Talk:Kato Phournos tholos
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Kato Phournos tholos 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: May 17, 2026. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Kato Phournos tholos/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 05:52, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: A.Cython (talk · contribs) 01:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
I will review this if the nominator does not object. For anyone's information, I recently reviewed one of the nominator's articles, but since I got access to the sources I could not resist the temptation to review this one as well. A.Cython(talk) 01:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading this article about the burial places and culture of ancient Greece. Overall, the article is well-written and sourced. The article is on the smaller size mainly because there is not much to be said beyond what already in the article. I only have some minor and easily fixable comments, which I present below.A.Cython(talk) 04:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Various
- No edit war
- Neutral
- Focused and broad enough
- No copyright issues, Earwig's Copyvio Detector gives 3.8%
- Figures have appropriate licences and relevant captions
Prose and MoS
- period (that is, remove "that is," as it is not needed
- terracotta needs wikilink (one time in the lead and one more in the main body)
- Lime kiln needs a wikilink, and perhaps remove the dash
- [optional] I think you should introduce each character by their job/specialty, especially if not all of them are archaeologists. There was a discussion in FA. At very least do this for "Carla Antonaccio" since her name does not have a wikilink. For the others a reader can go their page, not ideal, but I understand the argument of avoiding repetition.
- antiquary or antiquarian? The former sounds archaic and perhaps not suitable for WP audience. I think "by antiquarian William Gell" sounds more natural for modern english speakers
- to the historical period this appears to end abruptly and it is a bit confusing, I had to reread several times to understand what you may wanted to say. Perhaps adding that Wace did not specify what he meant by "historical period" or something similar.
- phi-type does it need a dash? The source by Antonaccio does not use it nor it is used in most of WP article either. I am not sure about so please choose and provide a rational for posterity.
- Hi A.Cython -- thanks for taking this on, and so soon after a very similar article. I've changed the sentence on the "historical period", to one that I think should be clearer. On the others, they're either correct as written (see MOS:HYPHEN, specifically the bit about compound modifiers, on the dash) or outside the GA criteria -- which, for example, say nothing about links. In the specific examples you've raised, I think the links would probably be WP:OVERLINK. On the introduction of people, we discussed this at the last nomination: if you read the discussion at WT:FAC that you linked, you'll see there's no clear consensus that people should always be introduced, and that avoiding repetition is very low down the list of reasons why it's often not desirable. At any rate, what's needed for a Featured Article has no bearing on what's needed for GA status. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Apologies UndercoverClassicist, my comments were meant to improve the article for the benefit of the reader, irrespective of scale. There are many editors who treat GA as a mini FA, my understanding it is not. Nevertheless, I am not a great editor or reviewer, but I open the books and try help/improve. I provide recommendations irrespective of scale, now you (and anyone else) take them or leave them. For example, I do not agree that "terracotta" and "Lime kiln" are common words for WP:OVERLINK to apply. Also, "that is" in the parenthesis reads as awkward, it does not matter if it is GA or FA, it is awkward. But whatever, this is not a western standoff (as unfortunately I recently experienced). The article overall is in good shape for GA for what my opinion is worth.
- Hi A.Cython -- thanks for taking this on, and so soon after a very similar article. I've changed the sentence on the "historical period", to one that I think should be clearer. On the others, they're either correct as written (see MOS:HYPHEN, specifically the bit about compound modifiers, on the dash) or outside the GA criteria -- which, for example, say nothing about links. In the specific examples you've raised, I think the links would probably be WP:OVERLINK. On the introduction of people, we discussed this at the last nomination: if you read the discussion at WT:FAC that you linked, you'll see there's no clear consensus that people should always be introduced, and that avoiding repetition is very low down the list of reasons why it's often not desirable. At any rate, what's needed for a Featured Article has no bearing on what's needed for GA status. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Sources
Spot check: 4 (Mee), 6 (Mee), 15, 20, 23 (Antonaccio)
Final comments
The article did not need much to achieve its GA for it was already there. My comments meant to elevate the article further. Congratulations to UndercoverClassicist for bringing these articles to GA family. Well done!
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.