Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Slavery in ancient Greece

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.

Slavery in ancient Greece

edit

Good article, translation from the French Wikipedia article. The French version has achieved FA status while this article has achieved GA status(I promoted it). Daimanta 13:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I don't like the way the reference format is inconsistent. Can you use one of either footnotes, or (Author, Year), or [website in these brackets] rather than all three? DrKiernan 13:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are currently ancient sources in both the footnotes and as Harvard-style references. I think you should stick to one system rather than mix the two. So, "According to Plutarch in his "Life of Solon", I,6, Solon around 594-593 BC forbade slaves from practising gymnastics" would become "According to Plutarch, around 594-593 BC Solon forbade slaves from practising gymnastics.[1]" if you chose to go with footnotes. And "There are also instances in which the Greeks saw a spectrum from slavery to citizenship, the highest legitimate right.[2]" would become "There are also instances in which the Greeks saw a spectrum from slavery to citizenship, the highest legitimate right (Mactoux, 1980)." if you chose to go Harvard. There are two references given as embedded links. I think these should be converted into whichever system you settle on. DrKiernan 11:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the sources you have quoted.--Grahamec 13:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Grahamec 12:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have to repeat DrKiernan's remark that there is a mixture on styles: Citations properly cited in "Notes" in most sections, but in some sections an abundance of in-the-text citations per Harvard style (see "War" and "Historical views" were both methods are mixed). In the "See also" section I see articles already linked within the text (slavery, ancient Greece). And I am afraid some choppy prose, at least in the lead ("In the arts, comedy represented slaves of comedy; Greek tragedy the slaves of tragedy. In iconography or on steles, it is difficult to differentiate a slave from an craftsman with certainty. Even the terminology is often vague") - I admit I did not read in detail the whole text. But I can see some inconsistent citing. For instance, in note 31, where is the name of the writer? And Bibliography what is it exactly? References or Further reading? If it is references, shouldn't you also add Carlier, but I see full book data are in "Notes", not in "Bibliography" (by the way, where is the ISBN?). If this is the trend (full data in "Notes"), why do I see full data for Garlan in "Bibliography" and not in "Notes"? Inconsistencies I am afraid! Don't get me wrong! I think it is a great article, but it needs some more effort to get FA ... At least IMO ...--Yannismarou 19:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes/references: I deliberately kept ancient references inline when first writing the text. Many books I read proceed like this. This is just an explanation, not an argument—I'll move the inline references to footnotes.
Carlier is a general book about Greece in the 4th century, not a reference about slavery per se. That's why I chose to put the full references to footnotes.
Note 31: the author is already mentioned in the text ("Moses Finley proposed a set of criteria for different degrees of enslavement"). I can repeat it in the footnote if it's clearer this way.
Bibliography: it was designed as both References and (very short) Further reading. I understand there's a difference on en: Is it OK to have both in an article?
Choppy style: my written English is not so good, I'm afraid to make things even worse :-)
Also, as was explained at Talk:Slavery_in_ancient_Greece#GA_review, most footnotes refer to French (original or translated) editions. Should the References section refer to the French edition, the English edition when it exists or both? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to the edition you used. If it is the French one, OK. Your English in general seem good, and the instances of choppy prose like the one I mentioned above seem limited, but a copy-edit by a native English speaker could be helpful. It is OK to have both References and Further Reading. There is no clear trend in the en wiki, but I think this is clearer and, in general, preferred.--Yannismarou 11:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grouped answer: I've separated References and Further Reading; I believe the reference format is now consistent. I've asked a native speaker to proofread the article for me; this hould be done very soon. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support.--Yannismarou 10:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2nd paragraph used to run thus:
"Conforming to modern history practice, this article will discuss only chattel slavery—not dependent groups of Ancient Greece such as the Penestai of Thessaly, the Spartan Helots or the Clarotes of Crete; complex statuses perhaps more similar to Mediaeval serfdom. The slave is an individual deprived of liberty and forced to submit to a proprietor who may buy, sell, or lease them as any chattel good."
I edited out the "complex statuses..." part during GA review, when Daimanta mentioned it as very hard to read. To reconcile both opinions, I could add some explanation about dependent groups in footnotes. Jastrow (Λέγετε) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the prose is pretty good, but I still have concerns about the citations.
    • The lead does not summarize the article, and information in the lead should be included in the body of the article How long should this summary be? I'm not used to this practice.
See WP:LEAD for guidance. Karanacs 03:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need citations for some facts
      • the paragraph about Homer. None of the information in that paragraph is cited except the quote from the Odyssey  Done
      • "It is also probable that, as with the Romans, certain nationalities were considered more productive as slaves than others." from the international trade paragraph
      • first paragraph of status of slaves section  Done
      • quote from Plutarch in Athenian slaves section  Done
      • It was apparently formalised in Athens by Draco. - in debt slavery section See infra.
      • Manumission section - "It was apparently formalised in Athens by Draco." I can't find the reference for that anymore; I suspect I was mistaken with the mention of slave-killing in Draco's Law. I deleted both mentions as unsure.
      • last bit of 2nd paragraph of Manumission section  Done
      • info about Metics in last paragraph of Manumission section  Done
      • 2nd paragraph of Slavery conditions is not cited well
      • end of 2nd paragraph of historical views section I suppose it's about Plato? I did not write this and I don't agree much with what is said. I'll look about it.
    • Don't include a (See...) in the body of the article. It can be a see also at the top of the section or the bottom of the article, or should be better incorporated into the article.  Done

Karanacs 14:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Plutarch, "Life of Solon", I,6
  2. ^ For these see especially Marie-Madeleine Mactoux: Douleia: Esclavage et Practiques discursives dans l'Athènes classique. (Paris, 1980)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Slavery_in_ancient_Greece&oldid=163127243"