "gate" when we mean the whole monument (matching its name) and "doorway" (initially with itself) when we mean the hole in it. I've also made a move which hopefully clarifies how we're moving around the structure. Do you think it's clear enough in context? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The area above the central doorway is ... and consists of ... and made from ..." run-on sentence?
  • "It reads as follows:" Perhaps include both the original Greek and the English translation, as you do for the quote in Excavation further down?
  • "prostyle hexastyle pronaos" WP:SEAOFBLUE

(I'll come back and do more later)

Date
[edit]
  • "Date" is an odd title for a section. Is there a better way to say that? "Dating of artifacts", maybe?
    • It's the date of the construction (there aren't really any discrete artefacts in the way you might elsewhere have for an archaeological site): it's fairly standard to talk about the date of an old building, artefact, etc, though I appreciate it might be more at home in specialist literature. See Benty Grange hanging bowl, which we passed recently with the same section title. "Date of construction" is possible but perhaps a bit redundant? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...erroneously believed" seems egregiously harsh. Let the guy have his moment of fame before bashing him: ".. Beule believed the gate to have been ... Later research, however ..."
  • "established it as ... but scholarly opinion remains divided" If opinion is divided, then "established" sounds like the wrong word.
  • You have "the archaeologist Paul Graindor", "the archaeologist Wilhelm Dörpfeld", "the architectural historian William Bell Dinsmoor", etc. In all these cases, I'd leave off the definite article (i.e. "the"). I'd probably leave off the "archeologist" as well. I get the style of introducing people with what they do, but this is an archeology article so the reader can reasonably assume anybody not explicitly introduced is probably an archeologist, If there's doubt, they're all linked to their own articles so the reader can click on that.
  • "A stone later reused": leave out "later"; it's implied by "reused".
History
[edit]
Excavation
[edit]
  • As a general comment, all the maps should have some indication of orientation. I'm guessing unless otherwise noted, they're all "North at the top", but that's not always true. If there's no North arrow, note the orientation in the caption (as you did for the one in this section).
    • The only one I can see that this might apply to is the street map in the infobox -- is that the one you're talking about? I haven't seen a caption to the effect of "north is up" for any of those elsewhere: the convention is so strong (especially in what's clearly a "proper" big-data map rather than a hand-drawn plan) and space is at such a premium that it doesn't seem like a good trade to me. Beulé's plan is noted in the caption and the Acropolis plan has a north arrow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is frightening that the Greek authorities in the 19th century considered the Acropolis to be a practical military fortification.
  • " inscribed in Ancient Greek and reading", you can drop "in reading"

