Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Panagiotis Kavvadias/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) 18 April 2023 [1].

Panagiotis Kavvadias

[edit]
Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Greek archaeologist - one of the most significant figures in the discipline in one of its most important periods. Kavvadias led the Greek Archaeological Service between 1885 and 1909, and was responsible for some of its most significant excavations of the 19th century as well as for completely transforming the way that antiquities and the practice of archaeology were handled in Greece. He was also notable for managing to so totally upset the Greek government and most of the rest of its archaeological establishment that he was eventually marched out of the country, with the official label of "dangerous reactionary".

The article has gone through a GA review from User:Modussiccandi, which gave me the first indication that it might have legs for FAC, and subsequently a peer review from Modussiccandi, User:Gerda Arendt and User:Iazyges. In the course of both, it has gone through substantial changes, and I am grateful to them for all their help so far, particularly as this is my first nomination.

It should be said that Kavvadias is not a well-documented subject, particularly given his prominence at the time. I don't think it's too hubristic to say that this article is currently the closest thing to a thorough biography of him that exists in English, and the most detailed Greek sources (largely, the work of Vasileios Petrakos) don't come close to attempting a whole-life portrait. It's difficult to reconstruct a lot of the fine details and chronology of some important parts of his story, particularly his education and his last months as Ephor General, and there are a few key sections where we're really reduced to one or two sources.

Thank you in advance for your time, comments and assistance.

UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that I have signed on as the mentor for this FAC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I gather this would be UndercoverClassicist's first FA if successful, in which case welcome...! As a reminder for reviewers and fellow coords, a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing will be required at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: could I just check in as to where this nomination currently 'is'? If I've understood it correctly, this spot-check is the bottleneck at the moment: do I need to find somebody to carry this out, and if so, are there any particular rules or preferences as to whom I should approach? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the nom has been listed for a while at the top of WT:FAC as needing a spotcheck, as well as a general source review for reliability and formatting of references -- I don't know if Tim riley might be interested in the spotcheck if he has time? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to toddle round to the British Library after the Easter holiday to do spot checks. I hate doing general source reviews and am awful at it, so hope you can find another editor to do that. I'll report back on the spot checks next week. Tim riley talk 23:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated - thank you. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

[edit]

I confirm the support reached in the peer review. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support by Kusma

[edit]

