Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Temple of Apollo Palatinus/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Temple of Apollo Palatinus

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This article is about a temple that marked a watershed in Roman culture - Augustus' great foundation to Apollo on the Palatine Hill. There's quite a lot of moving parts to the article, between literary testimony and archaeology and between history, architecture and artwork: I'd like to take it forward in the near-ish future to FAC, where it would if successful join an extremely small pool of FAs on classical buildings, but feel I might be too close to the text to really have a sense of how the whole thing fits together for a reader. Any and all comments gratefully received.

Thanks, UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

caeciliusinhorto

[edit]

Overall this looks like a really good article. Some nitpicks, though of course you are free to ignore anything you don't like - it's mostly a question of stylistic choice!

  • "noted Greek artists of the archaic period and the fourth century BCE" reads weirdly to me. I would suggest either just giving a date range ("from the sixth to fourth centuries BCE"?) or saying "from the archaic and classical periods".
    • Agreed on the diagnosis of the problem: unfortunately, it's not a straightforward date range, but rather two distinct (and not contiguous) periods. It's specifically the fourth century rather than the fifth, for example. Will think on this one: very happy to take another steer. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first temple to Apollo was vowed in 433 BCE": "was vowed"? Does this mean that the Romans vowed to Apollo that they would build him a temple if he ended the plague? Could maybe do with clarifying/expanding
  • "This temple was originally known as the Temple of Apollo Medicus and later, after Gaius Sosius, who restored it around 32 BCE, as the Temple of Apollo Sosianus." Might make slightly more sense if you reordered the sentence to "This temple was originally known as the Temple of Apollo Medicus and later as the Temple of Apollo Sosianus, after Gaius Sosius, who restored it around 32 BCE."
  • "The construction and restoration of temples was a major part of this programme: in 28 BCE, Augustus claimed to have restored eighty-two of them": can we simply cut "of them" here?
  • "this was considered to be an indication of a god's desire for a temple, and as urging the construction of a temple to Apollo within the city" seems unnecessarily repetitive
    • I'll check sources; my sense is that there's two stages: the lightning bolt means "Apollo wants a temple [somewhere]", to which a logical but not inevitable response is "he's upset that his only temple is outside the pomerium." UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "existing remains" surely tautological?
  • "on the grounds of Carettoni's belief": "due to Carettoni's belief" or even "as Carettoni believed" would be simpler
  • "tetrasylum": I haven't checked the source, so maybe this is correct, but all my instincts say this should be "tetrastylum"
  • "According to the Roman architectural writer Vitruvius, the intercolumniation of the pronaos was diastyle (that is, the gap between each pair of columns was three times a column's width)" heaven knows I'm in no position to criticise people for impenetrable overly-technical writing, but I would suggest rewriting this in normal English without the technical terms. I have an ancient history background and work with art historians full time and this makes me glaze over!
  • "Columnal capitals in the Corinthian order": what's wrong with "Corinthian capitals" (or even "Corinthian column capitals" if you are worried that's not clear to lay readers)
  • "its head was remade by Avianus Evander" I don't suppose we know why? Had the original head been destroyed or was there some reason to change the iconography?
    • I'm not sure, to be quite honest with you: perhaps the original didn't quite fit the Augustan idiom? The source frames this as an alternative to getting Evander to make a whole new one, rather than as an alternative to just using the old one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Myron, another fifth-century Athenian sculptor" I'm not sure we've had one fifth century sculptor yet for Myron to be "another" to!

This takes me down to the end of §Description; will try to get the second half done soon. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: No rush, and it's an extremely useful set of comments as it stands, but are you still planning to look at the second half? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Golden

[edit]

Reserving a spot. I'll review over the next few days. — Golden talk 20:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article as someone with limited knowledge of architecture and Roman history, so please excuse any comments that may seem uninformed. — Golden talk 23:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for these: some sharp spots, and one of the main things I wanted in this PR was to get fresh eyes on the article. Many changes made: I've quibbled a few below; see what you think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem, UC. I'm glad you found them helpful. I've replied to some of your points below, but there's nothing more for me to suggest. This is a really great article and I look forward to seeing it at FAC in the near future. — Golden talk 18:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead & Infobox