OK, that's a compete read-through from me. RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that's all done -- let me know if I've missed anything or said anything outrageous. Thanks, as ever, for your time and sharp eyes. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One last thought Two Three last thoughts: in the image caption "Reconstruction of the Acropolis in the 3rd century ...", I tend to think of "reconstruction" as building a physical model. I assume this is a drawing, so maybe "artist's rendition" would be a better description? Also, I think it would be better to use this image in the Description section, where it would give visual context to "at the bottom of a monumental staircase" and "The gate includes two pylon-like towers". It might complicate the layout, but I think it's worth it.
    Also, some of your images are missing MOS:ALT texts. RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed alt texts -- thanks for spotting those. I think "reconstruction" is quite common for a drawing or diagram (though must admit I'm struggling to find a dictionary that gives the definition of reconstruction as object/image): to me, rendition would give the impression that the facts were much more settled, whereas reconstruction highlights that the act of drawing is also an act of making educated guesses about what things looked like. Agreed that it would work nicely in the description section -- we're already out of space there, though, at least on my display, and I think we really need to keep the image of the entablature inscription next to the text of the same inscription. Almost all of what's described is visible in the main infobox image, and on my display at least I can get the main two paragraphs of Description on screen at the same time as that photograph. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I don't see the value of the inscription image. Even when you pointed out to me where to look, I had to struggle to find anything that looked like an inscription. And much the same applies to the infobox photo; it's from an odd angle and crops out many of the significant features. MOS:PERTINENCE says an image should be "an important illustrative aid to understanding"; I don't think either meet that. The reconstruction drawing gives the reader a much better understanding of what this structure is/was, so that should get top billing. Maybe deleting the photo from the infobox and putting it in the gallery will give you the space you need to include the reconstruction drawing in Description.
    If you still need more room, perhaps it would make sense to move the Entablature inscription section into History. I can see why it makes sense as part of Description, but since the main point that's being made is that material from a previous structure was recycled to build this, it also makes sense in History. RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate I'm being difficult here: a few things:
    • I do see the value in the entablature image: it doesn't just show the inscription, but also the architrave, metopes, triglyphs and geison, as well as what Pentelic marble looks like. In other words, it's a visual demonstration of the (quite dense and technical-term-heavy) textual description of probably the most important part of the monument. I appreciate that most readers won't know or care what any of that stuff is, but a significant subset will know what some of it is and want to understand the whole: I think it's particularly helpful for them.
    • It does seem strange, to me, for the infobox picture not to be a photograph of the article's subject when we've got one. The reconstruction image has value, but also a great deal that isn't the Beulé Gate: how are readers to know exactly which bit is which? MOS:LEADIMAGE seems to be the key relevant guideline here: see in particular [lead images] should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. It would be a very odd modern encyclopaedia that used a nineteenth-century engraving over a digital photograph in an article about a building. On the other hand, if there's a better photo, I'm all ears (eyes?).
    • Perhaps it would make sense to move the Entablature inscription section into History Your point is well taken, but to me, the main point here is how the objects are currently arranged and visible on the Beulé Gate (which is the point of "Description" -- what does this thing look like?) rather than how they were arranged on the Monument of Nikias. "History" is also specifically about the gate, not the monument: it would be odd to start the history of a monument's "life" half a millennium or so before it was built.
    I don't think any of these are really big points, but for the moment I think we've currently got the best compromise between quite a few competing priorities: happy to keep discussing, and would be interested to know what other reviewers think on these points. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe reviews should be suggestions, not commandments. I've made my suggestion, which discharges my duty, so I also will let other reviewers weigh in and then you can proceed as you see fit. RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @UndercoverClassicist just one more nit I noticed today. You mention "high explosives" in the lead. Later on, you say it was gunpowder, which according to Explosive#By velocity doesn't fit the definition of "high explosive". I suggest using the more generic term "explosive". RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops - I should have known that. Nit well picked: fixed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Booking my place. By a pleasing coincidence I was in the British Museum this afternoon – and, what's more, in the Graeco-Roman rooms, including the Acropolis displays. I shall reread and review the article with the pleasing images from the BM in my head. More anon. Tim riley talk 19:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. A pleasure to revisit the article. My quibbles at peer review were few and were thoroughly attended to. After a final perusal I have one minor query about a Greek word and one entirely ignorable suggestion about layout:

  • In the Entablature inscription section, "choregos in the boys' chorus" seems strange to me. As I dimly remembered it from schooldays, and as our Wikipedia article makes clear, the choregos wasn't a performer in the chorus but the plutocrat who paid for it. The Greek original in your Inscriptiones Graecae source hasn't got a separate preposition, and I wonder if "of" or "with" or "for" or "over" rather than "in" would be a more accurate English rendition. Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
  • I wondered at first why you hadn't offered a translation of the inscription beginning "Η Γαλλία ...", but then realised you had. The big gap between the Greek and the English momentarily misled me, and I think it would be easier to follow without the double line break between the two.

That's my lot. I'm happy to support the elevation of this article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 09:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim -- done on the choregos. I've tried something here with the inscriptions: realised that I was trying to jerry-rig the {{text and translation}} template, so I've just gone ahead and swapped that in. It works well for the Beulé inscription but seems to add the awkward double-break in the Nikias one (at least on my display). My thinking here is that it's probably still the "right" way to do things: presumably it's more amenable to different sorts of screen? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new side-by-side layout and inclusion of the Greek text for the first inscription strike me as excellent. Tim riley talk 11:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a trivia point, {{text and translation}} automagically switches between side-by-side and top-and-bottom layout depending on screen width (and maybe some other magic). RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Will be along shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, after a further readthrough following my input at PR. I mad one small alteration to punctuation, but nothing contentious. This meets FA standards in my eyes. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choliamb

[edit]

I emptied my quiver in the peer review, so you will be glad to hear that I don't have anything new to add about the content of the article. But your recent work on Alison Frantz reminded me of her article about the bema of Phaidros in the Theater of Dionysos, which, although you would never guess it from the title, opens with a discussion of the Marcellinus inscription and the date of the Beué Gate. There's nothing there that you haven't already got from other sources, but it does provide a good summary of Graindor for those who can't read French, and because of your interest in Frantz you will probably want to look at it in any case. (The expansion of the Frantz article is excellent, by the way.)

