Wikipedia:Featured article review/Parthenon/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 09:32, 25 May 2007.

[edit] Parthenon

[edit] Review commentary

Emsworth nom. Messages left at Classical Greece and Rome and Architecture. Marskell 15:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Additional message at Greece. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Relies on 3 sources, and it has stub sections —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs)
• I couldn't agree more. There is nothing on the archaic proto-Parthenons, Kallikrates and Iktinos aren't referred to, the design irregularities aren't discussed, nor are the construction methods, the section on sculptural decoration needs significant expansion, and there is next to nothing on the archaeology of the site. I hope to add something soon myself, and I've suggested this page for the architecture collabortion of the month. Twospoonfuls 08:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• I recognize the article's problems, and I promise to do my best until Friday to improve its status. Unfortunately, then and for 10 days I'll be unable to work in Wikipedia. WP:GREECE has been informed.--Yannismarou 09:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Also some more detailed history of the accounts and the controversy of the Delian funds should be added, and the bibliography isn't really an adequate survey of the literature on the subject. Twospoonfuls 09:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll do my best to improve the article until Friday. Then, I will renew my efforts after May 6.--Yannismarou 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a list of some issues:
  • References (obviously) too few and what's there is not formatted properly.
  • WP:UNITS issues. A lack of non-breaking spaces in measurements, especially in the Design and construction section.
  • There's a gallery.
  • Some of the abbreviations have an s to denote plurality.
  • "The" appears in the section headers (see WP:HEAD).
  • At a quick glance I think there are also some uses of both American and British spelling. Quadzilla99 16:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Topics not adequately discussed in the article include:

• • which elements are Doric and which Ionic,
  • the variation in the metope size and the order of construction that implies,
  • the variation in the intercolumnar spacing,
  • the existence of Dorpfeld’s Parthenon II,
  • the relationship of the substructure to the Kimonian walls,
  • the relationship of the Parthenon to previous Doric temples,
  • the influence of the Parthenon on later architecture in antiquity,
  • the influence of the Parthenon on the Greek Revival movement,
  • the evidence of the Parthenon accounts,
  • the political attacks on Pericles over the Parthenon as recorded in Plutarch,
  • the cost of the Parthenon,
  • the unit of measurement used in the construction of the Parthenon,
  • the surveys of Penrose or Balanos,
  • the archaeological digs of 1835-6, 1845, 1859-60 and 1864,
  • the use of wooden scaffolding in the construction (or lack of it) and the evidence of the Persian fire on the Older Parthenon (or lack of it),
  • its representations in early art, including: Cyriacus of Ancona, Pars, Richard Dalton, Ivanovitsch.

• Other problems:
  • the use of non-peer reviewd sources, i.e. website of the Greek culture ministry, non-academic web-sites, and a coffee-table book on architecture by Norwich,
  • the tourist guide tenor of the introduction,
  • the weasel wording of the introduction (“is regarded”, “generally considered”),
  • the generic images of the Parthenon (at night, from a distance) have all the merits of excellent holiday snaps but none of the merits of illustrations – namely they are not related to the text,
  • the use of a gallery,
  • the academic literature on the Parthenon is voluminous, there are only 3 monographs on it referred to in the bibliography.

As a source of information I think the article as it stands has to be judged a failure. Twospoonfuls 10:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The article may be a "failure" as it stands now (I do not disagree with that), but it is also a failure to say that the use of "non-academic web-sites" is not allowed in the article! Of course, it is allowed if they are to report recent events or statistices, such as the number of visitors during the last years or the recent negotiations between the Greek and British ministries for the Parthenon marbles.--Yannismarou 16:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The notes I was referring to were 3, 8 and 9; in these instances authoritative opinion is being invoked and what we are given as support for this is a webpage from the Greek ministry of Culture and the personal webpage of a sculptor (though in the case of 3 it is clear if we are being referred to Hurwit or the government site). The same lack of authority attaches to that piece of hyperbole from John Julius Norwich (note 4).

Speaking of the statistics - these belong in a trivia section. If the Parthenon were a Disneyland ride the number of visitors it attracted would be notable, since it is a historical monument of world significance this fact is a banality and an irrelevance. That it is included is indicative of the trivialisation of the subject the article represents, as does mention without discussion of the Golden Section. Quite apart from not being true (see G Markowsky Misconceptions about the Golden Ratio) there is no serious architectural historian I know of who even discusses the use of phi in the construction of the Parthenon.

Lastly there are no less than 4 campaigning websites (all taking the same line) in the external links section in addition to the subject of repatriation of the Elgin marbles being mentioned twice in the article. Now I wouldn’t suggest that the subject should go unmentioned, but taken together this presents a problem of neutrality. This article badly needs the attention art and architectural historians. The FAR issues include: 1(a) not professional, 1(c) factually inaccurate, and 1(d) neutrality. Twospoonfuls 08:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), and stub sections (2). Marskell 08:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions. Which sections are stubs? What level of comprehensiveness is required? Personally, I think Twospoonfull's list of "topics not adequately addressed" above is overdoing it? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The 1982 Basel Parthenon Kongreß report was over 500 pages long, if anything my list was rather restrained. What level of comprehensiveness is required? At the very least the article should account for Kipling's six honest serving-men: what, where, when, who, how and why. Plainly it does not. Therefore, I'd suggest, there should be i) an adequate survey of the material evidence of the thing (the visible remains, archaeology, documents, epigraphy, drawings), ii) the principle theories on this evidence and iii) a bibliography of appropriate length. Oh and btw, delist, for all the reasons already given. Twospoonfuls 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunalety remove. The article does not deserve to be FA right now per 1c, 1b and 2. I am sorry I do not have time right now to work on the article. I hope somebody else can do it, and then I'll reconsider my vote. What I can promise is that, if it finally lose its star, I will soon work with all my forces on the article, and I'll bring it again to FA status.--Yannismarou 09:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed that the article isn't a proper FA at this point, and I hope to have some time to work on it. In my opinion, though, some of the suggestions for what the article should cover are excessive. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with you on both issues. Excessive demands by persons not familiar with FA requirements.--Yannismarou 11:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 12:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.