  • ('Palatine Apollo') - I'm not sure what this is supposed to be. Is it an alternate name or a literal translation?
  • Would it be better to use "Emperor Augustus" instead of just "Augustus" at the first mention, since we've introduced Apollo as the "god Apollo"?
    • It's a tricky one with Augustus, because when he "counts" as an emperor is deeply controversial: nobody would say that he does in 36 BCE. Admittedly, he doesn't really count as Augustus at that time either: I've gone with WP:COMMONNAME but there's an argument for spelling it out as "Octavian (known after 27 BCE as Augustus)". I've done that now. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • portent - Is there a reason why we're not using the more widely-known term "omen" here, since we're already linking to it?
    • Not particularly. I'm not sure that omen is particularly common or portent particularly obscure (though Google Ngrams does give "omen" the edge). Both are derived from Latin terms with quite specific meanings: I think the one from portent (portendo) is more appropriate, but I don't see a massive difference between using the two. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking again on this: I think omen would be appropriate if was seen as giving a hint of the future, but this is slightly different: it's a sign of (that is, it portends) the god's wishes, but not necessarily of the god's future actions. A very small distinction, granted. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, you should probably keep it as "portent". I guess I just have to open the dictionary from time to time 😀. — Golden talk
  • The temple was closely linked with the victories of Augustus's forces - What do we mean by "closely linked"? I assume you mean that the Romans believed the temple helped them win battles. Could you clarify this a bit?
    • Ah, no: it's closely linked in memory and propaganda with the already happened victories. I've made a slight change here; it's tricky to do a small edit without messing things up for what follows, but a big edit isn't out of the question.
  • Could you clarify what the Portico of the Danaids is? Was it a library?
  • extravagant, Hellenising break with Roman tradition and a conservative attempt to reassert the architectural and political values of the Roman Republic - These would be better as quotes.
  • We use the name "Augustus" exclusively throughout the lead, but switch to "Octavian" in the infobox. This may confuse readers.

Background

  • Perhaps we could include some information about the Palatine Hill at its first mention in the article body? E.g. "the Palatine Hill, the centremost of the seven hills of Rome".
    • We've got previously most significant as an elite residential area: I'd suggest that's probably more helpful than the strict geography, particularly as nobody can quite agree which the seven hills are... UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had read that, but I guess I expected it to be at the first mention of the hill. But that's just personal preference. — Golden talk
  • Other Augustan monuments of the same period included the Mausoleum of Augustus (28 BCE), the Solarium Augusti (10–9 BCE) and the Ara Pacis (9 BCE). - Two of these monuments were constructed after the Apollo Palatinus. I'm not sure if they should be included in the Background section.
    • Fair cop. The point is to get across that Augustus builds a lot of stuff, not merely this temple or even temples, but I've definitely written in an unfortunate teleology. I've swapped in some other monuments finished before this one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • his house's - The last individual mentioned was Apollo, but we're now talking about Augustus. I suggest switching to "Augustus's house".
  • between Augustus, Apollo - If you make the change mentioned above, you can replace "Augustus" with "him" here.
  • and his victory - This could be misunderstood as referring to Apollo's victory.
    • On the three above: I've got at the moment stood by the side of the front door of Augustus's house, highlighting the connection between Apollo, Augustus and his victory over Mark Antony. I think that "his" refers clearly enough to Augustus, though Augustus would almost certainly have been quick to remind us that it was Apollo's victory as well. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

Later history

Location

  • older Temple of Cybele - Short information about this temple may be useful. Perhaps something like, "It was adjacent to the older Temple of Cybele, which was dedicated to Magna Mater (known to Greeks as Cybele) and built in 191 BCE."?
    • We already have "which had been dedicated in 191 BCE": Magna Mater is really a title of Cybele (it means "Great Mother") and the Romans use that name too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just copy-pasted the first sentence of the Temple of Cybele article. You're right, the date of its dedication is sufficient. — Golden talk
  • Similarly to the previous point, some information about the Temple of Victory may be useful.