I don't usually comment on style, but since the issue has already been raised above on this page, I'll make an exception here to note my agreement with User:RoySmith regarding the little thumbnail descriptions of sources ("the archaeologist Paul Graindor", "the architectural historian William Bell Dinsmoor", etc.). He politely declined to push you further on the matter, but I think he's right and the article would be better off without them, for two reasons:

(1) For ordinary readers, I don't think such labels add much value. Most of the scholars you mention in this article are characterized as "archaeologists", but as Roy has already observed, in an article about an archaeological topic, most readers will assume that the authorities you cite are archaeologists of one stripe or another, and the differences between "archaeologist" and "art historian" and "architectural historian" and "ancient historian" and "classicist" are not differences that a general audience is likely to understand or care about. Obviously it's a different matter if you're reporting the opinion of someone from outside the field: when discussing Peter Rockwell's work on the column of Trajan, for example, it makes sense to identify him as "the sculptor Peter Rockwell", because the whole point is that he was not a trained archaeologist or art historian, he was a professional sculptor, and as someone who actually worked with marble on a daily basis his observations about techniques and tool marks differed from the observations hazarded by those of us who have never put a chisel to a piece of stone. The same would be true of "the botanist X" or "the professional boxer Y" or "the ukelele virtuoso Z". But in the great majority of cases, where it can be assumed that the scholars you are citing work in a field directly related to the content for which you are citing them, such labels just seem like unnecessary clutter to me.

(2) Worse still, by doing this, you run the risk of mischaracterizing the scholars in question, or at least raising the eyebrows of those readers who are familiar with their work and who disagree with the pigeonholes you have chosen for them. You label Jeff Hurwit an "archaeologist", but he spent forty years in the Art History department at the University of Oregon, teaching art history courses and publishing almost exclusively on Greek art, and I am willing to bet that if you asked 100 people in the field which term better describes him, archaeologist or art historian, 95 of them would say "art historian" and the other five would say "Who's Jeff Hurwit?" You call Graindor an archaeologist too, but he is better known as an epigrapher and historian; his most frequently cited works are a series of historical monographs on Athens during the Roman period, which rely on a detailed analysis of literary and epigraphical sources. And then there are gratuitous space-fillers like "the writer and philhellene Jean Baelen", a description that does nothing to distinguish Baelen from every other author cited in the article, all of whom are, by definition, writers (they couldn't be sources otherwise!), and most of whom would surely claim to be philhellenes as well. That one in particular looks as if it was added for no other reason than your conviction that every name mentioned in the article must have an accompanying epithet.

Such labels aren't particularly important, and arguing about which is the most appropriate in any given case is as silly as edit warring over the genre labels in music articles (which I gather is a thing that people do with inexplicable ferocity here). It is precisely because they are not important that I think you're better off just omitting them. Readers who are unfamiliar with these scholars don't care about the labels, and readers who already know the names don't need them. If you insist on using them anyway, you're just inviting the crankier members of the latter group to find reasons to disagree with your descriptions and question your judgment. Either way, it's an unnecessary distraction. I don't spend much time on Wikipedia and there's no reason why you should listen to me regarding matters of style, but if other experienced editors are also suggesting that labels like these are not very useful, my advice is to listen to them. (I can't remember where, but I'm pretty sure I've seen User:Caeciliusinhorto argue against them as well, although presumably in more measured tones and with less indignant arm waving.)

Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of this -- I'm familiar with Caeciliusinhorto's essay and there's certainly a good deal of good sense to it. At the same time, there's another school of thought among many other reviewers -- with whom I'd generally situate myself -- that dropping in a name with no introduction is assuming the reader's prior knowledge, or inviting the question "why should we care what they think?".
I've tried for a solution which I hope will be satisfactory: where the epithet is simply "the archaeologist" and/or adds little value, I've removed, but I've kept it where either it's important (for instance, to note in the lead that Beulé was French, since otherwise the excitement in France makes little sense) or whether they're not specifically archaeologists (in other words, where we might view their testimony a little differently). Baelan certainly fits that bill, and I've slightly adjusted his description. By your leave, I think "philhellene" is significant here: he was particularly known for his philhellenism (see the title of his biography: Jean Baelen (1899-1989): ambassadeur, ecrivain, artiste et ami de la Grece), and it might otherwise be a bit unclear what a French diplomat is doing weighing in on archaeological history.
Appreciate that compromises usually end up upsetting everyone: I hope that this at least remedies the issues you raise above! UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're talking about User:Caeciliusinhorto/Context considered harmful? RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely so. One particular piece of good sense from there is They don't fundamentally provide any new information that isn't already obvious from the context; all they do is make the article less concise: I think I can plead that all the descriptions still remaining do add new, useful information that isn't obvious in context. UndercoverClassicist T·C 23:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • In the bibliography, several works lack (available) OCLCs. Eg Hoppin - 1062172, Agrigoroaei - 1249679876; there are others.
    • Done for Hoppin, and the others I could find (took the opportunity to fix some formatting inconsistencies as well). Agrigoroaei is a journal article, and this oclc doesn't come up with anything in WorldCat: not sure if I've misunderstood you here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[2]
OK, I see that the record exists. Is there a particular reason to include an OCLC for an article (and only one article), though? I haven't included ISSNs for journals, but if we want to make absolutely crystal-clear that the journals themselves exist, I'd suggest that that's a better way to do so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to use whatever identifier you prefer. I don't personally even insist on consistency, just that if an identifier of some sort exists, at least one is given. (Agrigoroaei was not the only journal article with an OCLC which was not given, hence the "eg" above.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK: I'll go through and get ISSNs for journals. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead perhaps link the sack of Athens? Sack of Athens (267 AD)
    • This is done, on the words "the city's sack".
  • Is there a way of reducing the double line space in Entablature inscription?
  • "Under Demetrios of Phaleron, who governed Athens between 317 and 307 BCE, sumptuary laws to control aristocrats' ostentatious spending meant that no further choragic monuments were constructed." This doesn't explain why none were built after 307 BCE.
    • The point is that choragic monuments were an example of ostentatious spending, which was (I think specifically, but I'd need to look this up) limited under Demetrios's laws. Do you think that needs to be made more explicit? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, understood. But once Demetrios was off on his travels, why didn't they start being constructed again?
Changing fashions, I assume. To quote Camp (the source) directly: Demetrios passed various laws, among them sumptuary legislation designed to control ostentatious displays of wealth by aristocrats. The effect was immediate in two areas. The little gems of architecture put up as choregic monuments ceased. The two latest, built near the theater, both date to 320-319, a few years before the legislation was passed. (Camp 2001, p. 161). The Blackwell Companion to Greek Art is equally (un)enlightening, though it does suggest that fashions changed in favour of statues of rulers as public artworks. I suppose, from a philosophical view, it's a dangerous game to try to explain why people didn't do something: it's much intellectually safer to suggest reasons for change rather than for continuity. As the Marcellinus inscription (and indeed many other Roman-era monuments) tells us, Athenian aristocrats didn't stop their ostentatious public spending: they just found new ways of doing it, as aristocrats tend to. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking on this, I think I've found a better way to frame it now: that is, only fully giving Demetrios and his laws credit for stopping the construction of choragic monuments. I've added a brief sentence about where fashions went next. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neat, that works.
  • "beginning with that Paul Graindor in 1914". Typo?
  • In the lead you have "repurposed materials (spolia)", in the article "spolia (reused material)". This being the English Wikipedia I much prefer the former.
    • We could rephrase to "marble reused material (spolia)", but that doesn't read very well to me, and gives potential ambiguity as to the word "spolia" (does is it mean "reused material" or "marble reused material"?) I'd say that spolia has a slightly more restricted meaning than "reused material" (specifically, it's identifiably-big bits of reused material, preferably used out of context), so there's an argument for using the technical term first and then glossing it with the pretty-much-but-not-quite equivalent layman's term. Or is there a better way to do it, do you think? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum. Maybe "from repurposed materials (spolia)" to 'from repurposed marble (spolia)' in the lead, and "constructed almost entirely from marble spolia (reused material)" to 'constructed almost entirely from reused marble (spolia). Note that this is not saying that spolia is reused marble, just that in this case the reused marble was spolia. (If it were my article I would take out "spolia" entirely, but it's not.
Being difficult, I've gone for something else, but it's got spolia into the brackets. Hopefully works? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, Gog. Replies above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps 'Plan of the Acropolis of Athens when the Beulé Gate was in its original position'?
