Jump to content

Talk:Phoenician joint

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Kingsif (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the Romans copied the Phoenician joints technique from a Punic warship that ran aground in 264 BC? Source: (Sleeswyk 1980, p. 244)
    • ALT1:... that the Romans exploited the Phoenician joints to their advantage early in the First Punic War in 260 BC which allowed them to build a fleet of 100 warships within a period of two months? Source: (Sleeswyk 1980, p. 244)

Sleeswyk, A. W. (1980-08-01). "Phoenician joints, coagmenta punicana". International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. 9 (3): 243–244. doi:10.1111/j.1095-9270.1980.tb01303.x. ISSN 1057-2414.

Created by Elias Ziade (talk). Self-nominated at 06:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • It's long enough, new enough, no copyvio, hook is verified, images are properly licensed. If anything, this is a bit too long--much of it is more general than this topic might warrant, but hey. And if you're ever going for a GA, I'd move material out of the lead, cause that's a bit top-heavy. So I'll tick this off, Elias Ziade -- as soon as you do the QPQ. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could have said: Did you know that if the loose tenons the Phoenicians used to build their ships with weren't tight, the ships would have sank? Billyshiverstick (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 17:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting this review now. My plan is to do two major passes through the article, first for prose, the second to verify the references and more technical aspects. In general, all my comments will be suggestions which you can accept or reject as you see fit.

Lead

[edit]

Overall, I think you've put too much detail in the lead. For example, everything in the first paragraph from The peg merely holds the tenons tightly in the mortises could be moved into the main body. And the previous sentence, The assembly is then locked or "pinned" or "pegged" by driving dowels into holes drilled through both the mortise side wall and the tenon. could be just, "The assembly is then locked by driving dowels through the pieces".

I would aim to have the lead end up about half the current length. I'm reading this on a 15-inch laptop and the lead barely fits on the screen. I think you should be aiming for something that fits on a tablet. Please go through it and see if you can identify just the most critical parts. See MOS:LEADLENGTH.

Categorizing this as "a clever solution" is WP:OR unless you're citing a specific WP:RS which says that.

Sorry about that, it was an addition by another user shortly after the page appeared in DYK. I removed the unhelpful bits el.ziade (talkallam) 13:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

The picture is wonderful, but I would reduce the caption length. Maybe, "Phoenician joint with pegged mortise and tenon construction" and move all the details into the main body.

Done, thanks el.ziade (talkallam) 13:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence is a bit oddly worded ("in real life"). The problem, as I understand it, is that the drawing appears to be showing the view from the outside of the hull due to the way the planks are curved, but the point you make about driving the pegs from the inside so as to not pierce the outer skin makes sense. This does need to be clarified, but I can't right now think of a good way to say that in a space that makes sense for an infobox caption.

Also added by an eager user. I removed the GF edits. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per WP:INFOBOXCITE, move the references in the infobox into the main body.

Done el.ziade (talkallam) 13:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

"the Ancient Egyptians employed a joinery technique that is similar to the Phoenician joints technique" -> "the Ancient Egyptians employed a similar technique".

Done el.ziade (talkallam) 13:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"unlocked mortise and tenon where tenons were used as coaks,", what is a "coak"? Is there a page you can link to? Also, just after that, add a link for "strake".

you're right, it is redundant. I linked "strake" and removed the WL from another instance below. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The ship's hull was built with Lebanese cedar and oak wood was used for the tenons." -> "The ship was built with Lebanese cedar, with oak tenons".

Done el.ziade (talkallam) 13:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The technique is also attested in Vietnam.", I would write this as, "... was also seen in Vietnam". Same comment for "attested in later ancient Egyptian ships" elsewhere.

Done el.ziade (talkallam) 13:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

You mention the origin of the term "coagmenta punicana" in a number of places. I'd mention that once in the lead, then consolidate all the other information about the history of the term into the Etymology section.

I'm going to stop now and give you a chance to work through these suggestions. The biggest changes are going to be reworking the lead. I'll do another pass through the prose once you've got that done.

Done mate el.ziade (talkallam) 07:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

[edit]

@Elias Ziade: I haven't seen any response to my review, so I'm going to place this on hold. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Hi Roy, thank you so much for your review. I have been very busy lately, but I will tend to your feedback now. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elias Ziade, Thanks. Overall, it's a pretty interesting article, so I'm happy to work with you to get it up to GA status. It caught my eye because it touches two of my personal interests: boats and wood working. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional thoughts

[edit]

In the reworked lead:

  • "together with a tenon, a rectangular wooden knob" -> "together with a rectangular wooden tenon"
done
  • "secure in place" -> "secure"
done
  • wikilink to Phoenicia the first place it's used.
done

I'm a little confused about the second and third paragraphs of the lead. I think what you're trying to convey is a specific order of events, but that's not clear. Would something like the following (assuming the timeline I've got is actually correct) work instead?

The Phoenicians pioneered this type of joinery during the XXX century in the Levantine littoral region. From there, it spread westward into what is now Turkey, where it is seen in the Uluburun shipwreck (14th century BC) and the Cape Gelidonya ship (c.  1200 BC). By the first millenium BC, it had reached Greece, and Rome in the third century BC.
I am only leaving a comment here, will address all the rest later @RoySmith:. I like the way you put the passage together however this would be misleading IMO. It is presumptive to jump to a conclusion that the technique jumped westward in this geographical order without historical proof. I will review the passage, but I don't think I won't make this assumption. el.ziade (talkallam) 11:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elias Ziade, Sounds good. I agree that we should get the facts correct first, and then work on the details of the phrasing. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would hit all the essential high points, and the rest of the detail could be left for the main text.

