User talk:UndercoverClassicist

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

@UndercoverClassicist,

I have been addressed to you by Gerda Arendt . She kindly suggested your name, because I wish to edit the article on Aristophanes, but it is my first contribution to Wikipedia, after a long time. I would start to review and edit the Aristophanes Biography, and I kindly ask if you are available to review my draft before I publish it. With Kind Regards HeracleonGelensis. Thank you. HeracleonGelensis (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely -- send me a link when it's ready and I'll have a look. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed.I will proceed. --HeracleonGelensis. HeracleonGelensis (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

Dear UndercoverClassicist, here is the link to my sandbox. I have completed to edit the Biography of Aristophanes. Please review it and tell me your opinion about it. Thanks in advance and Kind Regards --HeracleonGelensis

User:HeracleonGelensis/sandbox HeracleonGelensis (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK - a few thoughts as I give it a first read:

• The structure could be refined to make it easier on the reader. In general, try to make paragraphs consist of 3–6 sentences or so, and sections consist of around 3–5 paragraphs. We have a lot of material in a single big section: can you add some subsections to break it up and create structure?
• Equally, try to make sure that a paragraph expresses a single idea -- if you're going to carry on talking about the plot of a play, for example, you generally want to stay in the same paragraph, unless you can find a way of changing the focus for a new one.
• Primary sources, such as Aristophanes' works, are not generally considered usable for most of what we want to do. Presumably, you found most of these references in other scholarly works, so cite those directly -- there's nothing wrong with then including the primary reference as well to allow interested readers to follow it up.
• Formatting: citations go after the punction, in general, like this.^[1]. See MOS:CITE for details. The formatting of the footnotes is quite inconsistent -- using citation templates would help here.
• Images need captions and alt text. Given the quantity of material here, it would be good to find a few more.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

Thank you very much for your suggestions: they are very precious indeed. I will start review the text taking into account the good points that you reported to me. I will need some days; then, when I am done, I will write to you back. Thanks, in the meantime, for your kind help --HeracleonGelensis 151.38.159.182 (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

Dear Mentor, Thanks indeed for your insightful proposals. I have made a 2nd revision of the draft of Aristophanes, Biography. You can find the revised text at User:HeracleonGelensis/sandbox.

I have divided the text in sections, as you stated well; added illustrations; amended citations, finding other more recent comments to Ar. works. I have not gone into much details of the surviving plays, because there are other sections of the article "Aristophanes" to be worked on. Indeed, I was afraid that the whole article would become too long; moreover, there are several separate articles on the surviving plays (Acharnians, Frogs. Clouds etc:): I preferred to give a complete but not over-detailed biography of the poet. Please, let me have your comments, at your earliest convenience. Kind Regards --HeracleonGelensis. HeracleonGelensis (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting much better -- still a few things to look at on formatting, particularly of subheadings and references. I would also try to make those subheadings as concise as possible -- it's unusual to use a subheading longer than five words. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

Dear Mentor, Thanks for your useful advices. I have revised the text according to them. The revision of subheading has made the system generate the Biography index by itself. I have also reviewed and grouped the citations as much as possible. Please tell me if the overall configuration needs an upgrade or it is ready to be published, in your opinion. Last, but not least, I have inserted several pictures, that I have made on my own, instructing Dall.E: when I uploaded then, the WIkipedia system accepted them. I would ask if you find appropriate that I add "made with AI assistance" in the picture description, or if it is immaterial. Thank you. --HeracleonGelensis

Here is the link to the revised draft. User:HeracleonGelensis/sandbox HeracleonGelensis (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI images are likely to be controversial, put mildly -- there is limited consensus on them at the moment, but in previous reviews, the general view has been that they should not be used when good images of real objects exist. In this case, there are plenty of artefacts, vase paintings, ancient sites and so on that can illustrate the article, so I would advise against including AI-generated images at all.

As for the substance of the section, it looks pretty good. A good proof-read, for formatting, MoS compliance and natural English, would benefit it greatly: I'm happy to volunteer to do that, but as it would involve making more than trivial changes I would want to do so once you're happy that you've done most of what you wish to with it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

Thanks again for your precious suggestions. I will do as you told me: either for the images and for the proof-read. I will try to improve the text by some attempts of mine first; then, when I am done, I will leave it to your final revision, if you agree. Thanks, in the meantime --HeracleonGelensis HeracleonGelensis (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

I have completed the 3rd review according to your suggestions (MoS and natural English) as much as possible; I have also modified the titles of Aristophanes' works, deleting "The" as it is incorrect (in Greek they do not have article, nor the scholars use "The" in translation: therefore, "Clouds", not "The Clouds"). I have completely revised the citations, grouping and simplifying and now.. I wait for your opinion. Thank you. --HeracleonGelensis. The link to the draft is User:HeracleonGelensis/sandbox HeracleonGelensis (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I'll give it a look. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, two things to look at, one easier to fix than the other:

• Don't use punctuation or bold font in titles -- they should simply be e.g. ==Early years==.
• Much of the draft is uncited, which will pose a problem. Each sentence needs at least one citation to a reliable work of scholarship. If two sentences use exactly the same work and page, you can save the citation until the end of the second one, but there always needs to be a citation no later than the end of the paragraph (see WP:CITE for detail).