I don't really follow here: the gate has never moved. What are we trying to correct in the current caption? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am expressing myself badly. It is not important, so let it pass. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nikias's monument was demolished at an uncertain date: in the 1880s ..." Any chance of a full stop instead of a colon. Honestly, I read that three times before I realised there was a colon. I thought one of us was going mad.
  • "More precise proposed dates for the gate". Maybe 'More precise proposed dates for the construction of the gate'?
  • "The Beulé Gate shows architectural similarities, such as the use of alternating courses of differently coloured marble, with the Post-Herulian Wall, built around the Acropolis about two decades after the sack of 267 or 268.". Umm. Try 'The Beulé Gate shows architectural similarities with the Post-Herulian Wall - built around the Acropolis about two decades after the sack of 267 or 268 - such as the use of alternating courses of differently coloured marble.'
Option B says that two things are similar, states what they are, then states what the similarities are. Option A states that two things are similar, states what the similarities are, which a reader has to carry in their head before finding out what is being compared. That is not really too bad, but then there is that "built around the Acropolis about two decades after the sack of 267 or 268" stuck on the end: you're casting your mind back to the main part of the sentence trying to think how this is relevant to the comparison. It is probably an over-busy sentence. 'The Post-Herulian Wall was built around the Acropolis about two decades after the sack of 267 or 268 and the Beulé Gate shows architectural similarities, such as the use of alternating courses of differently coloured marble.' would also work better IMO. Or split into two sentences. If you really don't care, change it for one of those options. Or take a straw poll.
I've gone for a split after "Post-Herulian Wall": how does that look? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, as far as it goes, but any chance of "The Beulé Gate shows architectural similarities, such as the use of alternating courses of differently coloured marble, with the Post-Herulian Wall" → 'The Beulé Gate shows architectural similarities with the Post-Herulian Wall, such as the use of alternating courses of differently coloured marble'?
PS You sure about "Post-"? (As opposed to 'post-'.)
Done. Capitalising "Post-" is indeed the universal norm in HQRS. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the structure's geisa were numbered while still in situ". Could you help out a reader with an in line explanation of geisa.
    • Hm: not really: the (good) explanation in the eponymous article is The geison is the part of the entablature that projects outward from the top of the frieze in the Doric order, which I think is going to be quite stubbornly resistant to condensing. I remember thinking that most readers will parse this as "some component of the monument", and that's all they really need. We could gloss it as geisa (cornices), but I suspect that's explaining the obscure with the obscure for most readers. A footnote would also be an option? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me think on't.
So how about '... some parts of the structure - the geisa - were numbered while still in situ ...'?
Done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops.
  • "Between the 13th and 15th centuries, the city's Frankish rulers gradually refortified the Acropolis;[40] the Beulé Gate was closed off during the reign of Othon's descendants, the de la Roche family, which lasted until 1308; a vaulted structure was also built in the gate's north tower to brace it during the same period." Over long? (Two semi colons!)
  • "When Beulé excavated the bastion, he found evidence that the gate had been damaged by bombs prior to the bastion's construction." I think this would fit better in the next section.
    • I'm not sure; the reason it's here is to get the historical detail that the gate was damaged by bombs at some point in its history. Annoyingly, there's precisely one good candidate for that (the Venetian attack of 1687, which also badly damaged the Parthenon), but I don't think Beulé or anyone else has actually made the connection in print (pinging User:Choliamb, who I'm sure will know if anyone has.) UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Responding to ping) Hi there. I don't know of any source that makes a connection between the supposed marks of bullets or cannon balls (not bombs, see below) and the siege of 1687, and if anyone did make such a connection, they would be wrong. Tanoulas's source is a single brief comment made by Beulé in the first (1853) edition of L'Acropole d'Athènes (vol. 1, p. 101), which was not repeated in the second edition. What Beulé says is "les traces des balles qui se sont aplaties sur le mur attestent qu'il a servi au moins jusqu'à l'invention des armes à feu." Balles can be either cannon balls or bullets, and in Tanoulas's original Greek text (1997, vol. 1, p. 131) they are translated as ἴχνη βλημάτων πυροβόλων ὅπλων ("traces of missiles from firearms"), which again could refer to either bullets or cannon balls. In the English summary of Tanoulas's text (vol. 2, p. 293) this becomes "bombs," an unfortunate choice because it implies an explosive device, when in fact both Beulé and Tanoulas are clearly talking about solid projectiles (not explosives) fired by the use of gunpowder. If you decide to keep this in the article, perhaps it would be better to use Beulé himself as the source rather than the misleading English summary of Tanoulas. I've never seen anyone else discuss these marks, but even if Beulé's observation was correct, they could not have been related to the Venetian siege of 1687, since the Turkish bastion covering the gate was already in existence by the time, as contemporary drawings show. Tanoulas speculates that it was probably built fairly early in the Ottoman period to strengthen the defense of the Acropolis in response to the spread of gunpowder-fueled artillery in the late 15th or 16th century (Tanoulas, vol. 1, p. 321), and that makes sense, but of course there's no proof. All one can say is that it certainly existed by the second half of the 17th century. That doesn't mean that Beulé was wrong about the marks, of course, since there were plenty of other opportunities for the gate to be struck by artillery fire before 1687. But I've never seen anyone else mention them, and it's odd that Tanoulas, who has been all over the gate himself, does not document any such traces on his own authority; instead, he relies entirely on Beulé's statement. Do with this what you will. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks -- I've done a hedge similar to the one below, with "Beulé reported finding..." and a change to "damaged by gunpowder weapons". Not sure I'm happy making the full jump to say it's probably not real, given that Tanoulas reports it (albeit at second hand, as you note): to me, that's too close to OR for here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems perfectly reasonable. I didn't mean to imply that the marks are probably not real. Their existence doesn't seem unlikely. It's just strange that, if they are there to be seen, Tanoulas didn't see them, or if he did see them, he didn't mention or illustrate them in his magnum opus. In any case, Beulé's conclusion, that the ancient gate remained at least partly exposed until after the invention of firearms, was almost certainly right. There was little need to replace it with a big new bastion and cannon platform before the use of new artillery made the upgrade necessary. Choliamb (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tanoulas has described it as the". Suggest deleting "has".
