Talk:Ring of Nestor

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ring of Nestor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 08:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 09:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Image review

Source review

  • Eliopoulos: ISSN is missing.
  • Why are Evans (1925) and (1930), and Nilsson (1927) are still to be regarded reliable sources?
  • Galanakis: place of publication is missing.
  • Hudler: could you name the publisher and add an identifier?
    I assume it has a publisher. Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not one that's explicitly named on the document (you can find it here): it's hosted by the University of Heidelberg and the conference happened there, but no publisher is given either on the web page or in the document itself. It probably doesn't have a corporate publisher -- I would imagine it was put together and put online by the editors directly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hughes-Brock: could you name the publisher and add an identifier?
  • Krzyszkowska: place of publication is missing.
    • See below.
  • Müller: place of publication is missing.
    • See below.
  • Shelmerdine: place of publication is missing.
    • See below.
  • Vlachopoulos: place of publication is missing.
    • See below.
  • Yamasaki: place of publication is missing. Borsoka (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't (Oxford).
    • I feel I need to point out that none of these are required by GA criteria, though consistency is always good -- it would be good to clearly mark comments which are additional suggestions as distinct from the review itself. However, done where needed -- see above and below.
Thanks for starting this. I'll have time to go through in more detail later on, but a quick one for now -- per the template documentation, place of publication isn't included for journals, or where it's included in the publisher name (e.g. we don't include "Oxford" for a book published by "Oxford University Press"). UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Evans and Nilsson -- these are citing the views of their authors, both (very) notable in their field. Neither is holding any weight for factual information, only as evidence for what Evans and Nilsson believed about the ring -- Evans is clearly important here as the major protagonist in its discovery and publication (as well as the authority in Minoan archaeology during his lifetime), while Nilsson is important as someone whose views on the ring changed from endorsement to doubt, and was himself one of the world's most respected scholars of Minoan religion in his day. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • For me, the first sentence of the 'Description' section feels out of context and surprising, because the main text does not previously mention any debates. I would delete it or move it elsewhere.
    • The ring's (claimed) age is important; it needs to be pretty early on
      In this case, the sentence should be introduced ("The authenticity of the ring is disputed. Scholars who consider it to be ancient...", or something similar.)
  • Consider linking "soldered" to soldering.
  • Introduce (and, if possible, link) Evans, Hughes-Brock, Boardman, Galanakis, Marinatos, Biesantz, Younger, Sakellariou, Childe, Sakellarakis, Poursat, Pini, Eliopoulos, Ogden when they are first mentioned in the main text.
    • I'm following the advice in this essay (and as employed widely in classical GAs and FAs), and not introducing scholars whose introduction would be "the classicist/archaeologist/art historian XYZ". Evans was an exception, as he's a character in this story; he's now introduced. I did some tidying up of duplinks too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I strongly disagree with the essay, since for 99.9% of our readers those names are uninformative, especially if they are not linked. However, I could accept a consistent approach: for the time being, the article does introduce some of the scholars it names. Borsoka (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As I read it, we've introduced people only when their position is different from "a scholar of the sort you'd expect to quote here" -- for example, when they're a character in the story, rather than someone on whom we're leaning for modern expertise. That goes for Dorpfeld, for example, and for Evans. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Interestingly, my impression is quite the opposite. When Helen Hughes-Brock and John Boardman are first mentioned, they could be assumed to be art historians, archaeologists, or historians, whereas Dörpfeld is explicitly introduced as an archaeologist in a sentence about his excavations. I think a more consequent approach is needed. Borsoka (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fair enough; there are plenty of disagreements on this topic. As it doesn't touch the GA criteria, though, I think we'd better leave it for if/when the article ever hits FAC. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it touches on the GA criteria: an appropriately broad audience must understand why those names are mentioned. All the same, let the extremely small circle of FA reviewers decide the issue. :) Borsoka (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider linking "engraved" to engraving.
  • ...human women... Delete the adjective.
  • Of the 99 known signet rings from the Aegean Bronze Age, the Ring of Nestor shows the greatest number of individual figures: it depicts fourteen human figures and at least five other animals. I would introduce the previous paragraph with this sentence. "Other" animals?
  • ...one squatting... I think she is also sitting (but this is my very own original research :) ).
  • The article underworld is linked twice.
  • Introduce Cerberus with two or three words.
  • Explain "chthonic deity" with one or two words.
  • Introduce Marinatos, Jackson, Nilsson, Vlachopoulos, Poursat, Krzyszkowska.
  • Explain "tholos tombs" with one or two words.