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

Thank you very much indeed: instructions are very clear! I will proceed as per your suggestions; then, I will revert to you by the end of September. Kind regards. HeracleonGelensis (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

I have made the requested amendments. In the case of sub-titles I have kept parentheses for the sake of clarity. As regards the citations, I have enriched the citations of sources as much as possible: please tell me if now the draft is acceptable. If not, please specify which sub-paragraph needs more citations. Thanks for your help until now HeracleonGelensis (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

I apologise: this is the link to my draft User:HeracleonGelensis/sandbox. Thank you HeracleonGelensis (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

21/10 Dear mentor, I have written to you that I have amended my draft, but I have not received any reply from you until now. Is there anything I can do? Any problem with my draft? Please reply me when you have time. Here is the link User:HeracleonGelensis/sandbox. . Kind Regards. HeracleonGelensis (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise -- I meant to drop you this comment when I first read the latest version. In essence, it's certainly going the right way. I'd suggest building it into the article (you will, I think, be able to make good use of some elements of what is already there), and perhaps then running the finished product past the Guild of Copyeditors. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist

Thank you very much for your insightful comment and suggestion: I will follow it. Kind regards. HeracleonGelensis (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally nominated the article. Please take a look if you can: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Christianity/archive1. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's me again. Just call me a glutton for punishment, but I would like to ask you look over History of Christianity again since changes have been made. The article needs to be among WP's best because of its importance, and it has been a lot for one person. If you could find the time to help, it would be wonderful. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you're working hard on it: honestly, I think the essence of my comments at FAC still stand, though a lot of the points of detail are now changed. The article still has a long way to go to bring it into the (extremely high) standards of FAC for prose, MoS, command of the current scholarship and neutrality. I'm sorry to be negative, but I really would reiterate the advice I and others gave you earlier in the process: I think your efforts would be much better spent on a different article, and that continuing to push this one to FAC is going to be frustrating. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with frustration. I can be criticized and ridiculed and embarrassed and whatever is necessary. This article is too important not to be FA. To me, this just means it needs input from the community. That's Wiki's strength, so coping with that is not a problem. I can take it, but I need something more than generalities.

I understand FA's standards are high. So help me reach them. Which era is your specialty? What specifically makes you think it has a "long way" to go in the areas you mention? That seems like it might be an overstatement, but I need to know.

I have an undergrad degree in religion and a year's worth of grad school. I've been writing on this topic for over thirty years. I have won awards for my writing and I read current scholarship - at least some - nearly every day. I use Grammerly to check everything I write before publishing. If I am doing something that is not MOS or neutral or current, I want to know. I need to know. But I need more not less. Be critical. Say whatever you feel the need to say. Don't worry about my frustration level. I need to know what - exactly - you see. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you to take my advice or leave it — and listening to strange people on the internet isn't always the best idea — but I've given you the advice I can, I'm afraid. Best of luck with whatever projects you choose to work on. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can offer criticism that terminates a nomination, you can do the same when it might help. Your input could be what moves the article closer to what it needs to be. Please. I'm begging. I'll owe you a favor - and I always pay back favors. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But your advice is give up. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UC, I hope you're keeping well. I enjoyed your GA review of Edward Dando so much, I was wondering if you had the time and inclination to take on another new article I've recently finished and popped up for GA: Littlehampton libels. It's another footnote to a footnote of history, but an interesting little piece of social interaction from the 1920s. No problems if you're swamped or whatever, but your reviews are always so good, it would be great if you are able to manage it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- I was going to pick this up, but then I saw that it is in the very capable hands of PMC. Do let me know if/when it arrives at FAC: I'll certainly give it a look then. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UC, It's now at FAC. If you have any time to go through it, it would be much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Linguistic Barnstar
		I should've given this to you a long time ago, but I have found the right words more difficult to find than I thought. I wanted to give my sincere thanks for your help in getting Weise's law to FA status; your guidance at GAN was indispensable to me – not just then, but now – and the fact that you continued to be involved with a page you had virtually no authorship in as it went through PR and FA is a testament to your commitment to Wikipedia as a whole and should serve as a benchmark for what editor retention aims to be. I don't think that it would be excessive to say that your involvement in the page has in large part encouraged my participation on Wikipedia and I know that without you, there would still be no historical linguistics FAs. In a word, thank you; you have taken Wikipedia from a place where I fix commas to a small home for me. ThaesOfereode (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredibly lovely -- though perhaps plays down just how impressive your own work on Weise's law has been, both in terms of the philological knowledge required and the challenges of communicating to Wikipedia audiences. I honestly think it represents the best of his place: someone with real knowledge of a topic putting in the (often thankless) work to make an article that's probably just about as good a reference as exists on the subject, and which anyone can use for free. I hope there will be many more to come. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tremendously kind, thank you; I really do feel like this is a place where my years of reading can be put to good use. And don't worry: I will be back at FAC before you know it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically for expanding the Lion of Cithaeron. I've gone through every source I could find (admittedly, not many) but it's still short. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- not my area, specifically, I'm afraid, but if you haven't already, you might want to check the "usual suspects" for classical literature and mythology -- such as:

• The Oxford Classical Dictionary
• The various Cambridge Companions (e.g. to Heracles) and Oxford Handbooks
• Brill's New Pauly

I think all of these (except the OCD, possibly) are available on the Wikipedia Library: have you tried putting "Cithaeron" (and its variant spellings) into e.g. JSTOR, Academia.edu and so on?