This will be next on my list of things to review. Looks very interesting! —Kusma (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: I am a bit concerned that the phrase "ΒΜΧς/2626" has no hits outside Wikipedia on Google, and none on Google Books or Scholar. Are there other more widely used designations for this law?
    • This is one I've found very tricky. ΒΜΧς' is a number: in Arabic numerals, it's 2466 (not 2626 as in article; I think that was a misreading or different number quoted in one of the sources.) In Greek, it's universally referred to as νομος ΒΜΧς', sometimes with its subtitle Περι Αρχαιοτήτων (On Antiquities). I've rarely seen it referred to in English by non-Greek scholars: here's one example with the Greek number, the Arabic and the subtitle. With that said, an article published for the Ministry of Culture calls it Law ΒΧΜΣΤ (2646) [I suspect the 'T' is a mistake], and I'm sure I saw 2626 quoted in another source. I wonder whether just 'the Antiquities Law of 1899' might be the way forward? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cplakidas: I imagine this is something you might know about? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @UndercoverClassicist: ΣΤ is merely the capitalized form of the letter ς when used as a numeral (e.g. Louis XVI is Λουδοβίκος ΙΣΤʹ). Let me have a look whether I can find the law in question. Constantine ✍ 16:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Found it: Law ͵ΒΧΜϚʹ Περὶ ἀρχαιοτήτων, issued on 24 July (O.S.) 1899, published in the government gazette on 27 July (O.S.). Constantine ✍ 17:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying! For the article, I would suggest to use something like "the antiquities law of 1899" in the lead and to add the full name/Greek numerals in the body. —Kusma (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both: User:Kusma, I agree and will make that change.
    @Cplakidas: as I'm now thoroughly confused with Greek numerals, can I just confirm what the correct Arabic numerals are? As far as I understand - which isn't far - it should be 2466? Also, is there a reason you've used Ϛ (capital ς?) rather than Σ, ς, ΣΤ... is one seen as more correct than the others? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    'Ϛ' is the form used in the actual document, and the correct contemporary capitalized form of the letter ς. ΣΤ is another way of writing it if you do not have a 19th-century-vintage Greek typewriter at hand, which is why it has become the common modern form (and you found it in modern Greek publications thus). So if you want the original name, it is ͵ΒΧΜϚʹ (with the quotation marks, which are actually part of the numeral). In a modern publication, it would appear as ΒΧΜΣΤʹ, and the Arabic numeral rendering is 2646 (͵Β = 2000, Χ = 600, Μ = 40, Ϛ = 6). Constantine ✍ 18:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you: I'll make those changes. As far as the exact phrasing, I'm leaning towards 'the archaeological law of 1899' in the lead and 'Law 2646/1899 'On Antiquities'' as the full name in the body: there seem to be a million and one ways to refer to these laws in English, but that seems to be the most common (that is, including the year) in HQRS. I'm in two minds about including the Greek transliteration: that would fit the general practice for most Greek things in the article and reflect that the 'real' name is Greek, not English, but I wonder whether appending (Greek: Νόμος ͵ΒΧΜϚʹ Περὶ ἀρχαιοτήτων) to that title is a bit clunky? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    'Law 2646/1899' would be enough IMO, and is also a valid format that a Greek person would immediately recognize. I would only recommend using the original name if you want to reference the original document somewhere. Constantine ✍ 18:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, let's go with that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His career saw significant modernisation" hmm, could you be clearer on whether this is credited to him?
    • I was trying to thread that needle: I don't think I found a source explicitly using the word 'modernisation' in respect to K. himself (though you could argue that Petrakos' detailed description of the professionalisation of archaeology through his reforms amounts to the same thing), but at the same time, Greek archaeology during his career goes from 1885, when it's a basically-amateur thing conducted largely by looters, self-trained and untrained 'archaeologists', to 1924, when it's a government-run business with a large, Greek-trained and professional body of people working to do it and regulate it, almost entirely thanks to rules and laws that he introduced. Happy to take a steer here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could move this closer to the "energetic, centralising, autocratic" bit and just state he oversaw the professionalisation of his field in Greece. The foreign bodies were equally important for his downfall and for his achievement, so I'm not sure they should be mentioned only for one of them. —Kusma (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair; Bosanquet linked the two in his obituary, but he certainly had an angle on the matter as a British archaeologist and a strong Kavvadias supporter. With that said, I'd be inclined to mention them for both in the lead: they're certainly an important part of his career (and downfall!), and so ought to feature somewhere. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now slightly reworked, both in lead and later on. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life: Do you think it is not worth linking via {{ill}} to el:Κοθρέας Κεφαλονιάς? I can see arguments either way.
