# Talk:Frankish Tower (Acropolis of Athens)

I would prefer not to get into an edit war.  However, firstly, I suggest article titles ought to be based on the articles we have, not those that might be created in future.  Secondly, even if articles on other Frankish Towers were to be created, we might well decide that this one was the primary meaning.  See WP:PRECISION. PatGallacher (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Likewise I am not terribly enthusiastic about editwarring over a disambiguation in an article title, but it would have been better if you had adhered to WP:BRD and discussed before re-reverting. On your second reason, who is "we" and on what basis do you say that they might decide that it is the primary meaning? As the one who researched and wrote (and incidentally gave some thought to naming) this article, I can assure you that it is not the primary meaning. There are several dozen "Frankish Towers" dotted throughout Greece, the name is probably used for Crusader towers throughout the Near East, and to somehow claim that the one on the Acropolis, which is no longer even extant, is the "Frankish Tower" par excellence, is nonsense. Have a look in the article itself and read the titles of Peter Lock's articles: "The Frankish Towers of Central Greece" and "The Frankish Tower on the Acropolis, Athens", so no, it is not the primary topic, and yes, disambiguation is obviously warranted even among scholars of the field. That is also why I am completely in disagreement with your first reason; I always felt the opposite, i.e. that it is better to explicitly make clear from the start that the subject is not the only one with such a name, in order to avoid confusing/misleading people who are not familiar with the topic into believing the opposite. Anyhow, I will go ahead and create a few more articles over the next days, so pedantry can be satisfied. Constantine   ✍  07:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frankish Tower (Acropolis of Athens)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 19:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 22:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Delighted to pick up this up. Will work on the review over the next couple of days. KJP1 (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I tend to work through an article in batches, making comments as I go, and then wrap it up in a summary table. An example of the approach is here, [1]. You're very welcome to respond to comments as I go, or to wait till I've finished when I will ping you. If any of my comments are unclear, just shout.
Immediate fail
Nope. Earwig = 8.3% / no banners / stable.
Lead
"the Dukes of Athens, who ruled Athens" - perhaps, "the Dukes of Athens, who ruled the city..." to avoid the repetition?
Good idea: done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
"as well as its symbolic role in connecting western Europe and classical Greek culture" - spent a while pondering exactly what was meant here. It becomes clearer when you get down to the Demolition: Background section. Essentially, 19th century French critics were seeing the tower as in a line of continuity from Classical Greece, through the (Western) crusaders, to the present, and thus worthy of preservation? I think. I don't know whether it could be unpacked a little in the lead, to make the meaning clearer to the reader on first encounter? As an aside, I see the source footnote attributes the view particularly to Jean Alexandre Buchon, on whom we have an article.
I've added a bit here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Name
"the tower was popularly known as the "Arsenal of Lycurgus" and was falsely believed to date to the fourth century BCE" - I wonder if the addition of "was" would make clearer that this was part of the erroneous belief that Spon was recording and not one he shared?
Can't see that it hurts: added. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
"After 1825, the tower was sometimes known as "Odysseus's Tower", after the Greek revolutionary Odysseas (Odysseus) Androutsos, who was imprisoned there in 1825" - do we need both of the "1825"s, at the beginning and at the end? Perhaps, "After 1825, the tower was sometimes known as "Odysseus's Tower", after the Greek revolutionary Odysseas (Odysseus) Androutsos, following his imprisonment and death in the tower"?
I think we lose a bit of precision by doing that, but I've changed the second "1825" to "in that year". UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Location and appearance
"Some photographs also show a ground entrance on the western side, which means" - perhaps, replace "which means" with "suggesting", and the following "probably" could then be dropped, giving, "Some photographs also show a ground entrance on the western side, suggesting that the lower portion of the tower was separate from the upper floors"?
Good idea; done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
"The tower was built of stone from the quarries of Penteli and Piraeus, making heavy use of material from the ancient buildings of the Acropolis" - so there are two separate sources of building material, stones they quarried and stuff they looted/found lying around. Perhaps, "The tower was built of stone from the quarries of Penteli and Piraeus, with its builders also making heavy use of material from the ancient buildings of the Acropolis"?
I've done something very similar. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
"It was square in shape, 28.5 feet (8.7 m) long and 25.5 feet (7.8 m) wide" - given that its East/West dimension is almost a metre longer than its North/South axis, is it in fact more a rectangle than a square?
Done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
"this turret hosted two small cannons" - this read slightly oddly to me. Is the plural of cannon usually cannon? Actually, I think either can be used, but without the "s" is more usual?
I would use cannon when we're treating them as a collective (and preferably with a big number), rather than discernible individuals: so "Napoleon's army brought 200 cannon into the battle", but "I saw two cannons and three muskets in the museum". Here, we're going for the second one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
"Sketches from the late seventeenth century on also show... " - perhaps, "Sketches from the late seventeenth century onwards also show..."?
