Wikipedia:Peer review/Panagiotis Kavvadias/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Panagiotis Kavvadias[edit]

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

After a very thorough Good Article review by User:Modussiccandi, I'd like to see if this article has legs as an FA - it would be my first nomination, so all comments and assistance gratefully received.

In particular, I'd value the assistance of anyone who knows their way around the 19th-century Greek legal system - especially how to refer to laws, royal decrees and so on in English.

Thanks, UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Modussiccandi[edit]

I think the article already fulfils much of what is asked for in FAs. I will post some points which could come under more scrutiny at FAC. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • You'll need to add good alternative text parameters to all images that don't already have them. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Done UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure to resolve the remaining 'sandwich' problems with image positioning. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I see it on Vector 2022, they're now gone (User:Gerda Arendt came in and shifted some images from left to right) - is that the same for you? I'm not sure quite how MOS:SANDWICH interacts with screens/displays of different size. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still use the old vector and for me there is still a minute one between Kore and the Persian Rider, but it's so small enough to be negligible. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This first sentence in the 'Dismissal, exile and return' section is too vague for its content: by whom was Kavvadias described in these terms? who were these admirers? It matters because you're introducing significant criticism of him. Be precise in reflecting the content of the source. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that I've read through this again, this short paragraph about how people viewed Kavvadias should be expanded if at all possible. I also feel that it could work better in the legacy section. At the moment, my problem is that it seems unconnected to the rest of the section. I'm sure there is a connection, but you haven't made it clear enough yet. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I suppose the reason for having it there is because it's an explanation (at least, the one offered by Pantos and, IIRC, Petrakos) for his subordinates' dissatisfaction, and therefore the 'revolt of the ephors', and therefore his overthrow as Ephor General.
      Frustratingly, I can find almost nothing in print on what actually happened around his overthrow: it's interesting that there's a journal article from 1910 (two years later), which is essentially passing on the news to archaeologists in Britain and America, and they don't seem to have any idea of what happened. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The above is no longer true; a bit of Google wizardry got me a decent source. I still need to go back and address the substantive point made, though. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        checkY - I think this is now resolved (or at least, transmuted into another problem? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This brings me to the wording in the corresponding section of the lead. You say that he was considered "energetic, centralising and autocratic". I would make sure to reflect more closely what's in the article. Where in the main body is he being described as 'energetic'? While the article said that he undertook centralising measures, it's nowhere pointed out that someone regarded him as a centraliser. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY, I think - I've played around a little, placing the same wording, with citation, in the body ('Legacy' section). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anything more be said about the legacy of his archaeological work? In my experience at FAC, I've found this to be the kind of thing that can be the difference between an FA and a GA. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This links into a subsidiary question/problem I have, which is the excavations at Epidauros: at the moment, they're lumped into 'archaeological career'. Could/should they be their own section, perhaps with a bit of expansion? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still working on this one. I like what you've got for e.g. Eduard Fraenkel, which uses the subsection structure to effectively set out the terms on which he's important: the dilemma I have with this article is that a lot of the material on why (e.g.) Epidaurus is significant is already located with the section on Epidaurus, which is probably where a reader would go if looking for it. Would be interested to know what you think of the current situation, especially vis-a-vis what's in the body text versus the dedicated 'Impact on Greek Archaeology' section. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK - I think I can now count this as Done, though of course always subject to being improved or done better. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title 'Selected publications' is somewhat tricky because reviewers/readers might ask 'Whose selection is this?' leading to potential OR concerns. You could solve this by listing just his monographs and tie those to a particular list of his works (check my FAs to see what I mean). Modussiccandi (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not optimistic about finding a list like that in print - the obvious source is an obituary, but that sort of thing doesn't seem to have been 'done' in obits in the 1920s (or at least, wasn't by any of the surprisingly-few that I found for him). Do you think it's better to leave it in as, effectively, 'selected by being the book-length publications that I could find', or axe it? Alternatively, is there some sort of catalogue/database that might be helpful here? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would keep the list as is. There is a database for Classics bibliographies by L'Année philologique, but I don't think it goes as far back as we'd need. The worst case scenario is that someone at FAC objects, in which case you might have to remove the section after all. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds fair to me. I did have a look in the national library databases under Authority Control, which have been pretty good for modern scholars for me recently, but absolutely no luck there - some of those databases were openly pulling their information from us! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still some introductions missing which we both missed during GAR: e.g. Nikolaos Balanos in the lead, Panagiotis Stamatakis (it's not obvious that he held the office before), Eleftherios Venizelos. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Done (I think!) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usage of double and single quotation marks: I would use "double" marks for true citations, 'single ones' for everything else. This should be done to distinguish real quotations from glosses etc. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY - now sorted, I think. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since they have WP articles, you can add the sons to the infobox. You could add the Greek Archaeological Service as a workplace there, too. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Done UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you on all counts here - all very wise, and I'll go through and make those changes.
I must admit to not fully understanding MOS:SINGLE - my reading of the letter of the policy was that single-quote marks are only used for embedded quotations (e.g. Kavvadias is quoted as saying "My favourite word is 'plethora': it means a lot to me") or in certain niche situations like biological taxa. I don't think that's quite correct, but do you know a 'proper' explanation of the WP rules for single vs double? (for example, should that have been "proper"?) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the confusion. I based this comment on my experience with FA reviewers. It's true that MOS:SINGLE is neither very comprehensive nor clear, but I think you'll move within largely accepted usage if you reserve "double marks" for actual quotations. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY - see above UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda[edit]