  • Did Kavvadias obtain any degrees during his studies?
    • This is one of the really tricky ones: the sources are almost completely silent on his education, except for the totality of where it happened. Munich is pretty clearly his 'main' archaeological training, and so almost certainly his doctorate, if he held one (which isn't a given: he's variously referred to as 'Dr. Kavvadias' and 'Mr. Kavvadias' in sources, and either would be plausible for a respected academic with or without a degree), but none of the sources actually come out and say as much. I think it's currently as precise as it can be: it's certainly following closely to the HQRS available. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From my searches of the LMU Munich library catalogue, I don't think he obtained a doctorate there (absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence though) so there's not much to do here unless you have RS that state explicitly whether he obtained any degrees. —Kusma (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking that: I think we're in the same position, which is that this part of his life is a bit unclear. That's not a total surprise: I'm mindful that most of K's predecessors as E-G have pretty murky early lives before coming into the archaeological service - in the case of his immediate predecessor, we don't even know when he was born! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archaeological career: this seems a bit overly detailed in parts. (Do we need the 1908 and 1913 visits to Same?) The Archaeological bulletin could also be simplified to just "he edited the volumes for 1885 to 1892" or similar, dropping the lack of issues in some of these years.
    • I'm hesitant on 'overly detailed': one of my big difficulties in researching this article was the lack of precision as to chronology, and exactly what K. did when (particularly on the Acropolis). I'm with you on the lack of issues (that's relevant to the article on the journal, not really here), but I think the archaeological visits to Same are useful to anyone trying to reconstruct his biography and/or career, and I'm reluctant to pass judgement on what a future visitor 'needs' to know, and what they'll 'need' to find elsewhere - as I understand it, an FA is meant to be a one-stop shop. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is pretty obvious that anything written in the Greek alphabet is in Greek, and would change some of the {{lang-el}} to {{lang|el}}.
  • "During his period as Ephor General" we don't know yet from the body that he became Ephor General or when.
  • This section seems to be an overview of his career except for the things that are important enough to be their own section. I'm not convinced that this is organised in the optimal way: it is neither in chronological order nor an overview of what follows. I am wondering whether reducing this to an "Early career" section concentrating on the positions held and articles written and moving all the excavations into an "Excavations" section could work better. (But I could be wrong!) Alternatively, make this a chronological overview of the entire career by adding a few sentences about the Acropolis of Athens and Epidauros.
    • Yes, that's an accurate summary of what it is. I think the second approach is better: the problem I had was that an 'Early Career' section leaves some awkwardness (basically, everything after the second paragraph) that doesn't fit nicely around the chronological sections further down.
  • Epidauros: Link to the Ancient Theatre of Epidaurus also in the main text, not just in the image caption.
    • Done.
  • "The building was never fully published" is this archaeologist's jargon/can this be rephrased better?
    • A little: it really means something like 'nobody ever wrote a formal article or section of a book outlining what was known from the excavation of this building'. I'm not sure the best way to say that briefly, but will have a think. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've slightly reworked this bit. Different; not sure if better. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping here for now, will continue later. The article brings back very fond memories of visiting Epidauros and Bassae as well as Athens together with my Ancient Greek class back in the 1990s; I had no idea all these excavations were connected to the same person! —Kusma (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Epidaurus: "the first major ... apart from minor" a bit redundant.
  • abaton: you give all the information via footnote and link to Wiktionary, but I'm wondering whether this wouldn't just be simpler to explain in the main text instead. And... is it the abaton or not?
    • My concern is that it's quite a lot of information to shove into a pair of brackets - it either ends up so long that it disrupts the text, or so short that it's of no help to someone who doesn't already basically know how a sanctuary of Asclepius worked. The identification was controversial at the time; it seems to be generally accepted today, so we could be bold and just say that it is the abaton, perhaps adding a modern source. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in 1896,[13] In 1896, " something went wrong here
  • "third stele of cures" took me a moment to realise that "cures" here means "reports of healings".
