Talk:Émile Gilliéron

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GA Review

Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Émile Gilliéron/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 02:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved matters

Lead

  • from the Bronze Age — Not in main article.
    • It's essentially a summary of the first paragraph of "Assessment" -- all of those sources are clear that G's bronze age replicas are by far his most famous and influential. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is more narrow. The lead states that the Mycenaean and Minoan artifacts are from the Bronze Age, but the body doesn't also state that they're from the Bronze Age. Generally speaking, if it's in the lead, it should be repeated in the body. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a tautology: "Minoan" and "Mycenaean" are both defined as Bronze-Age civilisations (compare "medieval Carolingan" or "Early Modern Tudor"). I've added the adjective "Bronze-Age" to the description of Knossos to make it absolutely explicit. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any sources that discuss his style of restoration against the norms of the day? While he's criticized now, I imagine his approach was much more acceptable then.
    • Somewhat -- after all, very influential people kept commissioning him, which shows us that his style was not only tolerated but positively valued. One could make a
      WP:SYNTHy link to the contemporary-ish restoration of buildings, such as the Parthenon and the Temple of Athena Nike, or indeed the Palace of Knossos, where imaginative reconstruction was very much in vogue for most of the C19th. However, that's increasingly less true towards G's period. The comments from Waugh about how G's work owed more to Vogue than to the Bronze Age are widely repeated in the sources and show that at least some people had issues with his philosopher. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • He was also likely involved in the illegal export of forged antiquities from Greece — The term "illegal export" of antiquities would normally evoke the export of real (e.g., looted) antiquities, not forged ones. Was there any suggestion that he was illegally exporting real antiquities also?
    • No, but exporting forged antiquities (while passing them off as genuine ones) was illegal, and I think it's important to be absolutely transparent that we're (via our sources) accusing him of criminal activity here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • I'm not sure you need the fils designation here.
    • I think it helps: not all readers will automatically know that fils means son, and the younger G. is generally named with that epithet: when his article is eventually written, it'll almost certainly be titled "Emile Gilleron fils". Compare Alexandre Dumas fils.
  • Were the patrons really his patrons, rather than employers?
    • A little bit of a philosophical question, but the Gillerons ran their own business and carried on doing so while working for e.g. Schliemann and Evans, so I think "patrons" is appropriate here (in the same way that we talk about painters having "patrons" in the Renaissance, even when those patrons insisted that the artist live with them and generally attaches themself to their court). Certainly, when we're talking about e.g. the DAI, employers is far less accurate than patrons or indeed customers. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Early life and career