'Tanoulas describes it as' then? Which would be fine by me.
Changed as suggested. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beulé also reported having inscribed a French translation of the same inscription below the Greek text." Why "reported having", is there doubt about this?
    • Yes - it's not there! Nobody else, as far as I can see, reports having seen it: it's possible that it was removed, or that it's become illegible, or something, but it's very definitely not just written underneath the Greek one on the stone, as Beulé seems to say. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you need to big up those caveats.
  • Sadly, same problem: because it isn't there, I haven't been able to find any sources (other than Beulé) that discuss it (a few from the time, simply cribbing Beulé's report, talk about him installing it, but no later ones seem to talk about seeing it or its removal). See this contemporary source, which says the stone is inscribed only in Greek. There's an account at this very well-researched website, which I don't think will do for FA, but gives us the background. St Clair's book does talk about the inscription being moved (though not exactly where it originally was), but doesn't mention the French text. I suppose I'm pleading WP:PRIMARY here: as Beulé is a primary source for his own actions, we can say that Beulé said he did something, but shouldn't really step beyond that to vouch that he did it (in other words, we shouldn't assume the accuracy of the primary source for anything except its own content). This one feels pretty tricky to me: any advice gratefully received. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having dug a bit further into this, I am now pretty satisfied that the French inscription never went up, or at least came down again quickly enough that practically nobody saw it. I've searched for the text in French-language sources, and they are almost unanimous that the text was only ever in Ancient Greek: there's one by Proust here on Wikisource, who claims to have seen it written in French in 1857 but he also misquotes the text: Proust also doesn't pass WP:HQRS muster, having neglected to get his work peer reviewed.
    I would feel foolish making a definitive call here without calling on User:Choliamb, but I think that leaves us in the right place at the moment: the French inscription is mentioned enough in sources that we should include it per WP:DUEWEIGHT, but we would also be wise to give it as absolutely minimum credence as we can from those sources (that is, to say that Beulé reported fixing it there, but not to vouch that it stayed for any length of time). I must admit, purely from OR, that I cannot imagine the fiercely nationalistic Kyriakos Pittakis permitting someone to write in French on a stone from the Acropolis: my first thought was that doing the inscription in Ancient Greek was a way of getting him to agree to its being there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're right to be wary. I don't have access to any more information than you do about this, but I did a quick search for the text of the French inscription in Google Books and the Internet Archive, and every mention I saw seemed to be pretty clearly derived from Beulé's own publications, not from autopsy. I did, however, find something else that I know you will enjoy: more acerbic comments about the inscription's "petty display of national and personal vanity" from your pal Ludwig Ross, in a review of the first edition of Beulé's L'Acropole d'Athènes. Ross dismisses Beulé's Greek as mediocre, and makes fun of him for printing the drachma sign (𐅂) instead of the numeral one when giving the date in the Greek version of the inscription (an embarrassing gaffe which is true of the text printed in the book, although sadly not the one on the stone). He continues: "Beulé hat nun seine Inschrift so gut wie Kritios und Strongylion, wie Kresilas und Leochares und andere alte Werkmeister. Gewiss wird fortan der französische Gesandte daruber zu wachen haben, dass in alle Ewigkeit diese Ruhmestafel Galliens nicht wieder von der Akropolis verschwinde. ... Eine solche Probe kleinlicher nationaler und persönlicher Eitelkeit an der Spitze eines ernsten wissenschaftlichen Buches ruft gewiss kein günstiges Vorurtheil hervor." His warning that the French ambassador will have to keep watch over the inscription to ensure that it doesn't vanish forever could, I suppose, support the idea that one of Beulé's disgruntled contemporaries made off with or destroyed the French version shortly after it was created, although that wouldn't explain why the Greek version was left in place (unless it was protected from vandalism by the decent obscurity of a learned language). Choliamb (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this: I'll stick Ross's criticism in alongside Dyer's. It does sound from Beulé's account like he had/ it inscribed directly below, and certainly the stele is big enough for that. If I had to guess, I'd suggest that Pittakis either vetoed it or had it erased. I vaguely remember there being a similar controversy when Ross was Ephor General (or possibly early Pittakis) when someone wanted to put up a German inscription commemorating King Otto, and the result was that it didn't go up. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impressively prompt. Unfortunately RL will intrude into my responses, so they will probably be in bits and pieces over the next couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After that couple of quick replies I am going to be away again for a few days. Apologies, but it will be Monday before I am looking at this again. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just my caption query left to be addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your work and wisdom on this one, Gog -- very much appreciated as ever. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hello UndercoverClassicist, just a few very minor nitpicks and questions from me...