  • " All remaining post-Classical buildings on the site were demolished" and there is no criticism of that action?
    • I haven't come across any! You have to remember that, by this point, most of the controversial ones are already demolished: Frankish Tower (in 1878) had attracted some controversy, but largely from the French, who saw it as 'theirs'. Most of what was left on the Acropolis was Ottoman, and there wasn't (and isn't) a lot of love lost between Greece and Turkey: it was just about becoming acceptable to suggest that post-Classical Greek culture was worth preserving (see the comments on 'Hellenism' elsewhere on this page), and nobody in Greece was going out to bat for Turkish culture. If you want a bit of background on how Greeks of the time looked at the Turkish traces on the Acropolis, have a look at the article on Kyriakos Pittakis and this article cited there. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, Perserschutt describes Kawerau as an "architect". Is that correct?
    • A lot of the people working in Greek archaeology at this time are drawing and rebuilding buildings: a lot of those, including Kawerau, have an academic background in architecture, especially because formal archaeological education is a comparatively rare thing. Kawerau did do some building in Turkey after his time with Kavvadias, but also worked on digs with Schliemann and for the Berlin Museum, and ended up as a curator at the Berlin Museum's outpost in Constantinople. I'll amend to 'archaeologist and architect': he's certainly most famous, both then and now, for his work with old buildings. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ephor General: Most of this section seems to be about the fight for control of the Archaeological Society of Athens; only the subsection "Reorganisation of the Archaeological Service" truly is about his work as Ephor.
  • Efforts against antiquities crime: gloss the Aineta aryballos? (I assume it is this aryballos)
  • "formally identified the Byzantine period as part of "Hellenism"" can you elaborate on this? (This is none of the "Hellenisms" mentioned at Hellenism). Is this about identifying East Rome as Greek more than Roman?
    • It's more about officially saying that Byzantine antiquities were the state's 'problem' - until then, 'Greek' history was taken to mean Classical stuff, so if you wanted to bulldoze a Classical temple to build your house, the state would intervene. However, the government and ephorates didn't have a legal duty or real interest in protecting anything from the Medieval or Ottoman periods until the 1899 law, and didn't employ anyone to look after it. Incidentally, the Ottoman period suffered from the same problem well into the 20th century, and arguably still does. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then perhaps don't talk about "Hellenism", just say that the protections for antiquities were extended to cover also Byzantine ones instead of just classical ones. —Kusma (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's bigger than that, though: the point in the source is that it's the first time the Greek government acknowledges the Byzantine period as part of its national story, rather than having a narrative that Greek culture runs in an unbroken line from Mycenae to Alexander, goes a little fuzzy after that, and reappears in 1821 for the War of Independence in a glorious resurgence of a pristine fifth-century past. That's really why the law is important: the practical effects are of course significant for heritage management, but it's much more important in the context of how the Greek state defines the Greek national identity.
    There's a bigger story here about how Greece comes to reckon with everything between about 323 BCE and 1821: in archaeology, you've got the squabble over the medieval Frankish Tower (demolished in 1874, and variously seen as an extraneous foreign eyesore or as having just as much claim to be there as the Parthenon). You've also got the Greek language question, where people in the 1830s are trying to re-establish fifth-century Attic as the national language (because the language of the Byzantines is 'impure'), then settling on a compromise with katharevousa but then arguing over exactly how archaic it needs to be... UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a short note explaining the gist of the above. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • fake terracotta plaques: if they were fake, why bother?
  • Dismissal: Εntitled "Νeed for Ηonesty" why ΕΝΗ instead of standard Latin ENH?
    For some reason the letters were Greek instead of Latin (indistinguishable in the default font). I've fixed it now that you seem to say it wasn't deliberate. —Kusma (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • why the Piraeus?
  • settled in Paris: not for very long it seems. Was he still in Paris when he was elected representative of Kephallonia?
  • Why could Kavvadias return to Greece and why did he regain all his posts?
    • The government set up by the Goudi Coup was no longer in power - this is the point about Venizelos and the National Assembly. Everything post-1909 is a real black hole: until I found Whitling, I had practically nothing on why he was deposed except vague insinuations about discontent among his subordinates; I then found Petrakos, who looks at the issue through the Archaeological Society and Svoronos rather than through nationalism and the foreign schools. Both move on to other subjects once Kavvadias is out, unfortunately. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administration and legislation: This is more others' view of Kavvadias than the impact of his administration and legislation. Is there a better section title?
