Lead
- from the
Bronze Age — Not in main article.
- Are there any sources that discuss his style of restoration against the norms of the day? While he's criticized now, I imagine his approach was much more acceptable then.
- Somewhat -- after all, very influential people kept commissioning him, which shows us that his style was not only tolerated but positively valued. One could make a
WP:SYNTHy link to the contemporary-ish restoration of buildings, such as the Parthenon and the Temple of Athena Nike, or indeed the Palace of Knossos, where imaginative reconstruction was very much in vogue for most of the C19th. However, that's increasingly less true towards G's period. The comments from Waugh about how G's work owed more to Vogue than to the Bronze Age are widely repeated in the sources and show that at least some people had issues with his philosopher.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- He was also likely involved in the illegal export of
forged antiquities from Greece — The term "illegal export" of antiquities would normally evoke the export of real (e.g., looted) antiquities, not forged ones. Was there any suggestion that he was illegally exporting real antiquities also?
- No, but exporting forged antiquities (while passing them off as genuine ones) was illegal, and I think it's important to be absolutely transparent that we're (via our sources) accusing him of criminal activity here.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
Infobox
- I'm not sure you need the fils designation here.
- I think it helps: not all readers will automatically know that fils means son, and the younger G. is generally named with that epithet: when his article is eventually written, it'll almost certainly be titled "Emile Gilleron fils". Compare
Alexandre Dumas fils.
- Were the patrons really his patrons, rather than employers?
- A little bit of a philosophical question, but the Gillerons ran their own business and carried on doing so while working for e.g. Schliemann and Evans, so I think "patrons" is appropriate here (in the same way that we talk about painters having "patrons" in the Renaissance, even when those patrons insisted that the artist live with them and generally attaches themself to their court). Certainly, when we're talking about e.g. the DAI, employers is far less accurate than patrons or indeed customers.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
Early life and career
- MacGillivray gives his first names as "Émile Victor". — Who is MacGillivray? He hasn't been introduced yet. Also, "Émile Victor" instead of "Louis Émile", meaning MacGillivray doesn't think "Louis" is one of his names? Why the difference?
- Why the difference -- I have no idea, unfortunately. As we're in a footnote, I don't think we need to or should introduce MacGillivray (he's introduced on first body text mention, and most readers don't read the footnotes until getting to the end of the text): after all, we don't have a problem simply writing "MacGillivray 2013" or similar in the references.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C 12:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- He attended the
Gymnasium in Villeneuve Villeneuve — Timeframe?
- What did he study at the trade school?
- Likewise; one assumes art, draughtsmanship or something similar, but not explicitly stated in sources (I think I've managed to consult pretty much all of those that exist -- he's generally documented in sources about other things and other people, particularly Schliemann and Evans).
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- He quickly gained ... until his death in 1890. — Run-on sentence.
- This section could perhaps be broken up with a sub-section or two. Just a thought.
- Personally, I think it's borderline: I can't see a great place to split it -- we could cut before he really gets established as an artist, but because that early period is pretty murky, we'd have to do so after the first paragraph. Really, we want to cut after the third paragraph or so, but I can't really see a clear content watershed that would justify doing so.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
12:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- His fees were accordingly high. — But you've just said that he was in demand because the alternative (photography) was expensive.
- I don't see a contradiction; presumably, Gilleron's watercolours etc were expensive, but the photographers were either more expensive, or equally expensive with other tradeoffs. Train travel is expensive, which pushes up the price of petrol, making driving expensive. However, I don't think we have enough in the sources to be more specific.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
12:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- he was hired by the architect and art critic
Russell Sturgis to make photographs — He was a photographer too?
- twenty-six of which — The photographs/watercolours, or the sculptures? I think the former, but it's a bit unclear.
- Schliemann's volume publishing the results of his excavations — Why not add this to the bibliography, with a cite to it, so people can click over to see the frontispiece?
- He designed commemorative postage stamps for the first modern
Olympic Games, which took place in 1896. — I was originally going to suggest adding one of these as an image, although
upon viewing them, perhaps not. More broadly, however, you might consider adding a few more images to the text. Each section currently has five (mostly lengthy) paragraphs of text, and zero or one image.
- The accuracy of their moulds was vouched for by the archaeologist
Paul Wolters, director from 1908 of the
Glyptothek museum in Munich, who wrote the company's catalogue in German, French and English. — This sentence seems to hide the ball a bit. It starts off sounding as if a third-party expert is verifying the company's works, and then reveals that he's not a third party at all. Suggest rewording along the lines of "Writing the company's catalogue, in German, French and English, the archaeologist ...".
- approximately equivalent to £1500 in 201 — Is there a reason the {{
inflation}} template does work for this?