top matter

  • short description - move to top
  • nominate Engvar
  • and dmy date

lede

  • and excavated between 1852 and 1853 - is "between" normal word here?

Description

  • which led to the Proplyaia approximately- typo Propylaia
  • The gate includes two pylon-like towers - why italics on pylon?
  • In conversions eg "1.89 m (6.2 ft) wide at its base" I often wonder if they mean 6.2ft is 6 ft plus 2 tenths of a foot or 6 ft 2 inches. There is an option for formula to include inches eg {{Convert|1.89|m|ftin|abbr=on}} which gives 1.89 m (6 ft 2 in). No problem though, it may just be me.

Entablature inscription

Date

  • between the Beulé Gate and the Proplyaia to which it led - typo Propylaia
  • carried out by Leo, the Metropolitan of Athens between 1060 and 1069 - Leo II? per List of archbishops of Athens
  • The gates' previous role as an entrance - plural apos not intentional?

Excavation

  • excavating the approach to the Proplyaia under the direction - typo Propylaia
  • The historian Jean-Michel Leniaud has - link and authorlink
  • remaining parts of the Propylaea in - link the plural or not intentional?
  • Beulé fixed a commemorative stone, recovered during the excavations, to right of the gate's entrance - to the right?
  • Jean Baelan [sv] has written that Beulé's work turned him into "the standard-bearer for national honour in the field of archaeology" - ambiguous? turned Beule or Baelan

Bibliography

  • Chase, George H. - is George Henry Chase?
  • Leniaud, Jean-Michel - authorlink
  • Makri, Efterpi - tweak alpha order
  • St. Clair, William - remove dot, authorlink William St Clair
  • Hornblower, Simon - editorlink
  • Wycherley, Richard Ernest - authorlink
  • for some authorlinks you have multiples (Beule, Frantz, Setton) but Dinsmoor only for his second?

Captions

  • The commemorative inscription erected by Beulé in 1853 [65] - remove space before ref
  • Detail of the wall over the doorway, constructed from blocks reused from the Choragic Monument of Nikias, with part of the dedicatory inscription (centre, below the vertical triglyphs) - maybe add 'faintly visible' after inscription?
  • First image in gallery, alt "showing the Temple of Athene Nike above" - Athena?

Infobox

Consistencies

  • centuries - words/numerals eg "built in the fourth century BCE" v "in the later 1st century CE", "the early second century CE" v "the mid-4th century CE", etc - are these intentional?
  • date formats eg access-date=22 March 2022 v access-date=2024-01-29

No more from me JennyOz (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jenny - good to see you and always grateful for your sharp eyes. Almost all going to get a straightforward "done": two queries/replies:
  • Did you have an alternative in mind for "between"? I think it is normal, though I can see a potential ambiguity as to whether this is the frame of the excavation or a kind of bracket (e.g. "the Battle of Hastings took place between 1060 and 1070")
@JennyOz: Other than the two points above, all actioned as suggested. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two minor tweaks...
  • On the Jean Baelan comment tweak, the apos s was left behind ie "turned Beulé's into"
  • at "demolition may have dated to the late 3rd or early 4th centuries CE", numerals missed.
Leaving those two with you, I'm happy to s'port now. Thank you for the interesting read. JennyOz (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted - sloppy on my part, but now fixed. Thanks for the support and for your time with the review. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

Image placement seems OK to me. I'd prefer if File:Plan Acropolis of Athens colored.svg indicated how the map was drawn. ALT text is OK-ish. On the source review, spot-check upon request. It seems like the sources are adequate, but I can't speak of completeness. I figure the varying source formats are due to different sources having different available information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- for the image, do you mean a source for the data? It isn't my image, but it should be easy enough to find a source which has the same information in and append it to the Commons page to vouch for the accuracy. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, mostly an explanation of whether the underlying graphics were copied from somewhere or in general how it was drawn. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah -- that I can't provide, I'm afraid, not being the author. Pinging @Tomisti: would you be able to add a note to that effect? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This touches on one of my pet peeves. While we require WP:RS for text, we seem to be willing to accept images with unknown provenance. If I wrote in the text, "The Theatre of Dionysus dates to the Archaic period", we'd require a RS for that. But if User:Tomisti draws a picture and makes the same claim graphically, we accept it without complaint. It's difficult for me to get my head around that. RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had put the sources to the non-colored version File:Plan Acropolis of Athens.svg but had forgotten them from the derived file File:Plan Acropolis of Athens colored.svg; now added there as well. So the map combines material from earlier SVG files in Commons and details from few maps published in books. I have written articles for all the buildings marked in the map, and the coloring by periods is based on the construction years mentioned in the sources in those articles, but I don't remember using any single source for the periodization. Tomisti (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus and RoySmith: I am happy to track down citations for the dates and append them to the Commons page if you think it would be helpful and necessary? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good idea. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK: won't be a quick job, but I'll get to it piecemeal over the next week or so. I don't think there's anything controversial about the periodisation of any of these monuments, but I'll make any changes that need to be made. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: All dates now cited where given in the diagram. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good, but note that I can't spotcheck these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, your caveat immediately above notwithstanding, are you satisfied with the image and source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Not a topic where I am deeply familiar with sources, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Johnbod

