Talk:Martin Robertson

GA review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Martin Robertson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 08:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: MCE89 (talk · contribs) 10:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I'll be reviewing this article. I'll aim to post some initial comments within the next 24 hours. MCE89 (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

All comments now added below, overall a very nice article! There are a couple of sentences with copyright issues that predate your edits and a couple of minor points from the spot checks, but otherwise please take the rest of my points purely as suggestions. Just ping me when you've addressed the comments and I'll be happy to pass this. MCE89 (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this review. I was remiss not to pick up that CLOP before nominating: thank you for spotting it. I'll work on that and the other points below and ping you when done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @UndercoverClassicist, just wanted to check in and see how you were going with this? No rush on my side, feel free to take your time with it. MCE89 (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd dropped this one! I did go through the Indy obituary and (from memory) sorted the CLOP: I've just run Earwig again and the only overlaps it picks up are titles, either of professorial posts or of publications. Will have a look back over the other points you've made and make sure everything's tied off. EDIT: There were also a few bits of CLOP from his ODNB entry: I've had a go at these too. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

OK: all done, I think -- back to you. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

All looks good, passing this now! MCE89 (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Initial checks

• Images: Portrait of Robertson has an appropriate NFUR
• Stability: No issues.
• Copyright: When the page was created in 2010, some of the text seems to have been copied from his obituary in The Independent. Earwig is still showing a few sentences that are a bit too close to the source for comfort:
  • Robertson's work on Athenian red-figure vase-painting culminated in The Art of Vase-Painting in Classical Athens vs. the source's His work on Athenian red-figure vase-painting finally culminated in The Art of Vase-Painting in Classical Athens (1992)
  • In 1959, he published his first book, Greek Painting, in which he used vase-paintings and work in other media to try to recreate lost wall-paintings known only through textual references. vs. the source's His first book was Greek Painting (1959) in which he used vase-paintings and work in other media to try to recreate the lost wall-paintings that were known only through textual references
  • Robertson's History of Greek Art, which first appeared in 1975, was still considered an authoritative text and used for its breadth of learning and deep understanding of the topic in the twenty-first century. vs. the source's A History of Greek Art (1975) still holds prime position 30 years after publication for its breadth of learning and deep understanding
    • I've fiddled this a bit. I've had to keep authoritative, since it's not clear enough to confidently supply a synonym (we can't do 'was used by students'; 'valuable' etc), but I think we're probably out of those woods. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Prose and general comments

• You've mentioned his date of birth in the lead and infobox, but not in the body of the article
  • This is fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• ...he also held a visiting appointment at the J. Paul Getty Museum, then in Malibu, in 1930 — I'd suggest moving this to earlier in the section. At the moment the section proceeds largely chronologically, before jumping back 40 years at the very end
  • There was a typo in the date: it was 1980. Now fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• He developed the techniques of attribution developed by the Oxford art historian John Beazley — The double use of the verb "developed" is a little jarring in this sentence. I'd suggest changing the first verb to "improved", "built on" or similar. I think a brief explanation of "techniques of attribution" would also be helpful for readers
  • Agreed and done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• ...updated and enlarged Beazley's earlier lists of painters, Paralipomena: Additions to Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters and to Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, published in 1971 — The sentence structure makes it slightly ambiguous whether it was the earlier list or the updated and enlarged list that was published in 1971
  • It was the enlarged list: fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• In 1982, he received a Festschrift, The Eye of Greece, edited by Donna Kurtz and Brian Sparkes — Brian A. Sparkes could be linked here and in the reference list (not a GA requirement)
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• "Poetry" section — Very much a suggestion and not a GA requirement, but could anything about his poetry collections (e.g. a sentence or so describing their style and/or reception) be added to this section?
  • I've added a bit here from Boardman. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• Reference layout and formatting meets GA criteria
• All sources appear reliable and appropriate for the material they are used to support
• My spot checks did not indicate any OR or NPOV concerns. The article does not appear to neglect any major aspects of the subject's life or contain unnecessary detail
• Spot checks:
  • 2a - Y
  • 2c - His childhood friends included Kim Philby, later a double agent for the Soviet Union within the British Secret Intelligence Service. — The source doesn't seem to include the fact that Philby would later become a double agent for the Soviet Union
    • Citation now added (and slightly amended, since the source points out that he wasn't technically a double agent). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  • 2e - Y
  • 2i - Largely verifies, with only one minor nitpick — the source's ...two senior members of staff were dismissed. Martin remained as the only junior Assistant Keeper, as he had had no connection with whatever misdemeanours had taken place seems slightly different in meaning from the article's Robertson was the only junior Assistant Keeper not involved in the cleaning
    • I chewed on this: I'm not sure the old phrasing could have been untrue from the source, but I think what we have now is more faithful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • 2m - Y
  • 2o - Only verifies the second of the two preceding sentences. I think a citation to the obituary in The Independent has gone missing for the first (In 1959, he published his first book, Greek Painting, in which he used vase-paintings and work in other media to try to recreate lost wall-paintings known only through textual references.), since that is one of the sentences partially copied from that source
    • Added and slightly rephrased. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • 2q - Y
  • 3c - Y
  • 4 - Y
  • 13 - Y

Drive-by comment

The article is excellent, and I’d like to congratulate both of you for bringing it to this level. I’m aware that Robertson was known as “Martin” throughout his life but why is “Martin” used in the following instances when “Robertson” is used throughout the article?