I was invited on my talk, and am interested. I'l comment as I read, leaving the lead for last. I don't know any of the person's time in Greece and his profession, which may be good ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we just clashed (editing at the same time) - sorry, I didn't mean to revert your edits! I think I've put them back; please simply restore them if I've missed any. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it happens. Fixing edit conflict here:

Infobox

  • I linked the island, and some more items. Should it be in the spelling of our article (C, not K)? If not why?
  • Should Greece be linked to the political entity at the time of his birth?

I made some changes to the article, - please revert if you don't like. To be continued, done until Archeological career. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I prefer Kephallonia, which fits modern transliteration conventions from Greek and therefore is consistent with Kavvadias (rather than Cavvadias). As the article is on a Greek subject, it makes sense to err on the side of Greek-er names. I don't think WP:COMMONNAME really applies here, since both are used fairly agnostically in English. Happy to take a steer if anyone disagrees, though. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological career

  • tholos is only linked in the image caption
  • The 5 images of what he discovered: It's rather broad, and the "Zeus?" image can hardly be sen that size. Also caption "Works of Ancient Greek sculpture ..." - why ancient uc?
  • the sentence beginning "Since 1860" is too long and complex - takes too long until we understand what "it" means.
  • does "Kabeirion" have an equivalent in Greek WP?

Epidaurus

  • "The stelae, which dated" - has the dating changed? ... or "date"?

Kawerau

  • "Beulé Gate" - any article in another language?
  • "Pinakotheke of the Propylaia", - links? ... also Erechtheion, Erechtheion?
  • "in during" - in or during?

need a break --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all this: except the second point (see below) all resolved, I think:
  • Tholos now linked on first mention in text.
  • Do you think it's worth cutting that image? In a previous draft, I had a drawing of the Nessos Amphora there: another option might be to make the image bigger and centre it? 'Ancient" now lc.
  • Rephrased, subject first.
  • Link made to Cabeiri; I don't think the site itself has an article in Greek.
  • Rephrased to "dating to..."
  • ILL'd to FR for now (the French article's in good enough shape that I might simply translate it)
  • 'Propylaia' already linked above. I don't think 'Pinakotheke' should link to Pinacotheca: the name's a little misleading (it wasn't an art gallery; it just had paintings on the walls, like a whole lot of Greek public buildings). I've added a brief, referenced note explaining what it is, though.
  • Amended to "during".
UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, all understood. --11:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Gerda Arendt (talk)

Ephor General

  • "In 1885, Kavvadias, the favoured candidate of Prime Minister Charilaos Trikoupis,[3] succeeded Panagiotis Stamatakis as Ephor General of Antiquities, the professional head of the Greek Archaeological Service" - I'd prefer to first read for what he was preferred.