[edit]
  • This has had a very good going-over, so I doubt I will have much.
  • "During the medieval period, ..." doesn't work well for Athens, as it is barely mentioned there - History_of_Athens#Middle_Ages much better! The next, Ottoman link, might be better going there too. Also, something more precise for "Later research, beginning with that of Paul Graindor in 1914, established it as belonging to the late Roman period (c. 284 – c. 476 CE)," perhaps?
  • Do sources talk of a "attic" storey? I'd expect a bit more than a single course of large stones.
  • You might as well mention the later lintel up in the description, as well as lower down.
  • Is there any talk of a pediment in either incarnation of the buildings? It seems a bit odd for a Doric entablature to stop this way. Can they tell if there ever was one, I wonder. I see the reconstruction pic at Choragic Monument of Nikias has one.
    • Definitely not on the gate: there was certainly one on Nikias' monument. We'd consider the pediment part of the pronaos, which is mentioned, alongside the fact that the monument was built in the form of a Greek temple in the Doric order (emphasis mine). There are a whole bunch of other architectural features that come as standard in that template, but I don't think we should test the reader's patience any further by enumerating the ones that weren't carried over to the gate. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe spell this out a bit more. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not quite seeing exactly what you want spelled out. We've said that a) Nikias' monument was shaped like a temple, b) Nikias' monument was demolished and its bits used to build the Beulé Gate, c) the Beulé Gate is shaped like, well, a gate. I'm not sure where the reader is likely to become confused here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just that, although they went to some trouble to move over elements of the entablature, and put them in the right places relative to each other, they didn't include the pediment - at least we don't think so - whether we can actually be sure it wasn't there after the initial move, but lost in a later development, I don't know, and I wonder if the experts can really tell. There was presumably room for it along the top. Whether built in the form of a Greek temple in the Doric order immediately conveys to the average reader that there was a pediment I also don't know. Perhaps we could ask User:Roy Smith, who has been playing the man on the Clapham omnibus here? Obviously there was no easy way to incorporate columns and so forth without a complete redesign. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          We've mentioned that it had a pronaos: that article (now) includes In Greek and Roman architecture, the pronaos of a temple is typically topped with a pediment.. If nothing else, I'm uncomfortable saying anything that isn't defined in the sources: unless we actually have one saying what the Beulé Gate doesn't have, this is going to run into WP:SYNTH pretty quickly. For instance, what you say in whether we can actually be sure it wasn't there after the initial move, but lost in a later development, I don't know, and I wonder if the experts can really tell makes intuitive sense to me, but to even mention that as a theory, we need a WP:HQRS that has entertained it, if only as speculation. We haven't said or implied, as far as I can tell, that they used all the blocks of the Choragic Monument. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Thinking on this, there's an easy fix: I've changed the gloss on pronaos to (that is, a front porch with a pediment and six columns) How's that? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          @Johnbod TIL another quaint British phrase! I'd be happy to help, but I'm not sure what question you're asking. RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Throughout the remainder of the Hellenistic period, fashions in public art changed to favour statues of rulers and monumental buildings constructed by those rulers themselves" seems a bit of an odd way of putting it - less "fashion" than nobody else having enough money, perhaps.
    • I don't think that's quite the whole picture: yes, few people could afford to build something like the Stoa of Eumenes, but there were plenty of aristocrats with enough money to construct something smaller (indeed, something like a choragic monument). In other words, poverty doesn't explain why choragic monuments didn't come back. The source gives a two-pronged social expectation: if you're a ruler, you build a monumental building, if you're not, you hold fire on building anything grandiose in public and stick up statues of those rulers (but may, of course, use your wealth in other ways, such as building your own house, collecting books, patronising artists, outrageous feasting, etc etc). UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, but I think money became tighter, even for the very rich. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Are you thinking of a specific source here? I have found very few that attempt to explain the death of the Choragic Monument as anything other than a simple consequence of Demetrios's sumptuary laws, but I'm happy to integrate another source if you've got it. A priori, the existence of a sumptuary law suggests that people could afford the ostentatious forbidden spending: otherwise, there would be no reason to ban them from it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's it. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Beulé_Gate/archive1&oldid=1212061717"