User talk:UndercoverClassicist/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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

@UndercoverClassicist,

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

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

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

@UndercoverClassicist

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

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

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

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

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

@UndercoverClassicist

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

@UndercoverClassicist

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

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

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

@UndercoverClassicist

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

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

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

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

@UndercoverClassicist

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

@UndercoverClassicist

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

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

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

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

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

@UndercoverClassicist

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

@UndercoverClassicist

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

@UndercoverClassicist

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

@UndercoverClassicist

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

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

@UndercoverClassicist

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

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

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

Phryne?

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

Handmade burnished ware

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

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

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

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