That's what I found in a first reading - not much, and I learned a lot. - I'll look at your replies tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - again, much appreciated.
Not sure how best to re-write that sentence: I take your point. Something like this is clear, but feels a bit clunky:
In 1885, Kavvadias was appointed to succeed Panagiotis Stamatakis as Ephor General of Antiquities, the professional head of the Greek Archaeological Service. Kavvadias had been the favoured candidate of Prime Minister Charilaos Trikoupis.[3]"
That reads like stating the blindingly obvious - which in a sense it is - and I'd forgive a reviewer or reader for simply axing the second sentence. I'm trying to convey the source's idea that Trikoupis' favour of Kavvadias was the proximate cause of his elevation to Ephor General... will have another think tomorrow. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. This is not something I'd need to see changed, just my view offered. Perhaps we can get others to also look into it.
quite generally: it's common practice in peer reviews and FAC to reply right below a bulleted item, with a short signature (UC, for example), to present an easy connection, especially to a third person who may be interested.
I like your prose a lot! I'll look at the lead now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was easy: also fine clear prose! I'm just not sure what the increased "numbers" of the Society mean exactly. Looking forward to seeing this at FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you once again! I've amended to "personnel" (the point is that he hired more people, and thereby turned the Service from a two-man-band into a reasonably large institution), which I don't think is perfect (it sounds a bit like he overfed his employees), but I think is an improvement. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iazyges[edit]