  • MacGillivray gives his first names as "Émile Victor". — Who is MacGillivray? He hasn't been introduced yet. Also, "Émile Victor" instead of "Louis Émile", meaning MacGillivray doesn't think "Louis" is one of his names? Why the difference?
    • Why the difference -- I have no idea, unfortunately. As we're in a footnote, I don't think we need to or should introduce MacGillivray (he's introduced on first body text mention, and most readers don't read the footnotes until getting to the end of the text): after all, we don't have a problem simply writing "MacGillivray 2013" or similar in the references. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC) UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a big deal, but I do wonder if most readers don't read the footnotes until getting to the end of the text is actually true. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I've heard it repeated a lot, but must admit that I don't have any real evidence to back it up. Would suggest that we could cut "until getting to the end" in 99% of cases, though! UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He attended the Gymnasium in Villeneuve Villeneuve — Timeframe?
  • What did he study at the trade school?
  • He quickly gained ... until his death in 1890. — Run-on sentence.
  • This section could perhaps be broken up with a sub-section or two. Just a thought.
    • Personally, I think it's borderline: I can't see a great place to split it -- we could cut before he really gets established as an artist, but because that early period is pretty murky, we'd have to do so after the first paragraph. Really, we want to cut after the third paragraph or so, but I can't really see a clear content watershed that would justify doing so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree it's borderline; I don't see particularly obvious places to split it either. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • His fees were accordingly high. — But you've just said that he was in demand because the alternative (photography) was expensive.
    • I don't see a contradiction; presumably, Gilleron's watercolours etc were expensive, but the photographers were either more expensive, or equally expensive with other tradeoffs. Train travel is expensive, which pushes up the price of petrol, making driving expensive. However, I don't think we have enough in the sources to be more specific. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was hired by the architect and art critic Russell Sturgis to make photographs — He was a photographer too?
    • At least for this job, he was! I can't remember any other mention of his photography: at best, it was a very minor part of what he did. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • twenty-six of which — The photographs/watercolours, or the sculptures? I think the former, but it's a bit unclear.
  • Schliemann's volume publishing the results of his excavations — Why not add this to the bibliography, with a cite to it, so people can click over to see the frontispiece?
    • I don't see a frontispiece with that illustration; do you mean the book's cover? Also, using a 1967 edition is somewhat odd. Why not use the original? It has a prettier rendering on the cover, in any event. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The source had "frontispiece", but it's pretty clearly the cover; changed. Also changed to the version you've found; thank you very much for that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He designed commemorative postage stamps for the first modern Olympic Games, which took place in 1896. — I was originally going to suggest adding one of these as an image, although upon viewing them, perhaps not. More broadly, however, you might consider adding a few more images to the text. Each section currently has five (mostly lengthy) paragraphs of text, and zero or one image.
    • Added a few more; on my display, we now have two per screen, which I think is a good maximum. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The accuracy of their moulds was vouched for by the archaeologist Paul Wolters, director from 1908 of the Glyptothek museum in Munich, who wrote the company's catalogue in German, French and English. — This sentence seems to hide the ball a bit. It starts off sounding as if a third-party expert is verifying the company's works, and then reveals that he's not a third party at all. Suggest rewording along the lines of "Writing the company's catalogue, in German, French and English, the archaeologist ...".
  • approximately equivalent to £1500 in 201 — Is there a reason the {{inflation}} template does work for this?
    • From memory, I think it was because the currency is Reichsmarks, and so inflating it isn't straightforward given that Germany now uses the Euro. There may be a good way to do it, however. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Currency conversion" addresses this on the {{inflation}} page. It's far from the most user-friendly explanation, however; I eventually gave up. You might take a look, or pose a question on the talk page. (Though this nomination will not hinge on you doing so.) --Usernameunique (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Looking at the explanation, it seems that you need to do the sums manually, using some sort of conversion constant. Sadly, the German currency circa 1918 was... not exactly known for its stability. I think this is a rare case when using a secondary source's estimate of the equivalence is safer than doing our own sums, given that we could pick any number of conversion rates which would wildly affect the outcome, and we've got two here which directly pull the number into modern currency. UndercoverClassicist T·C 23:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knossos and later career