  • Personal life: Was he married? I assume you don't know.
    It is strange that we don't have name(s) for the mother(s) of his two notable children. I have some hope that someone fluent in Greek might be able to dig out more, but I certainly won't hold up this nomination for this. —Kusma (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @NickKav: (a family member): I wonder if he knows of any documentation here? I've drawn a blank from obituaries of Panagiotis, Alexander and Epameinondas, although I couldn't find many for Epameinondas. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hand in the Deep: seems like trivia
  • Publications: the "The Excavation of the Acropolis from 1885 to 1890" is in Greek and German, and the name used is "Cavvadias". Full scan here, possibly worth linking to.
    • Cavvadias is just an alternative, now outdated transliteration of Kavvadias (K and C are both Κ in Greek), so I think giving that alternative spelling would create confusion by falsely suggesting that it was a different person. We haven't written his name in Greek for the Greek books, for example. Primary sources use Kavvadias, Cawadias, Cavvadias, Kabbadias, Kavadias and Cavadias in English alone; you see a lot of Cavadie in French, but Kavvadias is by far the most common today and the best fit with modern Greek transliteration norms. Fixed the languages; I didn't realise the template could handle two. I'll add in that link too. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reasonable. I made a suggestion how to handle the title translations (but lazily only did the first two). Revert or extend to the rest. —Kusma (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a strong opinion here: the current template use is odd (giving the language twice), but I'm mindful that this is an English-language encyclopaedia and we usually give the English title of a work as the 'main' one, and then give the original language as a gloss - e.g. One Thousand and One Nights (Arabic: أَلْفُ لَيْلَةٍ وَلَيْلَةٌ, ʾAlf Laylah wa-Laylah)', not the other way around. One option is simply to swap the language templates so that they don't put the language before and after the title. Does anyone else have a view? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally expect to cite a foreign work with its actual, foreign language title as that is the title you need to find it in a library (ideally transliterated if it is in a foreign script). We can translate it for convenience/information, but anything we have translated should not be the 'main' title. —Kusma (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. I'll change them all later on. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure all your single and double quotes are in accordance with MOS:"? I think I have never seen an article with so many single quotes.
    • The position we reached (that is, User:Modussicandi and I) at GA review was to follow common usage: double-quotes when someone is actually being quoted (that is, those words appear in a source), and single-quotes for glosses or problematised terms (e.g. 'owners' in respect to the 1834 law, where opinions differed sharply on whether one party could meaningfully be considered to own the antiquities: to use the word owners straightforwardly would be to take one side of that argument, and so break WP:NPOV). I think the article is consistent according to that logic, but please do point out anywhere that it isn't. My understanding of MOS:SINGLE is that it doesn't really have much to say on the use of quote marks for things other than true quotations. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting article. The choice not to present the life in chronological order is probably the right call (so the excavations can be kept together) but it muddles a bit the connections between the offices of Ephor/Ephor General and those he held in the Archaeological Society. —Kusma (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way around this is to 'promote' the Archaeological Society to its own section, and shift a lot of material from the current Ephor General section into there.
It should be said that the waters were pretty muddy - all of Greece's Ephors General after the foundation of the Society were Society men, most of them held high office within it, people often moved back and forth between the two, and it often wasn't clear exactly which of the Society (notionally private) and the State (notionally public) was actually responsible for, carrying out or paying for a particular project. Indeed, a large part of the friction between Kavvadias and the Society is that he's seen variously as trying to further blur that divide (by increasing the state's role in the Society and by using the Society's resources for the state's purposes) and as trying to sharpen it (by pushing the Society out of 'official' archaeology). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done this. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many improvements, especially some of the sectioning / ordering is better now. I'll have another read through soon and then see if I can support :) —Kusma (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent article overall, has my support. —Kusma (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Cplakidas