  • Staking a claim. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the (very) late work. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem - thank you for all of the below, and for the work you've done to tidy and polish the article already. I'll go through the below: all points well taken, some easily fixed, others will need a bit of thinking. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lede[edit]
  • Suggest removing the citation from the birthdate in the infobox; all of it seems to exist in the body.
  • He was responsible for the excavation of Epidaurus and for excavations on the Acropolis of Athens, as well as archaeological discoveries on his native island of Kephallonia. suggest mentioning that the sites were in Greece, and rephrase slightly. Perhaps He was responsible for the excavation of ancient sites in Greece, including Epidaurus in the Peloponnese, and the Acropolis of Athens, as well as archaeological discoveries on his native island of Kephallonia.
  • He also organised the first phase of the extensive reconstruction of the Acropolis' monuments by the architect and engineer Nikolaos Balanos, which, while initially praised, caused considerable damage to a number of temples and was almost completely deconstructed and rebuilt during the later 20th and early 21st centuries. This may be slightly confusing to a layman, perhaps Kavvadias organised the first phase of the extensive reconstruction of the Acropolis' monuments, carried out by the architect and engineer Nikolaos Balanos, which, while initially praised, caused considerable damage to a number of temples and was almost completely deconstructed and rebuilt during the later 20th and early 21st centuries.
    • I'm not sure this quite works: it's the first phase of Balanos' restorations, not of restorations in general (Ludwig Ross had done the Temple of Athena Nike in the 1830s, for example). One option is:
He also organised the first phase of Nikolaos Balanos' (an architect and engineer) extensive reconstruction of the Acropolis' monuments, which, while initially praised, caused considerable damage to a number of temples and was almost completely deconstructed and rebuilt during the later 20th and early 21st centuries.
However, that then really necessitates the removal of the gloss on Balanos: it's not only clunky but makes the sentence run to the point of obscurity, and it's arguably ungrammatical anyway. This might need a more serious look at, perhaps in light of the Balanos points below. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges:: I think this point is now solved/moot: see below UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (More a general question and body-improvement than in the lede, but spurred by the lede) Because it's only really touched on by for which Kavvadias was ultimately responsible as Ephor General, and While the restorations made under Kavvadias' supervision by Nikolaos Balanos were later criticised and mostly reversed as far as I can see, to what extent was Kavvadias responsible? What does "organised" mean in this context? I think a little more could be added here to explain their relationship, and expanded more in the body with whatever HQRS is available. Indeed, the section on Balanos only mentions Kavvadias thrice. From what I'm reading, Balanos as Athens' Chief Engineer of Public Works was likely either appointed (or possibly elected) by the city, separate from any influence of Kavvadias, and Kavvadias is basically only being criticized for not reigning him in more; is this correct? If so, perhaps a bit might be added to the lede as to the degree that Kavvadias was organizing him: that is, what power and responsibilities did he have? Was he only supplying workers and money and letting him do whatever? It seems that Balanos was running contrary to Kavvadias' original vision, so this seems likely. In the Balanos section, if possible, it would be useful to explain how Balanos got his job, and further elaborate on their relationship: was Kavvadias actually in a position to restrict Balanos, and failed to do so, or did he not really have the ability to do so? I understand sourcing for this is probably difficult to come by, but any little bits would help make this clear; Kavvadias' relationship to incorrect and damaging practices seems very important to define to me. Apologies for this being so long, but I think it's important, and will help at FAC, where I think someone will likely raise the same question.
    • This is a really tricky one. The whole thing is not well documented at all: Balanos himself barely published anything, and a lot of the work done by modern restorers and historians has amounted to working out exactly what restoration work was actually done. We'd really like to know the full 'who knew what, when?' here, but I don't think we're going to get that from the available HQRS.
With that said, my general impression of sources on Balanos is that they credit him with most or all of the agency. The best source I've been able to find is Mallochou-Tufano 1994, and her narrative essentially runs as follows:
      • 1894: "The relevant authorities" (surely the Archaeological Service, and so Kavvadias?) decide that this thing needs to be done properly, and convene the three-member (Balanos-free) international committee.
      • They decide on the basic strategy of the restorations (anastylosis with ancient methods), take nominal charge of the operation, and delegate a committee to run the show.
      • Balanos is "soon" called to join that committee (and therefore it wasn't a given that, as Chief Engineer, it would be his train set), and "immediately undertook the direction of the operations, gradually extending his activities, independently and unchecked".
