![]() | Satala Aphrodite has been listed as one of the
Art and architecture good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 28, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have doubts that this title exists outside of extremist nationalist Armenian sources that consider historic truth to be subservient to national interests. The recent opinions and actions of those extremists, and the responses given to them, needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article. "Bronze head of Aphrodite / Anahit" is how it is described by the British Museum curator Vrej Nersessian in his book "Treasures From the Ark". So Satala Aphrodite would seem to be the most appropriate title. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 19:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:See also says "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes."
The article Tiptoeblabla. It's obviously obsolete information that needs to be fixed; and it is sourced. -- 92slim ( talk) 23:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
As per usual, Tiptoe, you push your own version of events. "Anahita" is an Armenian goddess, so the reference will stay in the lede, whether you like it or not. Yes, have a go; also, valid sources shouldn't be deleted randomly. The webpage (inferior or not does NOT matter) says what it says, don't push your own research here, maybe ring the British Museum and complain, but the reference will stay. No OR, SYNTH or other BS excuses; it's verbatim as it's written there. Oh and please don't bring me the "Roman Armenia isn't Armenian" BS again, or I will personally complain again about you, something I'd rather not do as it won't make you realise the problem. -- 92slim ( talk) 23:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto ( talk · contribs) 09:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Marking a spot to review this one – I'm busy today so expect comments during the coming week.
Caeciliusinhorto (
talk)
09:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Okay, having read through this article twice now the main concern I have is that I have no idea what the scholarly consensus on anything about this sculpture is. For instance, in the section §Origin, I count no fewer than twelve different sources cited which express an opinion on when the bronze was created. The sources cited span over 120 years (at least from HB Walters in 1899 to Matthew Canepa in 2020). The most common opinion of those sources seems to be that it dates to the 2nd or 1st century BC, but the whole thing is so unsystematic that it's really hard for me to assess which of these sources are still relevant (do any modern sources really still care about Walters' opinion on this?) and what the consensus is. They're all interspersed with different sources' opinions on where the head was made. Just organising that section so those two questions are dealt with separately would make it much more comprehensible. Just quickly I would suggest a section which looks something like:
The date, location, and author of the statue are unknown and debated among scholars.
[Paragraph discussing possible date, organised so that all of the proponents of various dates are discussed together]
[Paragraph discussing place made]
[Paragraph discussing authorship]
If there are recent summary sources which explicitly say discuss the dispute and say what the scholarly consensus/range of opinions is, that would be super helpful. (In writing up this review I realised that though the article currently says that the date, location, and authorship are disputed, I only see discussion of a dispute over the date. If all three are disputed then we need to discuss the alternative viewpoints regarding all three; if there is agreement on the other points then we shouldn't say there is a dispute that does not actually exist.)
I have very similar issues with §Subject.
A few other miscellaneous observations:
Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 20:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting on with this review. In general the article is much improved; a few more specific points come to mind.
I will go over the article once more and spotcheck some more sources, but this seems to be in a pretty good position now Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 23:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Satala Aphrodite has been listed as one of the
Art and architecture good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 28, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have doubts that this title exists outside of extremist nationalist Armenian sources that consider historic truth to be subservient to national interests. The recent opinions and actions of those extremists, and the responses given to them, needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article. "Bronze head of Aphrodite / Anahit" is how it is described by the British Museum curator Vrej Nersessian in his book "Treasures From the Ark". So Satala Aphrodite would seem to be the most appropriate title. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 19:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:See also says "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes."
The article Tiptoeblabla. It's obviously obsolete information that needs to be fixed; and it is sourced. -- 92slim ( talk) 23:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
As per usual, Tiptoe, you push your own version of events. "Anahita" is an Armenian goddess, so the reference will stay in the lede, whether you like it or not. Yes, have a go; also, valid sources shouldn't be deleted randomly. The webpage (inferior or not does NOT matter) says what it says, don't push your own research here, maybe ring the British Museum and complain, but the reference will stay. No OR, SYNTH or other BS excuses; it's verbatim as it's written there. Oh and please don't bring me the "Roman Armenia isn't Armenian" BS again, or I will personally complain again about you, something I'd rather not do as it won't make you realise the problem. -- 92slim ( talk) 23:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto ( talk · contribs) 09:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Marking a spot to review this one – I'm busy today so expect comments during the coming week.
Caeciliusinhorto (
talk)
09:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Okay, having read through this article twice now the main concern I have is that I have no idea what the scholarly consensus on anything about this sculpture is. For instance, in the section §Origin, I count no fewer than twelve different sources cited which express an opinion on when the bronze was created. The sources cited span over 120 years (at least from HB Walters in 1899 to Matthew Canepa in 2020). The most common opinion of those sources seems to be that it dates to the 2nd or 1st century BC, but the whole thing is so unsystematic that it's really hard for me to assess which of these sources are still relevant (do any modern sources really still care about Walters' opinion on this?) and what the consensus is. They're all interspersed with different sources' opinions on where the head was made. Just organising that section so those two questions are dealt with separately would make it much more comprehensible. Just quickly I would suggest a section which looks something like:
The date, location, and author of the statue are unknown and debated among scholars.
[Paragraph discussing possible date, organised so that all of the proponents of various dates are discussed together]
[Paragraph discussing place made]
[Paragraph discussing authorship]
If there are recent summary sources which explicitly say discuss the dispute and say what the scholarly consensus/range of opinions is, that would be super helpful. (In writing up this review I realised that though the article currently says that the date, location, and authorship are disputed, I only see discussion of a dispute over the date. If all three are disputed then we need to discuss the alternative viewpoints regarding all three; if there is agreement on the other points then we shouldn't say there is a dispute that does not actually exist.)
I have very similar issues with §Subject.
A few other miscellaneous observations:
Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 20:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting on with this review. In general the article is much improved; a few more specific points come to mind.
I will go over the article once more and spotcheck some more sources, but this seems to be in a pretty good position now Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 23:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)