- From memory, I think it was because the currency is Reichsmarks, and so inflating it isn't straightforward given that Germany now uses the Euro. There may be a good way to do it, however.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- "Currency conversion" addresses this on the {{
inflation}} page. It's far from the most user-friendly explanation, however; I eventually gave up. You might take a look, or pose a question on the talk page. (Though this nomination will not hinge on you doing so.) --
Usernameunique (
talk)
09:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Looking at the explanation, it seems that you need to do the sums manually, using some sort of conversion constant. Sadly, the German currency circa 1918 was... not exactly known for its stability. I think this is a rare case when using a secondary source's estimate of the equivalence is safer than doing our own sums, given that we could pick any number of conversion rates which would wildly affect the outcome, and we've got two here which directly pull the number into modern currency.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
23:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
Knossos and later career
- the
Minoan ruins ... of the site of
Knossos on
Crete — Is "ruins of the site" correct?
- Yes -- the site, Knossos, was once populated and generally in good nick, but was by then in ruins.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I was more thinking of the phrasing. Why not just "ruins of Knossos"? --
Usernameunique (
talk)
09:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Ah, I see now -- rephrasing makes it awkward to get both Bronze-Age and Minoan into the description (we could do "Bronze-Age, Minoan ruins", I suppose, but that's pretty ugly: without the comma, it's a bit sloppy as to what "Bronze-Age" modifies). I see the concision argument but I can't think of a great way to satisfy it without making other, worse tradeoffs; suggestions welcome, as always.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
10:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Gilliéron "began immediately to sort the fresco fragments like jigsaw puzzles" upon his arrival at Knossos. — This is the first you mentioned of him heading to Knossos. Why did he go there/who invited him?
- In this article, this date and all subsequent dates are given in the 'New Style' Gregorian calendar, while dates before it are given in the 'Old Style'
Julian calendar. — I'm probably just missing this, but why are you (a) converting the dates in the article, and then (b) dropping a footnote saying that you're using one date or the other depending on the context?
- When Greece was using the Julian calendar, we give both dates for events in Greece to avoid confusion -- sources aren't always good at specifying which one they're using (especially, for example, when someone leaves somewhere like Britain on one date and arrives in Greece on another). I've removed the footnote; it's a boilerplate I've used in a lot of articles which have this problem, but as there's only one OS date in this one, I don't see a real need for it.
- "bask in the radiance of Evans's success ... [and] ensure his own "fame and fortune". — Quotation marks are off. Also, is there a reason for the somewhat egotistical-sounding assessment?
- Quote marks now fixed. Evans was a very big deal -- the discovery at Knossos was a worldwide sensation and Evans was probably just about the most powerful man in (at least) British archaeology, as well as one of very few archaeologists who would have been household names. On the other hand, there's certainly an element of ego in that judgement: if MacGillivray is right, it does a lot to explain what made G. "tick" and what sort of man he was.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- They offered versions — Who is "they"?
- Most of the colons should be semicolons. I've fixed these as I've gone, but something to keep in mind going forward.
- Somewhat a matter of taste, I think (specifically, as to how far the second clause follows from/explains the first), but I've no issue with the amendments you've made.
- What was Gilliéron doing at
Volos?
- Presumably working for whoever was excavating some nearby site (Volos has a big museum and is close to a number of famous Neolithic sites), but the sources are silent here. They only barely record that he was even there at all.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Gilliéron et fils ('Gilliéron and Son') — If you're going to translate fils, you should translate it when it first appears.
- I don't think that follows; here we're translating the name of the company, not simply the word. We don't routinely translate e.g. "Sandra Jones, née Smith", "M. Hercule Poirot", or similar common French terms that are dropped onto people's names.
- How did they make the reproductions? Individually? Via some form of en masse production?
- has been credited — By whom?
- Is the final paragraph best suited here, in "Assessment", or in a short standalone section? It kind of comes out of nowhere.