  • It would be really nice if there was a map showing all the various places this type of joinery has been found, with each site labeled with the date. That would really help show how this technology spread. The folks at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop could help with that. Not a blocker for this reaching GA, just a suggestion for future improvements.
Great idea! el.ziade (talkallam) 11:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
on second thought this will require some research which I don't have for el.ziade (talkallam) 07:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In history, The first three paragraphs are all single sentences, which makes for choppy reading. Try combining them into a single paragraph.
Done el.ziade (talkallam) 08:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early Phoenician/Canaanite", don't capitalize "Early".
done
  • I'm not seeing any problems with WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:CP. The breadth of coverage seems fine.
Good point. el.ziade (talkallam) 11:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elias Ziade, This has been on hold for about a week and a half. I'd like to wrap this up soon. Could you work through my last set of comments in the next few days? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith really sorry for the delay. I am switching jobs and I'm a bit OVERWHELMED. I'LL do my best to finish ASAPel.ziade (talkallam) 07:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elias Ziade, If you need more time, I'm happy to leave this on hold for a bit longer. Would 10 days (June 23) work? I just don't want to leave this open ended. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith I believe I got everything covered. Sorry again for the delay. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the article. el.ziade (talkallam) 07:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elias Ziade, OK, thanks. I'm going to mark this as passed GA review. If you get more time at some point in the future, I really encourage you to come back and work on some sort of graphical representation of how the technology spread from Phoenicia to other civilizations over time. I think that would really help the reader understand the history. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot RoySmith. el.ziade (talkallam) 06:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10 days are more than enough budyy. Thanks el.ziade (talkallam) 04:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: The Phoenicians - Cunning Seafarers

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cunningseafarer22 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Cunningseafarer22 (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

It appears that the term "Phoenician joint" is rare in the literature. This ngrams query is inconclusive, but shows that there are insufficient occurrences to plot anything for it (ngrams min threshold is 40 books). There are a handful in Scholar search but also some false positives; likewise in Book search, but note the number of false positives (... Joint ventures, etc.), but only when queried directly for the current title, a biased search. Other terms like "locked mortise and tenon" are used. Note that an unbiased OR'd scholar search for both terms shows some usage of the "locked mortise and tenon" expression, but few if any for "Phoenician joint", demonstrating a probable preference for the former. A move request should probably be initiated here. Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Being an old hippie from the peace and love days, I always picture a statue of Ba'al with a big spliff hanging from his mouth when I see the words "Phoenician joint". Carlstak (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! Must admit I didn't imagine that on my own, until you did, and now I'm ashamed of the oversight. Maybe it can be added as a third possibility in the move discussion... Mathglot (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe consider moving it back to its original title? @Mathglot el.ziade (talkallam) 07:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elias Ziade, afaict, the original version had the same title, except in the plural ("Phoenician joints"), which seems no better. Or do you know of an earlier history? Mathglot (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Phoenician joints” is a direct and straightforward translation of coagmenta Punicana, with the plural form aligning with the Latin original. While I appreciate the humor surrounding the modern connotation of "Phoenician joint," this allusion is entirely coincidental and does not provide a valid basis for altering the title. The rarity of "Phoenician joint" in literature should not be viewed as a flaw but rather as a testament to its precision and context-specific application, which ties directly to Phoenician craftsmanship and historical references. The term "Phoenician joint/s" reflects not only the technical aspect of the joinery but also its cultural and historical significance. Moreover, while a Google search hits comparison between "Phoenician joint" and "locked mortise and tenon" shows a slight numerical advantage for the latter, the difference is marginal (approximately 507 for locked mortise and tenon vs. ~400). This does not constitute a compelling argument for change, especially considering that general terms like "locked mortise and tenon" lack the specificity and depth tied to the Phoenician context and Roman literature. Unless stronger evidence emerges showing widespread academic preference for an alternative term or significant issues with the current title's accuracy, I believe the title "Phoenician joint/s" should be preserved. It retains a precise connection to historical sources. At most, reverting to the plural form might align better with earlier historical uses. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot Forgot to ping. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elias, our article titles are not based on a literal translation of what the name is in another language. Titles are determined by WP:Article title policy, and primarily by actual usage in English by reliable sources. Please note that your numerical comparison of mentions may be inaccurate, because many English sources that include the term Phoenician joint in the text are not always using the term to denote the object, but are simply mentioning the term as a translation of coagmenta Punicana in an etymological introduction, and then go on to primarily use some other term (like locked or pegged mortise and tenon), so in order to get an accurate picture, you would have to sample a number of them and see how many sources actually use which term in running text as an identiier, after explaining the etymology somewhere. Remember that Google search tallies count number of documents, not number of uses, so if some web page or book uses the term locked mortise and tenon 125 times in a chapter about it, and mentions Phoenician joint once in the top section, explaining about the Latin origin of the term and what that means in English, that counts as one tally for Phoenician joint, and one tally for locked mortise and tenon, not 125 for the latter. So, you have to be careful how you use search result counts, and sample the results to get a true picture. Mathglot (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phoenician_joint&oldid=1262771669"