[edit]

Congrats to UndercoverClassicist for bringing it this far. I wanted to review this in the peer review, but didn't find the time, so I will reserve a spot here. Constantine ✍ 12:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
Early life and education
  • Did some minor tweaks to links for precision
  • "narrowing and sharpening" this quote should be attributed in-text
    • It's Marchand, who is cited at the end of the sentence. Could you help me understand more precisely what you're asking for: should the citation be repeated next to the quotation, or the name Marchand used in the text? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The latter :).
        • Hm... not totally averse to it, but it's a widely-held opinion that Marchand happens to have articulated in a concise way: it would be giving Marchand rather too much credit, I think, to suggest that it was his idea. We've currently got "has been described as", which is true, and reflects the fact that similar sentiments can be found in other sources. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmmm, I leave this to you. Perhaps something like "in the words of Marchand...". But it is not a deal-breaker.
            • I've kept that quote as 'has been credited', but added some more context and sources on Brunn, which should help to show that the thesis hangs on more than just Marchand's opinion. I think the article now does a better job of reflecting exactly what about Brunn was so revolutionary and so important to Kavvadias' education, too. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeological career
  • Kavvadias returned to Greece, where he entered the Archaeological Service do we know the date (for his return/entry)?
    • No: all we know is that one of his first postings is to Delos. I've skirted as close as I dare to OR by giving the dates of that excavation, which means that his return is almost certainly later than 1873, though you could argue that that was obvious from his age and the number of years he must have spent in education. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • rank of Ephor General position rather than rank, or not? And can we add the identity of his predecessor here? Efstratiadis is mentioned further down, but never properly introduced.
Excavations at Epidaurus (1881–1928)
Excavations and restorations on the Acropolis (1885–1909)
  • Link the Acropolis' monuments, such as the Propylaia and Hekatompedon, to their respective articles
  • There is an inconsistent italicization of transcribed Greek and Latin terms (e.g. opisthodomos vs kouros), plus I would suggest using the {{transl|grc|}} and {{lang|la|}} templates respectively.
    • I've tried to follow usage in HQRS; in particular, if the term is 'naturalised' in English, it shouldn't be italicised. Kouros is pretty reliably italicised in HQRS, 'opisthodomos' isn't. I think I've now used the transl template for all the true transliterations (that is, not e.g. stylobate, which is Anglicised.)
Ephor General of Antiquities (1885–1909)
  • assisted with the planning and design of the Heraklion Archaeological Museum, which opened in 1883 it is important to note here that Crete was not part of Greece at the time, but an Ottoman province. Ditto for the Cyprus Museum, in British Cyprus. Kavvadias was not only active in Greece. Conversely, established operations on the then-independent island of Crete is incorrect; Crete was not independent, and even after 1898 was still nominally an autonomous part of the Ottoman Empire.
  • organised the first international archaeological conference the first such conference generally, or just in Greece?
  • having previously employed only the Ephor General between 1836 and 1866 and between 1866 and 1879?
  • A relatively minor issue, but it pervades the entire article: when relying on Greek sources (or sources written in Greece) there is the need to check what calendar they use. E.g. the dates for the conference of 1905, or two royal decrees are very likely Old Style, as was used in Greece until 1923. That is very much the case e.g. for the date given for the 1910 election.
    • That's a good point: we're almost certainly on OS for most of those dates. What's the best way around this: simply to use the {{Julian Calendar}} template? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I generally follow two approaches: either stick to OS dates as relayed in the Greek sources, adding Template:Greece Old Style dates and the Template:Julian calendar, with dates for events outside Greece explicitly marked as New Style, or use Template:OldStyleDate throughout. If I use a mix of Greek and non-Greek sources, I tend to favour the latter, among other reasons as it makes source verification easier. Up to you, but the difference should be clear to the reader, so only Template:Julian calendar would not be enough.
        • I've gone through, adding Template:Greece Old Style dates throughout. I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with it at the moment: the two 'edge cases' are post-1923 dates (presumably we shouldn't add the OS here?) and month-year dates (should we mark 'July 1909' as 'July or August 1909'?). There's also a few points (particularly the Archaeological Society controversy) where a lot of them cluster, and it looks a bit ugly, but that might be a necessary evil. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • You could remove some redundancy, e.g. "Dimitrios Filios [el] resigned on 11 January 1895 [O.S. 30 December 1894], followed by the numismatist Ioannis Svoronos (on 14 January) and the folklorist Nikolaos Politis [el]". As long as the year is clear, and N.S. dates are preferred, not every date has to be rendered in both calendars.
            • I worry that that might be a little redundant: I can see the value where, theoretically, there was only one option, but I worry that a reader would be confused as to whether Svoronos resigned three days or two weeks later. I'm leaning towards keeping the 'redundancy' on the grounds that it trades elegance for clarity, and that's generally something we should do if given the option. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. An extremely well-written, comprehensive, insightful article. I enjoyed reading it and learned a lot from it. Once the minor issues above are resolved, I will be happy to support. Constantine ✍ 12:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: thanks for the quick response, have replied above. Constantine ✍ 08:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Have made a couple of suggestions above, but otherwise I am happy to Support now. Thank you for this excellent article. Constantine ✍ 10:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Modussiccandi