- Hm; it's about what he did in his career, particularly his later career, particularly at Knossos. I don't think it therefore belongs in "Assessment", which is about the quality/importance of what he did: we're still narrating his life rather than evaluating it, really. I don't think a one-paragraph section would be right, either, so on balance I think it's currently in the least bad place for it.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- It may be about what he did, but the chronology is unclear; we start in 1923 before moving back to 1906(?) with
Grave Circle A, and then up to 1914. All the while, it's unclear whether his (reputed) forgeries spanned his entire career, or just a part. Meanwhile, you say it's distinct from "Assessment", yet the lead mentions his forgeries at the end of the assessment-related paragraph, and they share a nexus in that both topics concern what people say about him. Were it me, I would probably make it a subsection of "Assessment", or perhaps of "Knossos and later career". --
Usernameunique (
talk)
10:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I think you're right. I've done something here; see what you think. The material in that paragraph is ordered thematically rather than chronologically (that is, the most serious charge first, with the evidence for it, then the lighter charges of being somehow involved in shady stuff, with the only really concrete thing that can be pinned on G. père). The question as to when G. began his illicit work is a valuable one, but I'm not sure we really have an answer to it yet (I could simply give you the earliest date for which I've found an accusation, but that's not really the same thing, and would be OR anyway). It's worth saying that G. fils was absolutely a forger and has been well documented as such; some sources mistakenly accuse the father of forging items which were definitely forgeries done by the son.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
23:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I like what you've done. There could probably be further refinement; for instance, some of "Influence of Gilliéron's work" seems like it might fit better in "Criticism", and given how you've added subsections, there seems to be a more compelling case to create an "Allegations of forgery" (or similar) subsection. But I'll leave it up to your discretion as to how to handle (with the caveat that if you would like another set of eyes, now or later, please feel free to ask). --
Usernameunique (
talk)
00:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Agreed; I've gone with "criminality", as most of the stickiest charges are about selling fake antiquities rather than making them (though he certainly was and is accused of that).
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
08:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
Assessment
- Assuming the list in the second paragraph is non-exhaustive, I would say something along the lines of "acquired by institutions including London's..."
References
- #8 — You can provide a translation of the title with the parameter "trans-title = " Also, there are two periods in this reference.
- #46, #51, #52, #53 — Ditto.
Bibliography
- Palmer 1969 — Same comment about ISBN-10/13. Also, does this have an ISBN at all, coming in 1969? Is it an SBN?
- Papadoupoulos 2005 —
This is online and should have a link.
- A number of the journals and publishers can be linked.
- MacGillivray 2000 — I don't think you need the parenthetical. This would also be helped by linking
Hill & Wang, which would convey the same information (since the Hill & Wang article states that "It is a division of
Farrar, Straus and Giroux.").
- I've removed the parenthetical. I'm not keen to link publishers: we often don't have articles for them, so making links ends up with what looks like a lot of blue text splashed inconsistently around the bibliography. Being consistent and creating an equal sea of redlinks seems like an even worse solution. There's plenty of other publishers which are subdivisions of each other, so I don't think much is lost here.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
07:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Conte 2009 — Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter.
- Mertens 2019 — Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter.
- Karo 1930–1933: "lang = " parameter missing.
- Now there.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Speaking of Karo, the OCLC is handy for helping find a library with the source, but, if I were an interested reader trying to find it, I'd really just rather a
link. --
Usernameunique (
talk)
11:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Incidentally, I had been vaguely wondering what accounted for the four-year span of the work; now I see it's because there are two volumes. I usually list each volume separately (see the Thunmark-Nylén works at
Lokrume helmet fragment). It's a matter of personal preference, however, especially here when you are citing the publication as a whole, not specific pages/plates. --
Usernameunique (
talk)
11:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Added the link. Honestly, I normally would as well -- two seconds ago, I'd have changed it, but as we've now got a single link that covers the whole work as a single unit, I think the current format is probably the right one.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
11:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Mitsopoulou & Polychronopoulou 2019 — Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter. And why does this have a retreival date?
- Books and other printed matter don't need retrieval dates. Those are helpful for websites, which are dynamic, but if you're dealing with a book, it doesn't matter whether you accessed it in 1875, 1913, 1989, 2014, or yesterday—the book will be the same no matter what. Not something to hold up a review over, but it's worth considering taking them out.
-
Usernameunique (
talk)
04:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- No major disagreement there, but it does make the template unhappy when you include the url= field but not the access-date= one.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
08:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Not a big deal by any measure, but does the {{
cite book}} template give you grief when you have a URL but no access date? I haven't seen that before. (Some of the templates do want an access date when an archived link is added, even if the archived link is to a book or newspaper—for the reasons you describe, I've largely given up on fighting back in those cases.) --
Usernameunique (
talk)
11:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Funnily enough, I mistakenly did this in another article, so I'm no longer sure it's true for regular urls (though it really doesn't like archive-url without url, or archive-url without archive-date). I'm not sure I see a problem with having the access date. It does have marginal value if the link eventually dies, to help speed up the process of finding a useful archived version, and it's theoretically possible that the publisher would upload a new version of the PDF, perhaps of a second edition (especially if the URL's source is doing things less formally than the database of a major publisher: a lot of smaller operations might simply upload a new version of the file under the old filename). However, no disagreement that it's generally going to do very little.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
11:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Myres 1901 — This is PD, so should have a PD link, not just a pay-walled link. (Like others, it may be on archive.org.)
- A PD link can be found
here... --
Usernameunique (
talk)
11:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Added, with thanks.
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
16:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
|