I think I may have given Kavvadias too much/too little credit in presenting Balanos as essentially doing his work: on another read, research and think, I'd suggest that he's important in that a) He approved of the methods, as shown by his earlier article in favour of them, b) he almost certainly had a major role in approving at least the beginning of the chain of events above, c) he approved of, or at least failed to rein in, what Balanos was doing and d) he was responsible for the Archaeological Service, and the Archaeological Service had responsibility for the Acropolis, and so it was all ultimately his circus anyway.
At the moment, my plan is to rework it a little and move more material to the Nikolaos Balanos article: this article should contain the fact that these restorations happened, as much as we can reconstruct about Kavvadias' personal relationship to them, the outline of what Balanos did, and the consequences (damage!). However, just as it wouldn't be right to have a detailed account of the recovery of the Antikythera Mechanism (which also happened on Kavvadias' watch), it isn't a priori right to have the nuts and bolts of Balanos' work here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think we're... somewhere... with this now.
I've reworked the Balanos section, taking out most of the day-to-day details, and added what I can gather about exactly how the chain of decisions went from Kavvadias to Balanos. The clearest indication of blood on Kavvadias' hands I can see is the fact that the work was funded by the General Ephorate and the Archaeological Society, both of which Kavvadias effectively controlled (and indeed he basically was the former) throughout the period, so I've drawn attention to that.
I've altered the lead to a slightly feeble 'K. played a role in...': I don't think it's quite right to limit his role to 'put up the money for', since he clearly had a major role in determining the organisation and strategy of the project, but I'm equally not sure we've got the evidence in HQRS to be too much more precise about exactly what was Kavvadias' personality and what was e.g. Durm, Penrose and Magne (and I'm not sure that question is even answerable). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He oversaw the opening of the National Archaeological Museum suggest appending of Greece to the end of this, for clarity.
  • though he was able to return to public and academic life from 1912 feels like this should be after 1912 or in 1912, whichever is more accurate.
    • It's 'in and after', which feels like exactly the right situation in which to use 'from': to me, 'in' suggests that he returned in 1912 and was booted again in 1913. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Early life and education[edit]
  • He studied philology at the National University of Athens would add a brief gloss for this, perhaps He studied philology (historical sources) at the National University of Athens or something similar.
  • He also studied epigraphy in at the Collège de France in Paris under Paul Foucart perhaps the same here, such as He also studied epigraphy (inscriptions) at the Collège de France in Paris under Paul Foucart
    • Both of the above are tricky for the same reason: these are big subjects (and indeed were bigger in the C19th than they are today - 'philology' could mean anything from 'reconstructing Proto-Indo-European' to 'basically anything under Classics, Ancient History, Archaeology or Early Medieval Studies'. 'Epigraphy', meanwhile, is 'finding, translating, reading and doing vaguely historical stuff with inscriptions, which were a much bigger part of ancient history than they are today, so also involved a bunch of topography, legal and political history, etc".
We wouldn't normally say "he studied medicine (looking after sick people) and folklore (old stories)"; I take the point that epigraphy and philology are on the more obscure end, but I think the WL is the best way to explain them: for 'philology', for example, I think you need to read the first three paragraphs of the associated article before you really have a satisfactory explanation. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeological career[edit]
  • the Archaic to the Roman period (that is, c. 850 BCE–c. 500 CE), suggest removing that is,
    • I worry that the Archaic to the Roman period (c. 850 BCE–c. 500 CE) reads as though the Roman period ran from 850 BCE. To me, "that is" clarifies that the chronological range given in words and the chronological range given in figures are the same. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • which proved for the first time the presence of Mycenaean civilisation on the island. slightly awakard, perhaps the first proof of the presence of Mycenaean civilisation on the island.[ or perhaps that first proved the presence of Mycenaean civilisation on the island.[
  • Suggest removing File:Lycosoura-group.jpg to reduce crowding, and because it's, IMO, not a great image. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excavations at Epidaurus (1881–1928)[edit]
  • alluded to the clearing of an expansive wood Is this meant to mean he cleared away woods (as in forest), or that it was covered in wood? If the first, suggest alluded to the clearing of an expansive forest for clarity, if the other, expand on the process of this and why he did it, if possible.
Excavations with Kawerau (1885–1890)[edit]
  • A lot of locations here (basically all of the linked ones) would benefit from a short gloss, such as Propylaia and Erechtheion.