• ...while Martin was posted to Cairo, and raised by Cecil in Iken in Suffolk.
• Martin remarried in 1988...

Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

This is usual practice when there's more than one person by that surname in the picture: in this case, Cecil's surname was also Robertson, since she was married to him. If we stuck with calling people by their surnames in all circumstances, it would give us:

• Cecil Robertson died in an accident in 1984. Robertson remarried in 1988...
• Their first child, Robertson, was born while Robertson was posted to Cairo, and raised by Robertson in Iken in Suffolk.

Both of which are quite manifestly silly. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your choice. MSincccc (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by JuniperChill talk 20:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Martin Robertson only kept his job at the British Museum because he didn't clean the exhibits?

• Source: Sparkes, Brian A. (2006). "Charles Martin Robertson 1911–2004" (PDF). Proceedings of the British Academy. 138: 321–335. Retrieved 2023-10-24.

• • ALT1: ... that the classical scholar Martin Robertson worked in British intelligence with his childhood friend, the Soviet agent Kim Philby? Source: Sparkes, Brian A. (2006). "Charles Martin Robertson 1911–2004" (PDF). Proceedings of the British Academy. 138: 321–335. Retrieved 2023-10-24.
  • ALT2: ... that Martin Robertson was forbidden from growing a beard while a professor at University College London? Source: "Professor Martin Robertson". The Independent. 2005-01-03. Retrieved 2021-09-30.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Marian Days
  • Comment: Second QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/William Donald (doctor)

Improved to Good Article status by UndercoverClassicist (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 40 past nominations.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC).

• Right, so what I've learned from this is that you shouldn't clean the Elgin Marbles.
  Long enough, valid GA review done recently enough, QPQs look fine. Very interesting hooks, all three are sourced appropriately & check out from my reading of the sources; ALT0 is my favourite. The article spotcheck came up clean; judging from Who Wrote That, very little text by the editor with CLOP issues remains. Did side eye the sentences including "again succeeded", but decided they probably aren't problematic. Might want to clarify in the article about the Secret Service involvement; right now, the Wikipedia article leaves me with the impression that he stayed with the Intelligence Corps. Under the section "Influence of Classical scholarship" there's the odd fact (Bothmer's involvement in Paralipomena ) that isn't backed up in the Oxford DNB, but rather . Just as an FYI. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Hi GreenLipstickLesbian -- thanks for taking on. I've swapped the citation for Bothmer: thank you for saving me a job and tracking down the correct one. Clarified a bit on which branch of intelligence he was in, too: Sparkes says he was "demobilised" in 1946, which normally means moving from the army to civilian life, but I've kept it a bit vague as I wouldn't trust a classicist to necessarily be on top of the intricacies of military terminology (SIS officers are, in theory, civilians, but whether Robertson remained a soldier as cover I don't know and the sources don't say). As a formality, I think you actually need the bolded word "Approved" in the comment to trigger the bot. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Trust me, no worries, I had both sources open & I do a lot of my spotchecks by CTRL+F-ing proper nouns and dates, so finding the correct passage was prety easy! And yeah, I looked at that change, and I think being a little vague here is good - you're right that this isn't an area I'd expect the author to be an expert at, and there was just an inherent degree of confusion in the real world around that time, which, combined with the secretive nature of his work, makes it hard to be definitive. And re: last point - don't worry, the bot picked it up anyway! Apparently he's gotten smarter, recently, if the bold text used to be needed? Again, really interesting article, it was a pleasure to read! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 21:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

What dismissals?

Came to this article today via the DYK hook mentioning the fact that Robertson kept his job at the British Museum, but from the prose it's not clear who was dismissed and why. Current text from the first paragraph of the 'Academic career' section reads: "Robertson was not involved in the cleaning, and so kept his job (leaving him as the only remaining junior Assistant Keeper); however, he was demoted in seniority. As a consequence of the dismissals[...]", telling us only that some people were dismissed but not who these people were or why they were let go (presumably for their over-zealous cleaning of the Elgin Marbles, but again it doesn't actually say). Looking at the GA review, it seems this section may have undergone some copyediting already, but I think it could do with another look. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The preceding sentence is In 1937–1938, staff in the department carried out an aggressive cleaning of the Elgin Marbles, using copper chisels and highly abrasive silicon carbide, at the request of the entrepreneur Joseph Duveen; Duveen wanted the sculptures, originally painted, to look whiter for their display in a new gallery which he was funding. I've added a note to make 100% explicit that those were the staff who were sacked. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This still is not clear to me: Those who carried out the cleaning were sacked. Who fired the staff, and why? Duveen wanted the sculptures to be cleaned, but didn't like their work and fired the staff? or someone else (the museum owner?) disapproved of the cleaning and fired people? Natg 19 (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

We have to work with the sources we've got: the source text (in Robertson's obituary) is It was in the later 1930s that the scandal of the unauthorised cleaning of the Parthenon sculptures rocked the British Museum, and two senior members of staff were dismissed. Martin remained as the only junior Assistant Keeper, as he had had no connection with whatever misdemeanours had taken place., and, in a different source: In 1937-38 staff at the British Museum (BM) had bowed to the wishes of a major donor, Lord Duveen, and had allowed the most important item in its collection to be subjected to damaging intervention. The wealthy art dealer was funding a new gallery to display the marbles, and he thought they should look whiter. The 2,500-year old sculptures were therefore “cleaned” with copper chisels and carborundum. I'll have a look for some more sources, but for now I think we're saying about as much as we can from what we've got. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)