  • the Minoan ruins ... of the site of Knossos on Crete — Is "ruins of the site" correct?
    • Yes -- the site, Knossos, was once populated and generally in good nick, but was by then in ruins. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was more thinking of the phrasing. Why not just "ruins of Knossos"? --Usernameunique (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, I see now -- rephrasing makes it awkward to get both Bronze-Age and Minoan into the description (we could do "Bronze-Age, Minoan ruins", I suppose, but that's pretty ugly: without the comma, it's a bit sloppy as to what "Bronze-Age" modifies). I see the concision argument but I can't think of a great way to satisfy it without making other, worse tradeoffs; suggestions welcome, as always. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gilliéron "began immediately to sort the fresco fragments like jigsaw puzzles" upon his arrival at Knossos. — This is the first you mentioned of him heading to Knossos. Why did he go there/who invited him?
    • Rearranged and reworked a bit. He seems to have been just paying a visit at that point; Galanakis et al are silent as to whether Evans or anyone else invited him. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this article, this date and all subsequent dates are given in the 'New Style' Gregorian calendar, while dates before it are given in the 'Old Style' Julian calendar. — I'm probably just missing this, but why are you (a) converting the dates in the article, and then (b) dropping a footnote saying that you're using one date or the other depending on the context?
    • When Greece was using the Julian calendar, we give both dates for events in Greece to avoid confusion -- sources aren't always good at specifying which one they're using (especially, for example, when someone leaves somewhere like Britain on one date and arrives in Greece on another). I've removed the footnote; it's a boilerplate I've used in a lot of articles which have this problem, but as there's only one OS date in this one, I don't see a real need for it.
  • "bask in the radiance of Evans's success ... [and] ensure his own "fame and fortune". — Quotation marks are off. Also, is there a reason for the somewhat egotistical-sounding assessment?
    • Quote marks now fixed. Evans was a very big deal -- the discovery at Knossos was a worldwide sensation and Evans was probably just about the most powerful man in (at least) British archaeology, as well as one of very few archaeologists who would have been household names. On the other hand, there's certainly an element of ego in that judgement: if MacGillivray is right, it does a lot to explain what made G. "tick" and what sort of man he was. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They offered versions — Who is "they"?
  • Most of the colons should be semicolons. I've fixed these as I've gone, but something to keep in mind going forward.
    • Somewhat a matter of taste, I think (specifically, as to how far the second clause follows from/explains the first), but I've no issue with the amendments you've made.
  • What was Gilliéron doing at Volos?
    • Presumably working for whoever was excavating some nearby site (Volos has a big museum and is close to a number of famous Neolithic sites), but the sources are silent here. They only barely record that he was even there at all. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gilliéron et fils ('Gilliéron and Son') — If you're going to translate fils, you should translate it when it first appears.
    • I don't think that follows; here we're translating the name of the company, not simply the word. We don't routinely translate e.g. "Sandra Jones, née Smith", "M. Hercule Poirot", or similar common French terms that are dropped onto people's names.
  • How did they make the reproductions? Individually? Via some form of en masse production?
  • has been credited — By whom?
  • Is the final paragraph best suited here, in "Assessment", or in a short standalone section? It kind of comes out of nowhere.
    • Hm; it's about what he did in his career, particularly his later career, particularly at Knossos. I don't think it therefore belongs in "Assessment", which is about the quality/importance of what he did: we're still narrating his life rather than evaluating it, really. I don't think a one-paragraph section would be right, either, so on balance I think it's currently in the least bad place for it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be about what he did, but the chronology is unclear; we start in 1923 before moving back to 1906(?) with Grave Circle A, and then up to 1914. All the while, it's unclear whether his (reputed) forgeries spanned his entire career, or just a part. Meanwhile, you say it's distinct from "Assessment", yet the lead mentions his forgeries at the end of the assessment-related paragraph, and they share a nexus in that both topics concern what people say about him. Were it me, I would probably make it a subsection of "Assessment", or perhaps of "Knossos and later career". --Usernameunique (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you're right. I've done something here; see what you think. The material in that paragraph is ordered thematically rather than chronologically (that is, the most serious charge first, with the evidence for it, then the lighter charges of being somehow involved in shady stuff, with the only really concrete thing that can be pinned on G. père). The question as to when G. began his illicit work is a valuable one, but I'm not sure we really have an answer to it yet (I could simply give you the earliest date for which I've found an accusation, but that's not really the same thing, and would be OR anyway). It's worth saying that G. fils was absolutely a forger and has been well documented as such; some sources mistakenly accuse the father of forging items which were definitely forgeries done by the son. UndercoverClassicist T·C 23:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I like what you've done. There could probably be further refinement; for instance, some of "Influence of Gilliéron's work" seems like it might fit better in "Criticism", and given how you've added subsections, there seems to be a more compelling case to create an "Allegations of forgery" (or similar) subsection. But I'll leave it up to your discretion as to how to handle (with the caveat that if you would like another set of eyes, now or later, please feel free to ask). --Usernameunique (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Agreed; I've gone with "criminality", as most of the stickiest charges are about selling fake antiquities rather than making them (though he certainly was and is accused of that). UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

  • Assuming the list in the second paragraph is non-exhaustive, I would say something along the lines of "acquired by institutions including London's..."
    • It's all the institutions I've found; I'd be uncomfortable implying that there were more. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • #8 — You can provide a translation of the title with the parameter "trans-title = " Also, there are two periods in this reference.
  • #46, #51, #52, #53 — Ditto.