Alternatively, I wonder if there are any commentaries on Pausanias or the Biblioteca that might have bibliography? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's not my area either. I'll try to check those sources when I have time- but I have a sinking feeling there won't be much to find. SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello once again! I was the one who uploaded to commons the portrait of Leon Vidal. The photographer is unknown, however i know that the reporter of rizospastis was Takis Fitsos as you can see here. However, i believe that it is unlikely that Fitsos took himself the portrait. Popular Punk (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- that's interesting; thank you. An unknown photographer is relatively good for us, as it means that the photograph is PD in Greece -- though even if we "credit" Fitsos, he died in 1949, so 70 years PMA is 2019. I'll be able to use that when putting together the Fair Use Rationale for it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thats great! If you have any other questions, feel free to ping me. Popular Punk (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E library catalogue projects --Comrd Alee'u Yunuth Are'lee (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Ridgeway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King's County.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know I filled in the red link at Handmade Burnished Ware. Most of the sources that I found readily available online were from the late 1990s; go ahead and make whatever updates or changes you think necessary. Ifly6 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. I think I'll need to make some edits in the Dorian invasion article; as you identify in that article, the consensus as to where it comes from seems murky. There's a 2011 PhD here that tries to have both, and say it represents a foreign population that was already within Mycenaean society; likewise, this 2018 article by Bartłomiej Lis is ambivalent as to exactly which foreigners and what mechanism could have brought it into Mycenaean society, but (perhaps worryingly) insistent that some sort of foreign group has to be involved.

You might wish to be a little more cautious on the "Sea Peoples" -- almost nobody nowadays (perhaps except Eric Cline) thinks that these people existed in the way that they were traditionally imagined (as large, city-destroying armies of foreign invaders). Lis's framing is more typical: that there might have been a phenomenon of migration among individuals or small groups that later became blown up into the stories we have of the "Sea Peoples". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Edited some remarks there since I didn't want to imply that the "Sea Peoples" were migratory hordes^[sarcasm], just that they were non-native groups travelling in the eastern Mediterranean. Ifly6 (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are doing well! If you have a moment I'd appreciate if you could just cast a quick eye over Phryne – I've done a fair bit of work on it after reading the two(!) monographs on her published this year, and I'm wondering whether it might hold up to FA-level scrutiny? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! --Kkololo (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 28 December 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Tim riley submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week

I nominate UndercoverClassicist to be Editor of the Week for two reasons: first, for writing top-flight articles on Ancient Greek archaeology and its archaeologists – articles that sail effortlessly through Featured Article Candidacy – and secondly, for astoundingly thorough and helpful contributions to other editors' FAC pages. UC certainly puts editors through their paces at FAC good and proper but the end result is always a much improved article. I personally always value the gracious manner in which UC takes the occasional bolshie riposte. This is an editor who understands what it is to be a colleague, and one who can write FAs with clarity and elegance. UC has been on Wikipedia for less than two years; I have been here for eighteen. I doubt if I'll be around to celebrate UC's eighteenth anniversary here, but I feel the future of Wikipedia is in safe hands.

This noination was seconded by Gog the Mild, SchroCat, TechnoSquirrel69, AirshipJungleman29, Queen of Hearts and theleekycauldron

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}} 

UndercoverClassicist

Editor of the Week for the week beginning November 3, 2024

Writes top-flight articles on Ancient Greek archaeology and its archaeologists. Thorough and helpful contributions to other editors' FAC pages resulting in much improved articles. A gracious manner and understanding of collaboration who can write FAs with clarity and elegance. The future of Wikipedia is in safe hands.

Recognized for

Featured Article Candidacy assistance

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 20:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Blanche Badcock, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a poultry farmer was the first woman to compete for the Sovereign's Prize, the highest honour in British rifle shooting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Blanche Badcock. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Blanche Badcock), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you'll find that (probably) every object in the British Museum and National Gallery has been added to Wikiproject London (27k low-importance articles), likewise the Met and New York, and most religious ones to Catholicism or something. Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go figure -- but then I suppose "London" is better than "UK" (though equally I suppose that whether Rome can be considered to be "in" the Vatican to be a matter for the philosophers). If you believe Constantine, Augustus was really just an early draft for Christ, but hopefully he's not editing on here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, UndercoverClassicist! The article you nominated, Anactoria, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]