    • I mocked that up; the sentences end up huge and confusing, and the glosses don't add a lot of value, as the monuments here are really just being used as points on a map. I've added the gloss you suggest on Propylaia, but the others seemed to do more harm than good. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • identified the dedicators as senior Athenian officials ('archons') (and their secretaries) from the Roman period not a big fan of the double parenthesis: was it the archons and their secretaries, or were their secretaries also called archons? I assume it is the first based on my extensive(-ly limited) knowledge of Ancient Greece, so perhaps identified the dedicators as archons (senior Athenian officials), and their secretaries, from the Roman period. for the first, or, if the second should be true, identified the dedicators as archons (senior Athenian officials and their secretaries) from the Roman period.
Balanos' restorations (1894–1909)[edit]
  • No suggestions except for the above request to explain Kavvadias and Balanos' relationship.
Ephor General of Antiquities (1885–1909)[edit]
  • which was held in Athens between 1 and 13 April 1905 suggest which was held in Athens from 1–13 April 1905
    • During GAR, @Modussiccandi: argued for the opposite change. At the risk of starting a fight, would it be worth the both of you explaining your thinking here? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • For some reason the ping didn't work. Anyway, I recommended this because I'm of the opinion that everything in the body should be in a prose format. I have stuck with this 'rule' since about the time of my first GAR (I think), where an experienced reviewer suggested it. With that said, I won't lose any sleep if this change is made. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I've made the change as suggested by Iazyges - can always be discussed further at FAC if need be. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conference has been described as a "flanking move" by Kavvadias to diminish the influence of the Archaeological Society (of which he was secretary) suggest removing (of which he was secretary) given that this was just established two paragraphs ago.
  • He was elected as a professor of the University of Athens on 11 February 1904, alongside Christos Tsountas, by a vote of seventeen to two. a vote by who? The board? Suggest He was elected as a professor of the University of Athens on 11 February 1904, alongside Christos Tsountas, by a vote of the board/entity, of seventeen to two.
Dismissal, exile and return (1909–1928)[edit]
  • Another source of opposition within Greece was Kavvadias' support of the foreign schools of archaeology suggest Another source of opposition to Kavvadias within Greece was his support of the foreign schools of archaeology
  • and giving them access to the best archaeological sites in preference to Greek archaeologists suggest removing in preference to Greek archaeologists as confusing; stating that they got the best sites should easily convey that the Greeks weren't getting them.
    • I'm not sure: if I do "my best writing" on this article, it doesn't follow that I do a hash job on another one. The problem wasn't (entirely) that the foreigners were getting good sites, it was that Greeks weren't (at least, according to the critics: the foreign schools disagreed, of course). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The historian Frederick Whitling has suggested that the article was written at the instigation of the archaeologist and numismatist Ioannis Svoronos, whom Kavvadias had dismissed in 1887 from his post at the Numismatic Museum of Athens following the 1887 robbery. Svoronos, however, denied any involvement and expressed his support for the foreign schools. a timeline of these events would be very useful. Given the number of historians and other adjacent fields involved, it's not exactly clear that Whitling is not contemporary to the events. As written, it seems as if Whitling might have leveled the accusation in 1909, rather than discussing the matter more than a century later in 2019, or else that Svoronos denied the allegation later, rather than at the time. It seems to me that Whitling discussed it in 2019, but Svoronos did deny it at the time, suggesting someone was discussing it back then, for him to feel the need to deny it. Perhaps The historian Frederick Whitling suggested in his 2019 work that the article was written at the instigation of the archaeologist and numismatist Ioannis Svoronos, whom Kavvadias had dismissed in 1887 from his post at the Numismatic Museum of Athens following the 1887 robbery. Svoronos, however, denied any involvement at the time and expressed his support for the foreign schools. If possible, I would discuss what happened back in 1909 such that Sovronos felt the need to deny it; such as that rumors existed that he was the one at the time, or whatever the situation might be. I would also include a brief mention of how he denied it, if possible; did he just let people know in person that he wasn't behind it, did he write a paper to the effect, contact the news, etc. I cannot access this source, so I can't advise the best way to write this, if it is indeed possible.
    • This is really badly documented - I've been able to find a bit more material here, which has also necessitated moving around some of the stuff on Svoronos, who is now a bigger character in the article (which is all the crazier for it...). Definitely grateful for another pair of eyes here, as the narrative is starting to get complicated. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify a little what you mean by 'a timeline would be useful'? I've tried to be as clear as possible (on which see above) on the dates and relative chronology. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant the time periods that Whitling and Svoronos are from should be cleary indicated; that Svoronos denied it contemporarily while Whitling is speaking a century later. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha: with the last rework, I think that problem's now solved (or at least, replaced with a new problem...) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before the end of 1909, Kavvadias was removed from his post as Ephor General and lost his position as Secretary of the Archaeological Society, followed, in 1910, by his professorship at the University of Athens mayhaps some expansion here: Before the end of 1909, Kavvadias was removed from his post as Ephor General by [X] (presumably the ministry of culture?) and lost his position as Secretary of the Archaeological Society by means of [x] (presumably after being voted out by the council?), followed, in 1910, by his professorship at the University of Athens when he was removed (by the board?)