    • This I don't think is helpful: it's difficult to describe them usefully in a few words, most of the typical ways to describe them ("monumental built tomb..." etc) would be unhelpful for Messenian examples (which aren't really monumental and usually aren't all that built), and the architecture of the tomb is barely relevant here. Even if readers take this as "blah-blah tombs", they'll get all that they really need to, and really interested readers can always click the link. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps consider using "beehive tomb" (which is also the title of the relevant article). Borsoka (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The relevant article is a bit of a mess: "beehive tomb" hasn't been used for a Greek tomb since about 1920, and the different types of tomb known by that title don't really have anything in common. I've got it on my list to write Mycenaean tholos tomb to solve this problem, but that's a long-term project. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the son passed it into the possession of a nearby vineyard I do not understand.
  • ..., which would be unusual for a genuinely Bronze Age ring I would say "which would have been unusual..." to avoid ambiguity.
  • A link to "Late Helladic"?
  • I would delete the first sentence from note "a". Borsoka (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was added on the good advice of Choliamb, who pointed out that many readers will assume that the ring was somehow connected with the "real" Nestor, or that there was some reason other than Evans's imagination to link the two. We don't have the sources to say "Nestor never wore this ring", because serious academics don't consider that even in the realm of imaginability, so this is about the best we can do. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair point, but I think the note does not address the actual problem. Perhaps using quotation marks (“Ring of Nestor”) and mentioning Evans’s naming in the first sentence would help. Borsoka (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly, I'm not sure I see an actual problem, particularly not one that would trouble the GA criteria -- am I missing something that you're seeing? Naming Evans in the first sentence would be a mistake under MOS:FIRST, which encourages us to be very selective with what we put into that limited but prime real estate. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I do not understand your last sentence. Evans is already named and introduced in the article's first sentence. From your previous remark, I gather that the note is meant to draw readers' attention to the fact that the name does not imply any connection with the mythical king; however, I do not think the note fully achieves this. I therefore suggest rephrasing the first sentence of the lead (which every reader encounters on opening the article) for example: "The "Ring of Nestor" is a gold signet ring first described and named by the archaeologist Arthur Evans in 1925." Borsoka (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... his daughter... When reading first, I thought she was Nilsson's daughter.
    • It's not an ideal construction, but hopefully that illusion was shattered a few words later when you got to Spyridon's name. I can't think of a good way to rework it without causing a bigger problem, but will gladly take suggestions on that point. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments, Borsoka: all replied above, I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minoan frescoes showing examples of clothing similar to that depicted on the Ring of Nestor Could this caption be verified by a reference? Borsoka (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would need to be remarkably specific. Here I'm relying on the detailed descriptions of the clothing given in (inter alia) Boardman and Hughes-Brock, which match the conventional language used to describe these, and more generally the fact that the similarity is readily apparent to anyone who can see both images (in particular, the watercolour reconstruction of the ring's image by Gilliéron below). We wouldn't normally call for a citation for alt text that merely describes what is unquestionably visible, and I think similar logic applies here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What about deleting the phrase "similar to that depicted on the Ring of Nestor"? Alt text is not a good parallel: it does not compare two images but describes a single image, whereas the above caption compares the clothing shown in two frescoes with that on the ring without attributing this comparison to a scholar. Borsoka (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    GA requires citation for content that could reasonably be challenged. In my view, there is no reasonable (that is, good-faith) challenge to this: no reasonable reader could see all of the images on the page and conclude "this clothing is not similar to that on the ring". I do see the desire to be absolutely watertight on WP:V, but to me removing that phrase would be a net loss without solving a real problem, and we are wisely advised not to be too concerned about following rules when they lead to such situations. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to pass this well-written and thoroughly researched article. I maintain, however, that introducing the scholars cited would help average readers place the subject in context. Borsoka (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- I know we haven't always agreed, but your comments have unquestionably helped improve the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]

(
)
  • ... that while some scholars believe the Ring of Nestor dates back around 3,500 years, others think it was created after 1900?
  • Source: See multiple throughout article.
Improved to Good Article status by UndercoverClassicist (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 85 past nominations.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Reading one of your articles is always fun @UndercoverClassicist: and this is no different. I can find no major problems with the article and it was recently promoted to GA. The only issue I have is that the hook is rather dull. How would this hook sound instead: ALT1:"... that Martin P. Nilsson called the Ring of Nestor "a most amazing find", but later doubted its authenticity?" Jon698 (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, some possibilities:

All stated and sourced in the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]