Women in classical Athens has been listed as one of the
History 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: April 15, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Women in classical Athens article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Women in classical Athens received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Women in classical Athens received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
A fact from Women in classical Athens appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 April 2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Edemick.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Just quickly looking over this Wiki entry. It seems, and as the sources show, it stems largely from Pomeroy's articles and works on women in Athens and the antiquated notion that women entirely had no contact with men.
While a lot of evidence does indicate that houses were designed largely with male/female sections, the leap that academics made in declaring that women were bound to their sections of the houses is largely rejected these days.
In On the Murder of Erasto we're told that the defendant's (unnamed) wife leaves the house in the middle of the night and returns at a later time. When questioned by her husband about this she simply states she was fetching a source of light to relight a lamp that went out, and the husband accepts this without question. Given the proposed tone of this entire wiki article this evidence, and various other sources, it would seem that this sort of behaviour would be impossible, but we have ample sources to the contrary.
I'm curious however if this article is worth saving. As the warning indicates it reads largely as an essay piece, and not an actual wiki entry. Can any higher ups determine if this article is worth saving and investing time into, or should it just be partially folded perchance into a larger article (perhaps History of Athens?) or just removed all together. I'm happy to put a bit of time into providing additional sources for some of the existing work, and I can flesh it out a bit more on my own, but I'd like to discuss it a bit first.
Cheers!
101.161.151.211 ( talk) 14:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Small note: that's Lysias 1, On the Murder of Eratosthenes — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 15:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the article is very old-fashioned (the works cited indicate that); recent research has radically changed the standard views in this area, as books and articles published within the last few years indicate. Perhaps until someone could produce a properly balanced article, this should be cut down significantly, and turned into a stub ready for expansion. -- 46.208.122.103 ( talk) 17:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I've done quite a lot of work with this article over the past month, and I think it's much better than it was. I haven't yet done much on the prostitution section, though, and I think that still needs a bit of work, so I'm going to put some of the problems I see with it up here in case anyone wants to a) defend it, or b) fix some of them.
Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 13:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I am a student planning to edit this page in the next couple of weeks. I've noticed that there have been a lot of edits recently, so I wanted to make sure that our edits didn't overlap. I plan to edit the introductory paragraph to clarify what the article is about, the Family Life section, and the Economic Activities section. Additionally, I plan to add links to the See Also section and create an External Links section, while just generally cleaning up the article. I will review the edits Caeciliusinhorto already made. Thanks, Edemick ( talk) 17:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: LT910001 ( talk · contribs) 21:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I will take this review. I am sorry for how long you've had to wait. I've reviewed 60+ other articles, including some long and complex ones, and will review this article against the 6
good article criteria. I'll read over this article and have a think, then start the review in 2-3 days. --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 21:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Very | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Well focused | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
Comments:
All in all, a thoroughly interesting and well-written article that meets the good article criteria! The comments above are small and don't impact on the high quality of this article, which I am passing. Well done! Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Addit: this article is very well researched and I think it would have a good chance of also passing a featured article nomination. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
We do realize both figures in the last image in the article are male, yes? Johnbod ( talk) 19:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Per MOS:CAPS, "classical Athens" is not a proper name ("classical" is an adjective modifying "Athens") so I don't think "classical" should be capitalized. Excessive capitalization interrupts the prose flow. Thoughts? Mini apolis 14:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Women in classical Athens has been listed as one of the
History 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: April 15, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Women in classical Athens article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Women in classical Athens received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Women in classical Athens received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
A fact from Women in classical Athens appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 April 2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Edemick.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Just quickly looking over this Wiki entry. It seems, and as the sources show, it stems largely from Pomeroy's articles and works on women in Athens and the antiquated notion that women entirely had no contact with men.
While a lot of evidence does indicate that houses were designed largely with male/female sections, the leap that academics made in declaring that women were bound to their sections of the houses is largely rejected these days.
In On the Murder of Erasto we're told that the defendant's (unnamed) wife leaves the house in the middle of the night and returns at a later time. When questioned by her husband about this she simply states she was fetching a source of light to relight a lamp that went out, and the husband accepts this without question. Given the proposed tone of this entire wiki article this evidence, and various other sources, it would seem that this sort of behaviour would be impossible, but we have ample sources to the contrary.
I'm curious however if this article is worth saving. As the warning indicates it reads largely as an essay piece, and not an actual wiki entry. Can any higher ups determine if this article is worth saving and investing time into, or should it just be partially folded perchance into a larger article (perhaps History of Athens?) or just removed all together. I'm happy to put a bit of time into providing additional sources for some of the existing work, and I can flesh it out a bit more on my own, but I'd like to discuss it a bit first.
Cheers!
101.161.151.211 ( talk) 14:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Small note: that's Lysias 1, On the Murder of Eratosthenes — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 15:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the article is very old-fashioned (the works cited indicate that); recent research has radically changed the standard views in this area, as books and articles published within the last few years indicate. Perhaps until someone could produce a properly balanced article, this should be cut down significantly, and turned into a stub ready for expansion. -- 46.208.122.103 ( talk) 17:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I've done quite a lot of work with this article over the past month, and I think it's much better than it was. I haven't yet done much on the prostitution section, though, and I think that still needs a bit of work, so I'm going to put some of the problems I see with it up here in case anyone wants to a) defend it, or b) fix some of them.
Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 13:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I am a student planning to edit this page in the next couple of weeks. I've noticed that there have been a lot of edits recently, so I wanted to make sure that our edits didn't overlap. I plan to edit the introductory paragraph to clarify what the article is about, the Family Life section, and the Economic Activities section. Additionally, I plan to add links to the See Also section and create an External Links section, while just generally cleaning up the article. I will review the edits Caeciliusinhorto already made. Thanks, Edemick ( talk) 17:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: LT910001 ( talk · contribs) 21:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I will take this review. I am sorry for how long you've had to wait. I've reviewed 60+ other articles, including some long and complex ones, and will review this article against the 6
good article criteria. I'll read over this article and have a think, then start the review in 2-3 days. --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 21:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Very | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Well focused | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
Comments:
All in all, a thoroughly interesting and well-written article that meets the good article criteria! The comments above are small and don't impact on the high quality of this article, which I am passing. Well done! Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Addit: this article is very well researched and I think it would have a good chance of also passing a featured article nomination. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
We do realize both figures in the last image in the article are male, yes? Johnbod ( talk) 19:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Per MOS:CAPS, "classical Athens" is not a proper name ("classical" is an adjective modifying "Athens") so I don't think "classical" should be capitalized. Excessive capitalization interrupts the prose flow. Thoughts? Mini apolis 14:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)