Architecture

  • It's probably just because I'm not familiar with architecture, but I feel there are too many technical terms in this section. This may be fixed by explaining each uncommon term used. You've done this in most cases, and I recommend doing something similar for instances of pronaos, Corinthian order, fluting, polychromy, and cella. I also did not understand any part, except "blocks", of "ashlar blocks of tufa and travertine".
    • This is a tricky one to balance between explaining things that a specialist would know and not clogging up the prose with explanations of everything. Architecture FAs do tend to get quite technical when they get into the details - I took a random sample of Palace of Queluz and Elgin Cathedral - and I suppose the thinking is that there's not a huge overlap between people who really care whether the columns were fluted and those who don't already know the term. I've added a few explanations and an EFN clarifying the main parts of a Roman temple (the diagram helps a little here too). Most of the remaining terms can't really be explained quickly: Corinthian order, for instance, is a whole idiom and set of rules for building. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true. As someone with barely any knowledge or interest in architecture, I would probably have skipped over this section when reading the article, and I imagine most people like me would do the same. The explanations you've added are sufficient. — Golden talk

Sculptures and artwork

Function

Reception

  • No changes needed.

Excavation

  • Do we have any more information about Bartoli's excavations?
    • Coarelli is unhelpful: the sum of his information is "Partially excavated by Pietro Rosa ... then again by Alfonso Bartoli in 1937". I've found a little more on the context of those excavations and added it, but it seems that Bartoli rather unhelpfully died before really getting the job or the publication done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modussiccandi

[edit]

I will post some feedback here over the next couple of days. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Construction

Later history

Location

Architecture

Sculptures and artwork

  • Apollo in the "Apollo Citharoedus" ('lyre-playing Apollo') type: abbreviate to "Apollo Citharoedus" ('lyre-playing Apollo')? Modussiccandi (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • in an act of impietas: I find this and the accompanying footnote too specific for the generalist reader who wants to learn something about the temple (and not, presumably, Roman ethical concepts). Modussiccandi (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for being this slow. My PhD viva is tomorrow, so I'm under a bit of stress at the moment. I'm mainly nitpicking anyway since the article is at a really high level already and does a nice job at explaining arcana. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very much appreciated, especially given the circumstances: feliciter for tomorrow and thank you for these points. On Apollo Citharoedus, I'm sympathetic but not sure: we wouldn't say "a statue of Prima Porta", which is a similar term; Apollo Citharoedus is in that tricky grey area as slightly more than a description and only slightly less than a proper noun. On impietas, my logic was that we shouldn't assume a reader will parse it as the antonym of pietas, and so it needs some kind of explanation to that effect: I do think it's relevant to those interested in the temple that the Danaiads (and so Cleopatra) represent a crowning/paradigmatic example of impietas rather than simply a failure to follow the rules of pietas. Do you have a particular alternative in mind? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding pietas: you are right, the general reader will not be aware of what either of these terms mean. I was thinking that the difficulty could be eased by 'translating' them into familiar English terms, but I see the difficulty in pinning down quintessentially Roman concepts like pietas or, to name another example, nefas. I guess my objection is to filling the article with too much specialist content. With that said, the footnote sufficiently explains the term for those who want to know. So consider this one answered. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding Apollo: in my perception, Apollo Citharoedus appeared to be an established variant of the god (like Zeus Xenios or Apollo Musagetes). But since you say that the title is less than a proper noun, caution might be advised. (I'm far from being an expert in this are of the Classics.) Modussiccandi (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        At least as used here, Citharoedus is strictly a statue type, rather than an epithet/aspect of the god. I don't know enough to judge whether it ever crossed the line (to e.g. the status of Apollo Delphinus), but I've certainly never heard of (and cannot find any reference to) a temple of Apollo Citharoedus like we get of Apollo Musagetes, Zeus Xenios and so on. Very happy to alter if someone comes along with better evidence, though. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Function

Reception

Summary

All very wise and, with the exception of the comment replied to above, done straightforwardly. Much obliged on all counts: I hope Monday went well! UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto: would you have any objection if I closed this one and moved the article to FAC? I'm under no illusion that the article is "finished" and fully expect further comments and changes there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: No objections from me. If I have time I will look at the article at FAC but I haven't had much serious wikipedia editing time lately so no promises – at any rate good luck with the nomination! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: so sorry for failing to reply, I seem to have taken this off my watchlist. Yes, feel free to close this one and move on to FAC. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Temple_of_Apollo_Palatinus/archive1&oldid=1176153592"