Bibliography

  • Palmer 1969 — Same comment about ISBN-10/13. Also, does this have an ISBN at all, coming in 1969? Is it an SBN?
  • Papadoupoulos 2005 — This is online and should have a link.
  • A number of the journals and publishers can be linked.
    • They can, but it's a matter of preference: even at FAC, we only expect consistency within the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • MacGillivray 2000 — I don't think you need the parenthetical. This would also be helped by linking Hill & Wang, which would convey the same information (since the Hill & Wang article states that "It is a division of Farrar, Straus and Giroux.").
    I've removed the parenthetical. I'm not keen to link publishers: we often don't have articles for them, so making links ends up with what looks like a lot of blue text splashed inconsistently around the bibliography. Being consistent and creating an equal sea of redlinks seems like an even worse solution. There's plenty of other publishers which are subdivisions of each other, so I don't think much is lost here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conte 2009 — Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter.
    • What's the thinking behind that suggestion? Not sure I quite understand. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It separates the final two authors with an ampersand, which (a) helps visually distinguish between them, and (b) looks prettier. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        That it does. I've put it in for all the multi-author/editor sources. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mertens 2019 — Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter.
  • Karo 1930–1933: "lang = " parameter missing.
    • Now there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speaking of Karo, the OCLC is handy for helping find a library with the source, but, if I were an interested reader trying to find it, I'd really just rather a link. --Usernameunique (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Incidentally, I had been vaguely wondering what accounted for the four-year span of the work; now I see it's because there are two volumes. I usually list each volume separately (see the Thunmark-Nylén works at Lokrume helmet fragment). It's a matter of personal preference, however, especially here when you are citing the publication as a whole, not specific pages/plates. --Usernameunique (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Added the link. Honestly, I normally would as well -- two seconds ago, I'd have changed it, but as we've now got a single link that covers the whole work as a single unit, I think the current format is probably the right one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mitsopoulou & Polychronopoulou 2019 — Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter. And why does this have a retreival date?
    • Books and other printed matter don't need retrieval dates. Those are helpful for websites, which are dynamic, but if you're dealing with a book, it doesn't matter whether you accessed it in 1875, 1913, 1989, 2014, or yesterday—the book will be the same no matter what. Not something to hold up a review over, but it's worth considering taking them out.
    Usernameunique (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No major disagreement there, but it does make the template unhappy when you include the url= field but not the access-date= one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a big deal by any measure, but does the {{cite book}} template give you grief when you have a URL but no access date? I haven't seen that before. (Some of the templates do want an access date when an archived link is added, even if the archived link is to a book or newspaper—for the reasons you describe, I've largely given up on fighting back in those cases.) --Usernameunique (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Funnily enough, I mistakenly did this in another article, so I'm no longer sure it's true for regular urls (though it really doesn't like archive-url without url, or archive-url without archive-date). I'm not sure I see a problem with having the access date. It does have marginal value if the link eventually dies, to help speed up the process of finding a useful archived version, and it's theoretically possible that the publisher would upload a new version of the PDF, perhaps of a second edition (especially if the URL's source is doing things less formally than the database of a major publisher: a lot of smaller operations might simply upload a new version of the file under the old filename). However, no disagreement that it's generally going to do very little. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Myres 1901 — This is PD, so should have a PD link, not just a pay-walled link. (Like others, it may be on archive.org.)
    A PD link can be found here... --Usernameunique (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added, with thanks. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and career

  • Generally speaking, this section gives a lot of facts along the lines of "Gilliéron did X and Y", but doesn't always stitch them together into a holistic picture of (a) the overall trajectory of Gilliéron's career, or (b) why Gilliéron was good and successful at what he did. This may just reflect the state and extent of the sources, but it's something to consider.
    I've been thinking on this one: I see the point, but I must admit I'm struggling to think of what an improved version would look like. Looking at other artist FAs (I pulled Lat (cartoonist) at random), it's nice if we can find scholars saying "this stage in his development was important because...", but I don't think we really have the material to do that without crossing into OR. Thoughts most welcome. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

