Early life and education[edit]Archaeological career[edit]Ephor needs more explanation in the text. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need a very short introduction to Pausanias (e.g. 'the Greek travel writer'). Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need an explanation for abaton. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Introduce Valerios Stais (and all other scholars mentioned later. I saw you did this for some, so it won't be that much work). Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is done - would appreciate fresh eyes to see if I've missed any. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I will do another read through later! Modussiccandi (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would do away with 'Homeric' and give a short explanation of what exactly this means. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The specific word "Homeric" is important in this context: firstly, it's Kavvadias' own word for what he was doing, and secondly it's about the (then considered obvious, now considered highly dodgy) assumption that a) the Homeric poems are historical and b) that they 'happened' in the Late Bronze Age and so that c) sites from the LBA can be called 'Homeric'. I've added an EFN and clarification that Kavvadias used the term to frame (and justify) his 'research questions'. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
near that is unclear. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd spell out 'Roman era' vel sim. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps reconsider the use of 'that' in when he discovered the two small Mycenaean tholos tombs at Kokkolata. It seems as if readers should somehow know what these are. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider breaking the sentence before footnote 21 into two shorter ones for ease of reading. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 'ever' in with no issue ever published for 1886 or 1887 appears superfluous. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excavations and Restorations on the Acropolis (1885–1909)[edit] pediment of 'Hercules and the Hydra' is unclear. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think kouros/kore can be left without italics since the terms have for some time been used as English-language terms. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The repetition of 'ramains' in remains of an early Christian church, as well as significant remains is somewhat infelicitous. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to leave out the word 'arrephoroi' since the linked article is poor and the explanation given on the Arrhephoria is sufficient.
- I'm not sure here: changing it to 'used during the Arrhephoria' removes precision and information (was it the arrhephoroi who used it, or the spectators, or other participants in the ritual?) I take the point that the link isn't to a great article, but we'd leave a redlink in because that article might be written in the future (and indeed the link might encourage someone to write it): I think the same applies here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
separating ensembles in their construction comes across as unclear to the general reader. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'1896–1897' should be turned into prose. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In its current presentation, the translation 'under the cliffs' is disorienting. Could we somehow make clear that this is a cult title? Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
given the site the name of the 'Archons' Cult' the prose could be clear here. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'1887–1888': see above.
a method of which Kavvadias later wrote in favour can be phrased more simply. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The adjective in three-member supervising committee is not needed. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'1898–1902': see above.- Most of the passage on Nikolaos Balanos seems like it doesn't belong in the article. The section is already long and technical, so I think the best solution would be to move most of this sub-section to Balanos' article and replace it with one paragraph. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The key idea here is to focus on Kavvadias responsibility for/complicity in the restorations, both in that they happened at all and because of the damage that they eventually did. I've reworked it a little to try to make that point clearer: it's fundamentally Kavvadias project: his Service gave the job to the three-man committee, allowed Balanos to dominate it, and signed off on the methods he used.
Ephor General of Antiquities (1885-1909)[edit]Is it Ephor-General or Ephor General? Modussiccandi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
has been interpreted introduces a seemingly controversial claim. Could we be more precise? Modussiccandi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'When' > 'where' in where Kavvadias intervened? Modussiccandi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear whether the 'he' in he assisted with the planning is Kavvadias or his predecessor. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'1–13 April 1905': See my comment on numbers above. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps reduce the use of relative clauses in this section Modussiccandi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stop harping on about the numbers. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]- Crete would not be part of the Kingdom of Greece until 1913: is this relevant? Modussiccandi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think so - the point is that it wasn't Kavvadias' 'patch'/responsibility (though this gets a bit technical/academic), but was nevertheless a major moment in 'Greek' archaeology. Happy to take advice on rephrasing to make that clear. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganisation of the Archaeological Service[edit] The meaning begun with his own appointment in 1879 under Panagiotis Efstratiadis was only clear to me after two read-throughs. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- My general feeling is that there is a slight over-use dashes. I would take some out in this section, particularly the one at — and the Ephor General.
Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need the inverted commas at private 'owners'? Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that there's competing ideas of 'ownership' here: in legal terms, because the state and the private citizens were joint owners, the latter had (in theory) the rights of usus and (probably) fructus but not (according to the state) abusus. However, because they were technically the "owners" of the antiquities, many of them acted as if they did have the complete right to dispose of their own property, and it wasn't completely agreed how being a "co-owner" with the state was materially different from just owning the thing. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- (1864–1884) can probably go. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure; I feel like there's two important facts here - a) that the Greek archaeological service tried (and failed) to combat unauthorised/illegal antiquities trading between 1864 and 1884, and b) that Efstratiadis was the one who did it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't it make sense to refer to specific named artefacts in italics? Forms like 'Aineta aryballos' look quite unatural. I'm thinking along the lines of Iliad vs. 'Iliad' here, where the former is obviously correct. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the convention for works of literature, or for works with an original/VERY well-established title (e.g. Botticelli's Birth of Venus). This example is closer to e.g. 'Augustus of Prima Porta' or 'Rosetta Stone'. However, I've removed the inverted commas (following established use by e.g. Galanakis) and redlinked (which helps to clarify the relationship between the two words); the article's in my to-write pile. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- 'joint ownership' seems superfluous since it's clear what loophole is meant. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'was appointed' > would be appointed? Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissal and exile (1909–1912)[edit]Personal life, honours and legacy[edit]Selected publications[edit]I've only given the article a cursory read through, but one thing that I noticed immediately is that a number of MOS:SANDWICH problems need to be rectified. In the context of that, I would recommend reducing the overall number of images since the article is on the verge of being over-illustrated. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The bibliography includes three MA theses by Pierce, Van Engelenhoven and Zachariou. WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Is it possible to demonstrate this for these two theses? Citations in peer reviewed journals/books could be one way. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Pierce has got a few citations - here, here, here and here (which incorrectly says it's a PhD, but has the 2006 date, so is clearly talking about the same thesis.
- Van Engelenhoven removed: better source found.
- Zachariou removed. Most of her thesis is effectively translating/paraphrasing material in Greek, particularly royal decrees and the works of Vasileios Petrakos, which aren't massively accessible in English. As a result, we've mostly gone from easily-checkable English sources to practically-inaccessible (to most people) Greek ones. I wonder whether there's a case for building her back in in some places, as a sfnm with Petrakos where the two overlap? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- On the rolling-back (which I've now done again...) - I was editing the page while you were; I tried to resolve the conflicts manually, but didn't do a great job. I think I've manually un-undone those dehyphenations: I'll try to catch the others if not. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
b (citations to reliable sources): 
