Wikipedia:Peer review/Harpy Tomb/archive1

Harpy Tomb[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am looking for a pre-FAC review of this article. Comments from experts in the field would also be welcome as this is far from my speciality.

Thanks, SpinningSpark 11:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A longer lead is needed. I think for an FA short sections on the context of both Lycian culture & Archaic Greek sculpture are needed, with links to any comparable sculptures with articles. Not much is said about the tomb as a tomb - has the burial itself been excavated, was this type of monument common, etc? The sub-sections here don't seem needed. I'd move "Bringing to England" to the end, & rename it to something - not sure what. "Design details" might be better as "The reliefs" or something. All the notes, especially 2 & 3, would probably be better worked into the text. What is "^ Cat, p.59"? Furtwangler needs to go in the refs - i don't think you can "op cit" from citation to citation for an FA. The prose needs a polish - too many Capitals, & other things. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'll wait to see if there are any more detailed comments before doing any work. I got the impression from Fellows that the tomb was empty when he found it (I assume this is what you mean by excavation) but it is hard to tell, he did not seem to be very interested in the contents. Curator input on this point would be helpful. Many of the short form citations in the "interpretations" section were contributed by another editor. I had already requested full cites from them, but I am not sure they are going to co-operate. I will try to locate them myself, it would be a shame to have to remove material because of this. SpinningSpark 23:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are all or mostly abbreviations referring to works already cited, but it's not the way here. Johnbod (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references I put in myself are all found in the bibliography, however, the editor who expanded the "interpretations" section added only Pryce to the bibliography, but has added many references. SpinningSpark 06:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. I suppose one can work out what they are with Google, but they need to be spelt out. Also one rather suspects the abbreviations are copied over from a single source, which one should not do - ie only works directly seen should be referenced as though they have been seen. Ian Jenkins (curator) should be linked, btw; a fruit of the BM day. Johnbod (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.
- Some of the references precede punctuation, some follow. All should be positioned in the same style; my preference is that the reference immediately follow punctuation.
- When there multiple footnotes in a row, their numbers should start low and end high, with none out of numerical order. There are two sentences which break this rule:
  - "All the parts, except the sculptured reliefs, are made from local grey-blue limestone.[4][5][6][7][3][2]" and
  - "The female faces have a sensuous look with full lips and large eyes that are typically Lycian.[12][4][5][13]"
"At the corners on the North and South sides are winged female creatures with bird bodies..." Why mention North and South sides? There are four corners, right?

There are two each on the North and South sides and none on the East and West sides. SpinningSpark 01:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply going by text alone, thinking of non-sighted readers. Looking at the images, it is clear that no figures are at the corners. Instead, figures appear at the left section and the right section of the north and south sides. Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The opening is in front of this figure." What opening? It isn't clear from context.

Please explain in what way this is not clear. The opening has already been described in the "construction" section and is clearly visible in several of the images. SpinningSpark 01:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look again. The phrase "the opening" as I listed above arrives in the article without any preamble or explanation. Describe the opening in prose, please. Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some small spelling problems. The rest of the prose looks okay to me. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"North" etc should not be capitalized here, as I hinted above. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything here is now dealt with with the exception of two items;

The notes have not been incorporated in the text body. I don't think doing this will improve the article, at least in most cases.
The references inserted in the "interpretations" section still need cleaning up. I have done this where I can but in many cases the full article title is missing and the editor responsible is refusing to provide the information. I do not have access to Pryce who seems to be the main source, but interestingly this test search only turns up Pryce, suggesting that the other cites have been copied from Pryce without reading. I can also find an earlier online version of the catalogue which again suggests the cites are copied. So the choice is to assume the information comes from Pryce and delete the cites (slightly reluctant to do this without having seen the source) or to delete the contribution altogether.
SpinningSpark 21:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

~~{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Ok, overall, I think it's pretty decent. I'm no prose wizard so I'm looking at in a more macroscopic way, although I noticed that a lot of sentences really cry out for commas based on their sentence construction (they run kinda' breathless). It certainly covers all the bases, and though I'm not that experienced in archaeology subject matter, the references appear, if not "high quality" (I can't determine), certainly reliable.
- On images: Wouldn't it make sense to have a picture of the actual tomb the lead image instead of the reliefs in a museum?
- I start getting lost with the second paragraph: "The tomb is in the Greek Archaic style and is the only late-archaic tomb to survive in Xanthos." → what is the Greek Archaic style? "However, there are indications of non-Greek influence in the carvings as well." → Like what? What does this mean? "The monument takes its name from the four carved female winged figures, resembling Harpies." → "the four carved" figures? They're aren't mentioned before. I think that while a fairly good attempt has been made to introduce readers to Lycian culture, it still presumes too much foreknowledge. Readers shouldn't have to link away from an article to get the basic gist.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences generally are quite short in this article. You will need to specifically identify the problem ones.
Images. I don't agree that the lede image should necessarily be the tomb itself. The interest in this monument is largely the sculpture, this was the part that Fellows removed, and now in the British Museum. The pillar itself is a pretty boring plain square pillar and the replacement "carvings" on it are not very high quality cement casts.
Greek Archaic style You seem to be asking for everything to be put into the lede. The lede is meant to be a summary of the article and I cannot see that "Greek Archaic with other influences" does not adequately summarise what the article has to say on the style of the carvings. The article briefly describes the Archaic style and where it lies in context. Some of the specific non-Greek influences are highlighted in the text. To say all of this in the lede leaves the article proper with nothing to say but a repeat of the lede. Possibly some reorganisation of the material would be helpful, but I don't think putting all the detail in the lede can possibly be right.
"the four carved" figures? They're aren't mentioned before. Well of course not, this is from the lede. They have to be mentioned for the first time somewhere, what's your point?
Lycian culture...presumes too much foreknowledge. I don't think I can be presuming that, since I don't actually know any more than I have written in the article. Again, specific identification of the problem parts is needed.
SpinningSpark 00:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]