  • Hemingway 2011 — Why is this in the Bibliography, while other websites are given the full citation in "References" (e.g., #8, #46)?
    • The system I've gone for is to put references in the bibliography only when we can give a sensible author and date; when it's a collective author and/or an unclear date, I just cite them in the references. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look on archive.org for the sources for which you don't have links. Some (e.g., Lapatin 2002) are available. You can put the URL in the "url = " parameter, and then add "url-access = registration" as another parameter. For those that are not on archive.org, too, some may be available online with a DOI; even if behind a pay wall, a link should be added when possible.
    • I'm going to plead the criteria on this one; it's a noble thing to do and I may well have a look for some, but it's well above the GA call of duty! UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me push back on this one: one of the most, if not the most, valuable parts of most articles is the bibliography. Taking an hour to link the works that can be linked thus provides a serious boon to any serious reader. And if you want to plead the criteria, you might want to first take a look at the footnote under "Verifiable": Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sure it is valuable, but it's certainly not a requirement for GA or indeed FAC. As I read that footnote, it's a comment on the ideal reviewer, not the ideal article, and it's also immediately followed by this ideal is not often attained. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The result is the same if we look more directly at the criteria. Criterion #2 is that the article is "Verifiable". When we follow the link, we find that verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. This is different from asking whether the facts in the article are correct; it asks whether it is possible to check whether said facts are correct. The easiest way to do that, of course, is to have a link to the source. The policies reflect this reality: the page on verifiability goes on to state that For how to write citations, see citing sources, and if we follow the link one more time, we're told (under the header "What information to include") that A citation ideally includes a link or ID number to help editors locate the source. Yes, it's an ideal, not a mandate, and it uses the word "or", not "and". But the equivocal language is needed because many sources don't have a link, and a few have neither a link nor an ID number (e.g., reference 204 of Rupert Bruce-Mitford—it's not on WorldCat, so there isn't even an OCLC). Of course, if no link is available, there's no need to include one. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I realise I'm being stubborn here: as you've seen, I've got no problem with adding IA links, and indeed think it's an excellent idea for all the reasons you've laid out. However, I do want to push back against the suggestion that it's a criteria requirement: we already have a lot of mission creep in GANs, and I think it's important for the precedent it sets for other reviews and reviewers that we're clear on the difference between what the criteria require and additional, beneficial suggestions.
      On the specific point of verifiability: all of our policies are very clear that "verifiable" means that the source exists, not that any given reader or reviewer can access or understand it.
      WP:SOURCEACCESS is policy and explicitly says that there's no problem with using sources that are difficult or impossible for most people to get hold of. Again, I agree that it's better to include links, but have a real problem with shifting that to say that an article can't pass GA unless all of its PD sources are linked. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • de Chirico 1979 — ISBN-13 wouldn't have been around then. Per WP:ISBN, "if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it. This is because ISBNs are often used as search strings and checksum differences between the two forms make it difficult to find items listed only under the other type."
    • Still to do on this and similar.
      • Looks like there are a few more of these. Per ISBN, 13-digit numbers were used starting in 2007. I would double check any pre-2008 source for which you're citing a 13-digit ISBN. (Which is very easy to do when you've provided handy links to the books!) --Usernameunique (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll go through and do this (worth noting that WP:ISBN is neither policy nor a guideline, so has no standing in itself, but what it says here is good sense). UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These should all now be done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • de Chirico 1979 (separate point) — The date appears to be incorrect, the title appears to be incorrect, and the translator appears to be missing. All those little things a link can tell you! --Usernameunique (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prevaricated on this one, because it was a second-hand citation, and Owen did publish an edition of the text. For an autobiography, which would normally have a slight question mark as an HQRS, it's always preferable if we can show that it's been referenced (and so effectively given the seal of approval) by someone else, rather than leaning directly on it. However, I can't definitively prove that Gere had her bibliographic details right, whereas we can definitely prove that the quote is in this edition, so I've equivocated: changed the citation to the version you've very helpfully provided, and slightly changed the citation to suggest that the same words are quoted without affirming that it's the same edition. I realise that's a lot of words to say "done". UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Thanks for all these -- appreciate your time and the thoroughness of the review. Will take a look through over the next couple of days, action what I can and reply where needed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: The two isbn questions are resolved now. Palmer was indeed an SBN; thank you for the steer on that (it came up as an ISBN on the site I normally use to find them). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: Would you have any objections if I hived off responded matters that look "sorted" into a collapse template? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: Sorry to nudge, but where are we currently with this review? UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, UndercoverClassicist; I've been travelling and not paying as much attention to this as I should have. We're essentially done, save me (a) checking that the responses above are sufficient (from a quick glance earlier I believe they are, save point b that follows), and (b) responding to the point about not putting links in the bibliography. In short, that one's not going to make or break the review, but I'm a bit perplexed by how tenaciously you have stuck to your right to keep an article in worse shape than it could be. Links can only add value; as we've seen, there have already been a number of errors in the cited works (e.g., cover/frontispiece; de Chirico 1979), and it was only tracking down links on my end that revealed them. Why not spend an hour or two to so improve the article? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problems -- on the Internet Archive links, my understanding is that all the PD sources are already linked to IA (I did write a comment to that effect, but just coming to this page now, see that I hadn't sent it), now that I've added a link to Glotz. I've since added links to all the others which I could find on IA or TWL: the copyright status is more murky here, but since we've already done it for Minotaur, it seems silly to clutch pearls over doing it for others. I've left the Waugh books out, as the IA scans aren't the right editions. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: With apologies once again, any thoughts on this? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist, this review has been on hold for 62 days. Please decide whether to pass or fail the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: I'm afraid I'm the nominator: I think you meant to ping User:Usernameunique, who has been away for about a month. I may be biased, but I think it's really just a matter of a rubber stamp at this point, if you fancy coming along to offer a second opinion? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I copy-pasted the wrong username. In light of the fact that they've been inactive since 12 February, and that their only remaining point was something that is "not going to make or break the review", I'll pass this nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 17:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by UndercoverClassicist (talk). Self-nominated at 19:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Émile Gilliéron; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Article recently promoted to GA. Article is long enough. The article is neutral. The article is sourced. Each suggested hook is cited in the article. There are no close paraphrasing concerns (mostly bibliographical). Hooks are accurate, sourced, and interesting... personally, I'd go with ALT0, as the inherent incongruity between 20th-century popular culture (as evinced in Vogue) and Minoan anthropology is genuinely eye-catching/head-turning. QPQ done. ——Serial Number 54129 14:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Émile_Gilliéron&oldid=1217128642"