Much better; done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
History
Odysseas Androutsos - given that you've got some footnotes already, I wonder whether another, re. the peregrinations of Androutsos' body after death, might give the reader a satisfying close. Our article tells me that his body was exhumed from the Acropolis grave 40 years after his death, and re-interred in the Metropolitan Cathedral of Athens, only to be re-exhumed a century after that, and reburied at Preveza. Unfortunately, that whole section is uncited, so it may not be possible.
I'm not sure that would be quite WP:DUE in an article on the tower (rather than on Androutsos), given that none of it is really connected to the building, but I'm open to being convinced here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Demolition: Background
"the spolia used in the tower's construction" - I know you've a link to Spolia in the second para. of Location and appearance, but you don't actually use the term there. Would there be some way of doing so, or could a second link here be justified?
Done in the course of addressing one of the points above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
"by the regent Carl Wilhelm von Heideck" - I wondered, regent of what? Would this help as a bluelink, Regency council of Otto of Greece?
Added a bit here. I haven't gone into detail as to why Otto had a regency council, but could do so if you think it's due. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
"the droppings of birds of prey" - link "droppings" to make clear we're talking about poop, rather than things they dropped?
Done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Demolition: Removal of the tower
Fluctuating currencies - my only observation on this section relates to how the cost to Schliemann is expressed. His initial estimate is 12,000 francs; he makes two payments totalling 11,000 drachmas; and the final cost is £465 pounds. Which leaves me wondering - and unable to calculate - was the final cost more or less than he envisaged? Is there any way this can be simplified? I've no idea whether a suitable conversion template exists.
It's really tricky to do this when working back in the distant past. The big issue is how we calculate equivalences: the real-terms value of a franc would be calculated based on the cost of living in France, and the real-terms value of a drachma would be calculated based on the CoL in Greece, but the CoL in Greece was much lower than it was in Athens. These currency values also changed a lot, so we would need a source from exactly the right time that converted francs into drachmas. I had a bit of a squirrel around and I think anything I come out with here will be OR, unfortunately, but I'm happy to take a source if you've got one? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Reaction
Fine.
Footnotes: Explanatory notes
Fine - but see the suggestion re. Androutsos in History above.
Footnotes: References
All in my favoured sfn so no complaints.
Sources
Giochalas, Thanasis; Kafetzaki, Tonia - you helpfully note that this is in Greek, but don't follow this approach with Vasilikou, Dora, the other Greek source, or with Baelen, Jean, in French. Should they be consistent, one way or t'other?
Now done (I can't take credit for those two, unfortunately, but my predecessor had it right). UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Spotchecks - have spot checked Baelen / Lock 1986 (via the Wiki Library) / Miller and St Clair (all the ones I can access and understand) and they all check out just fine.
All Sources are of impeccable quality
External links
Archaeology of the City of Athens website - this gives me a "403 Forbidden" error which is a pity, but may just be my access.
Likewise: luckily, there's an archived version, so I've gone and added that, treating the original as a dead link. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Images
Infobox image - Although no copyright expert, your explanation makes sense to me. Not having it would be a great pity, as it is a very helpful image in understanding the look/siting of the tower.
Thank you. I think we're on good ground here in any case: even if not PD, the image has a very strong fair-use claim to be in the article, in the same way that we allow historical portraits of people no longer alive. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Infobox
Plan - Would it help to be a bit more explicit as to the tower's location. Immediately adjacent to the Propylaia, yes, but to which side? It's not that easy to tell.
I've added something here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Summary
1 Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; 
The prose is of a very high standard. It's On Hold merely to give you time to consider the few suggestions I've made.
(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. 
All MoS compliant.
2 Verifiable with no original research:
(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; 
No evidence of OR.
(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. 
Earwig gives only 8.3% reflecting titles etc.
3 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. 
4 Neutral:
(a) it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. 
5 Stable:
(b) it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. 
6 Illustrated - if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; 
In my view, yes. The status of the lead image may need to be explained further, should this roll on to FAC.
(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. 
Overall 
UndercoverClassicist - The suggestions I've made are minor, and are suggestions, which you can consider and discard if you disagree. Oh Hold merely to give you time to review them. It's a fascinating, well-written, and well-illustrated article on a building, the existence of which I suspect most editors, including myself, were unaware. Thank you for that. As above, do shout if any of my comments are incomprehensible. I won't formally put it On Hold, unless you'd like the time. If you were able to respond today/tomorrow, it could be one of the last GAs of 2024. But absolutely no rush. It can as well be one of the first of 2025. KJP1 (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1: Thank you for a detailed and entirely sensible review. Your points are well taken -- you picked up a lot of errors and infelicities. Mostly implemented with minimal fuss; replies above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
All good to go. And two in one day, many congratulations. KJP1 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you -- and for your time and comments on the review. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)