    • If only we knew! See above on the general lack of documentation of this phase of Kavvadias' life (or, to be frank, the inner workings of the Greek archaeological establishment in all eras): we've got quite a lot of HQRS on this fact, but most treat it in the same way, and use the passive voice. I've expanded a bit, having found more useful material in Petrakos: we know that he resigned as secretary, asking to do so "for a while", but this was definitely a matter of jumping rather than being pushed. The mechanics of the Ephor General removal are obscure, but given that he was (literally) marched out of the country, I think the gist is clear enough! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administration and legislation[edit]
  • It seems odd that criticisms of him are excluded from this section; a brief discussion that his centralization was deemed autocratic by some should be included here, for sake of avoiding POV, I think.
Personal life and honours[edit]
  • corresponding member should be defined at some point, I think.
    • I've WL'd it: could bracket (one who lives abroad and does not have voting rights), but I think the long explanation is clunky and not all that relevant in context. Anyone really interested can mouse over the link. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Explanatory notes[edit]
  • Bosanquet gives the date as 1 May 1851 Anyone clicking on this while reading will known who Bonsanquet is; perhaps The acheologist Robert Carr Bosanquet gives the date as 1 May 1851 Also, perhaps a stretch, is it known why he disputes the regular date? If the two were friends or otherwise close enough that he might have revealed that his official birthdate is wrong (presumably from government documents?) then this should be included if possible. It might also just be a mistake on his end, however.
    • I'm certain it's a simple mistake - with the caveat that I don't think Kavvadias' birthdate is actually very secure: we have no idea when Stamatakis (his predecessor) was born, and un-wikipedia-proof OR suggests that the 1850 date is simply what Kavvadias - who probably didn't know either - filled in when he arrived in Munich. I don't think the two had any real connection: Bosanquet was involved in collecting money for Kavvadias after his deposition, but that seems to have been more a matter of principle than personal connection. Slightly expanded with "in his obituary of K," UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • James Whitley credits these remarks to Beazley's "scholarly personality", rather than Ashmole's. Ashmole is never once mentioned in the article, only in the Bibliography, so a short explanation of who he is and his relationship to Beazley would be useful.
    • Added "his co-author": it's not particularly important, except inasfar as the citation has both of their names on it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You will want to ensure all footnotes are cited if you hope to take this to FAC.
Final comments[edit]
  • Throughout the article are a lot of technical terms that laymen might not know, such as tholos, stelae, abaton, etc.; I would recommend a short explanatory gloss for each of them at the first mention. The same goes for locations. In general, I would suggest a short gloss for all the ancient locations linked, and italicized locations/objects, at their first mention; such as beginning near the Propylaia (ceremonial gate of the Acropolis),, which can do a lot to make it more understandable to a layman.
    • Done to a large extent: see quibbles above. I'm sure I've missed some that will be useful, and will add those in. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @UndercoverClassicist: That's all I've got. Very fine work so far; I think with the issue above fixed, it should not struggle overmuch at FAC. Likely some issues with MOS will be raised and prose improved, but there's nothing in a fixed article would preclude promotion, I think. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges:, @Modussiccandi:, @Gerda Arendt: — I think I've managed to make a reply and/or edit in response to all the points made here — thank you very much for all your efforts and help. Inevitably, the article is now substantially different (and, at least in my opinion, rather a lot better) than it was when this review started. There's no great rush here, but I'd suggest that the next step would seem to be giving FAC a go, unless you can see any major problems that remain or that I've managed to introduce? 10:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to you closing the peer review and moving on to FAC, where the article will see some further changes, I'm sure. One more thing: when I last looked at the article, there was a cite error in fn 117, which you may want to fix. Feel free to notify me when the candidacy starts.Modussiccandi (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC) For some reason, your ping didn't work again. Maybe the problem is on my end...[reply]
I think it's on mine: I misspelt your name first ('method of thus-ing'), and then edited.
Thanks for the spot: I managed to introduce that one this morning! Fixed now. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all once again; I've closed this review to start FAC. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Panagiotis_Kavvadias/archive1&oldid=1143920893"