Talk:Satala Aphrodite/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 09:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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've improved the section as you suggested. I haven't seen any summary sources, but the modern consensus seems to be 2nd-1st centuries BC. ----Երևանցի ^talk 12:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have very similar issues with §Subject.

A few other miscellaneous observations:

As there are two existing well-developed sections on the reception of the sculpture, I'm not sure what the point of a tiny "in popular culture" section is; especially since I would not consider any of the three included examples popular culture!

Fixed. I've moved the content of that section into the sections on reception. ----Երևանցի ^talk 12:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame the lead image isn't great, but there's nothing better on Commons; unfortunately gallery 22 in the British Museum is currently closed but when it reopens I can try to get a better image.

That'd be great! ----Երևանցի ^talk 12:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see some weird framing of some aspects of the article, e.g. "An investigation in 1874 by Alfred Biliotti, the British vice-counsul in Trabzon, concluded that the head was found by...". If the facts here are not in doubt, then why not just "The head was found by..."; if there is doubt, then we should explicitly say so.

They don't seem to be in doubt, just wanted to indicate the source. I've rephrased that sentence. ----Երևանցի ^talk 12:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of very dated sources are used. These generally are used for the opinion expressed in that source, for which they are reliable, but I do wonder if they are always relevant. For instance, if there is no secondary source for "Engelmann's article was translated into Armenian in 1883", is it important enough for us to include in the article?

Important only in the sense that there was immediate interest in Armenian scholarly circles toward the artefact. I've turned the sentence into a reference, which seems more apporpiate. ----Երևանցի ^talk 12:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The lead seems a little short here. Could a little more be said about the sculpure's reception: that gets two whole sections!

Done. ----Երևանցի ^talk 16:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"where it was registered on August 20." This seems like a plausible inference from the museum registration number, but unless there is a source explicitly supporting this claim I think the exact date is probably both original research and not relevant here. Modern registration numbers certainly aren't dates; I can't find an example from the 19th century which definitively wasn't but this isn't an inference I would want to rely on

Agreed. I've removed the dates since I couldn't locate them in secondary sources. ----Երևանցի ^talk 16:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The bronze is 2–3 mm (0.079–0.118 in)" is this degree of precision in the conversion useful?

Fixed. ----Երևանցի ^talk 16:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'The subject is in a "pensive mood."' this is an opinion that should be attributed

Fixed. ----Երևանցի ^talk 16:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Finally getting round to finishing this. Spotchecked five references and found no issues, so I'm happy to pass this now. Congratulations! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]