[edit]

I will write something once I find the time. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's about all I have found. The article is in good shape and I look forward to supporting once these have been resolved. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check

[edit]

I've done a 20% spot-check for accuracy and close paraphrase. No concerns about the latter. Minor quibbles about the former. I have not checked the books in Greek because (a) my schoolboy Greek, such as it is, is that of Xenophon and Euripides and not much use for present purposes, and (b) the British Library apparently does not get copies of books published in Greece.

  • 1a fine.
  • 1b the text says 1 May: I'll take your word for it that this is 13 May OS.
    • I've slightly changed this: B. says 1 May but doesn't specify a calendar. It seems logical and charitable to assume he was using the OS (which means he's off by a day, rather than a fortnight), but that's my own inference; as we're reporting what's almost certainly an error, I've stuck to giving exactly what B. says. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c fine.
  • 1d fine.
  • 1e can't find any suggestion in the source that there were tensions between the two bodies.
  • 1f fine.
  • 1g fine.
  • 10a – "Kavvadias also followed a course in epigraphy at the Collège de France in Paris under Paul Foucart" – the source doesn't actually specify the college at which Foucart taught.
    • No, it doesn't; Foucart only ever lectured at one higher-education institution, so I think the inference is justified, even though we're not 100% certain of Kavvadias' dates in Paris. I've added a citation for Foucart's institution. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10b – "as well as two stelae (inscribed stone slabs) in the Sanctuary of Asclepius" – I have no difficulty in believing that these deux fameuses stèles were from the Sanctuary of Asclepius, but the source doesn't say so.
    • You're right: unfortunately, I can't find another source that gives a specific date for those stelae (Kavvadias is frustratingly vague in his own publication), and they were so famous in their day that it's barely conceivable that Reinach could have had any other stelae in mind. Can we consider this an acceptable amount of dots-joining in the circumstances? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10c – fine.
  • 10d – "In 1885, Kavvadias, the favoured candidate of Prime Minister Charilaos Trikoupis" – the source says it was February 1886.
    • Yes; I'm not sure what Reinach was going on about with that date (it's in brackets, and not 100% clear what it refers to), as the appointment happened in 1885, and he continues later Cavvadias resta éphore général de 1885 à 1909. Perhaps he's trying to say that K. was formally appointed/'crowned' in February, having started work before? I've added a separate ref to the year of 1885; Reinach was needed for Trikoupis. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10e – "the energetic way in which he pursued his objectives" – not sure about this: is it relying on "il déploya une activité remarquable"?.
  • 14a – "In 1881, he published a short history of Greek archaeology" – if this mentioned on p. 129 I must have looked straight through it.
  • 14b – fine.
  • 14c – fine.
  • 14d – fine.
  • 14e – fine.
  • 14f – fine, but it's on page 130, not 129.
  • 14g – fine.
  • 18a – fine.
  • 18b – fine.
  • 76a – fine.
  • 76b – fine.
  • 79a – fine.
  • 79b – fine.
  • 85 – fine.
  • 110 – fine.
  • 111 – fine.
  • 112 – fine.
  • 134 – fine.
  • 135a – fine.
  • 135b – fine.
  • 143 – fine.

My quibbles, above, are minor, and I have no hesitation in saying that in my judgement the article passes the spot-check. (All the same, I'd like the quibbles to be addressed.) – Tim riley talk 10:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time over this: I appreciate the thoroughness and the work that's clearly gone into it. I think I've been able to address all of your points: a little forbearance is perhaps needed on 10b. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All fine with me. I don't think we need press the point about 10b. I'll change hats and reread the article as a general FAC reviewer and come back with comments or support shortly. Tim riley talk 12:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

This could have been a dry article for the general reader (e.g. me) who knows next to nothing about Greek archaeology, but it is so beautifully written that it is a pleasure to read. Splendid rollicking stuff about Lambros and the smuggling, for instance, to leaven the scholarly detail. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria: it appears neutral and balanced, feels just the right length – enough detail but not an excess of it, the citations are many and varied and range from contemporary to the present, illustrations are splendid, and the prose is top-notch. It is very rarely indeed that I read an FAC without finding something to carp about in the drafting, but I found nothing here. A first-class piece of work – bravo (or, if appropriate, brava)! Happy to support. – Tim riley talk 13:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

[edit]

General source review (as opposed to spot checks) to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

# 26, 47, 66, 94, 96, 97, 156 should be pp

Done UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

# 96 & 156 should be an n dash, not a hyphen

Done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

# 138 & 139 need spaces after p.

Done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

# 31 and 69 are problematic – these should be formatted as the rest of the sources and not two wikilinks and a URL

These now done too. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography

That’ll do for a first quick run through, but it’s not a comprehensive review yet. - SchroCat (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few more to do:

