Pompey stone (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 6 January 2022 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
A fact from Pompey stone appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 September 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Pompey stone was believed to date to the early 1500s for over 70 years before it was revealed to be a hoax in 1894?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
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.
... that the Pompey stone was believed to date to the early 1500s for over 70 years after its discovery in 1820 before it was revealed to be a hoax in 1894?
Overall: This is my first review so I hope I did everything correctly. I think the discovery of a hoax is something that would be interesting to a broad audience, and the hook is properly cited. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Pawnkingthree-- apologies but this just came to mind, would you approve a rephrasing of the hook that I think is more concise? The date of discovery can be inferred from "over 70 years" and IMO makes the hook a little less clunky Eddie891TalkWork19:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0b: ... that the Pompey stone was believed to date to the early 1500s for over 70 years before it was revealed to be a hoax in 1894?
You know, you read my mind there... I was going to mention that there were possibly one too many dates in the hook. ALT0b is an improvement, definitely.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the Syracuse Journal says it was founded in 1925. Is this the correct paper, or was it something earlier under the same name?
When did Avery and Willard carve and bury it?
Any word on why the scholarly attention kept them from coming forward?
"the most elaborate defense" — According to whom?
The second paragraph in "Analysis" cites to the original sources, which I appreciate. But are there also any newer sources which discuss those analyses?
well authenticated" — The open quotation mark is missing.
"probably made by a companion upon his death in 1520" — Grammatically, this refers to the companion's 1520 death.
The historian Berthold Fernow cited Homes in Justin Winsor's Narrative and Critical History of America (1884). — What did he say about the stone/Homes in the 1884 book?
"shrewdest of all Onondaga antiquarians" — According to whom?
"was able to see the original work" — What original work?
"As of 2018" — Is there a current source?
Eddie891, I'm sorry it took so long to get back to this. My further comments are above—they're pretty minor. I like the way it reads, and think the edits you made help the article unfold well. As we discussed, if there are more sources out there from after the hoax was revealed, that would be great. But if not, that shouldn't hold the article back from becoming a featured article. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]