  • John W.I. Should be John W. I.
  • Ditto Walters W.C.F.
  • Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, has Zachariou's MA thesis been “shown to have had significant scholarly influence”?
    • The position we reached at Good Article Review (that is, User:Modussiccandi and I was that Zachariou, where cited, is simply translating or transmitting information that can be found in Greek sources, nearly always Petrakos or via Petrakos (e.g., where he refers to a government decree or similar). Those Greek sources, apart from the obvious language barrier, aren't very accessible in English. Where Zachariou is used in the article, she's always cited alongside Petrakos, who gives the same information in Greek. Our judgement was that including the Zachariou citations makes the verifiability and 'paper trail' of the article easier for most readers to establish, and that no fact in the article actually depends upon that thesis' authority alone, and therefore that removing the citations would be a loss to the article for no benefit except following protocol: we therefore invoked IAR and, subject to all the caveats above, retained those citations. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • FA sourcing is more rigorous than GAN, but let me have a think on this. Is there not an alternative that can be used on these? - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strictly speaking, we could just remove the Zachariou citations: nothing actually hangs on them, as they're just used in multi-cites with valid and authoritative (but difficult to access) Greek sources. The reason we haven't already done that is as above: there would then be no reason to change the text, since everything would still be adequately cited, so we would only have succeeded in making the article less verifiable (bad) and complying with protocol (which is good, but should never be the only reason to do something with trade-offs). I'll have another look around, but I failed to find another English-language source covering those areas during the GA review: the general picture of sources for a lot of Kavvadias' life and career is quite fragmentary, and there are many parts of the narrative where I could only find a single source that handled it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's best taken out. Just because it makes a connection easier, doesn't mean we should use a sub-standard source. I'm going on what WP:RSC says here: "Where a source is difficult to verify, or in a language other than English, many editors appreciate the courtesy of supplying the relevant paragraph and ensuring it can be read by English language readers. When sources of equal quality are available, the ease of access may be preferred. But if sources of higher quality are difficult to verify, that difficulty alone is not a reason to disregard such sources or replace them with lower-quality ones."
            There is a preferred workaround for this though: WP:RSUE, which again stresses the need for translations to be "of equal quality". RSUE says that "if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page". Providing a translation from the Greek source solves the verifiability problem without needing to resort to a sub-standard source. - SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The works for Bosenquet, Costaki and Mania don’t need access dates (they have persistent identifiers, so dating isn’t needed); they are also inconsistent with the others.

More to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all, but I'll have another full run though once these are all done. - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: I think I've managed to address all your points. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all that's left on here are:
    • Refs # 31 and 69
    • The Zachariou MA dissertation
    • The double to single quote marks
I've had another run through, and aside from these three points, I think we're pretty much done. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Almost there! I've simply taken out Zachariou; including quotations/translations from the Greek would really necessitate doing that for all non-English references, and there's a lot of those, so I think I'll have to plead the advisory nature of the quoted section from WP:RSUE. I'll have a think about how to do Pausanias: as it's a Classical source, it's not appropriate to simply pick a modern edition and give a page number; the section numbers (e.g. 8.37.3–4) are consistent between editions even if the pagination is not.
I think the best way is going to be via {{cite web}}, with the Perseus project edition as the 'base' and then individual location numbers given for each citation; unfortunately, that website's currently having some problems, so I can't immediately put it into practice. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to use a page number, you can use a location figure instead. If you use the sfn template, put "loc=8.37.3–4" instead of "p=", and all will be OK. - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that a Wikipedia article doesn't necessarily follow the styles/conventions of the disciplines about which it writes, but my inner classicist chafes at a citation like "Pausanias 2023: 87.1" (using the date that or, even worse, "Pausanias c.150 CE: 87.1". In the first case, the year is both practically meaningless and possibly misleading; in the second, it's little more than a guess. As a classical text, the way it's cited in the article is the universal way that you'll see Pausanias' work referred to in academic sources (author, title, location). Is there a way to keep the Wikipedia system happy while avoiding slapping a slightly-nonsensical year onto the citation? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concerns, but we have to go with the policies and guidelines of the project, rather than any other system, so it has to be like this. It's not uncommon for old works to be reprinted and the newer version be used in an article, and this is no exception. To soften the jarring "2023" aspect, add the original year (c.150 CE) into the Sources listing for the work. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am with UndercoverClassicist: it would be an aberration to cite a classical source with a date and I would definitely counsel against it. But to perhaps sidestep the issue: since it's a primary issue, using it as a reference in the article is not ideal anyway, so could we replace the Pausanias references with a secondary source? Modussiccandi (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may think it an "aberration", but it's an aberration to have a mix of formats in the sources, and would be enough to fail the source review, which would a sub-optimal result for the article. - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's workable, since the Pausanias citation is only really for interest: the secondary sources were the ones that made the link between K's discoveries and Pausanias, so they can be what's cited, and interested readers can go there to find the relevant primary passage. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to include the link to Pausanias, you could add it as a footnote (Such as "For the description in the original, see Pausanias, Description of Greece 8.37.3–4"), but also cited to the secondary source. In that way, the primary source is in a footnote for those who want to follow it, but the sources are all done correctly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a reasonable solution: refs 31 and 68 now should, I think, do what you've described. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - that's the last hurdle cleared as far as I'm concerned. Good piece of work this. I have only skimmed through so wouldn't feel comfortable officially supporting, but it doesn't matter - you've got more than enough to get over the line now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2023 (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/Panagiotis_Kavvadias/archive1&oldid=1251725379"