Jump to content

Talk:Temple of Eshmun/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Suggestions (not a GA review)

The article looks pretty good, but there are some minor issues that should be addressed.

  • All instances of "BC" and "AD" generally should be replaced with "BCE" and "CE", but it is only recommended by WP:MOS, not mandatory.
  • The Historical background section is choppy; Either the two-line paragraphs are merged with other related paragraphs or they should be expanded with new info.
  • Per MoS Arabic dashes should be placed between the "al" or "el" and the following word i.e. "al-Din" or "el-Sheikh". They should also be lower-cased unless they're the first word in a sentence.
  • I noticed the articles uses both "Saida" and "Sidon". Only one of these should be used for consistence and to avoid confusion. I prefer Sidon because it's more familiar in the English language.
  • The first passage of the "Modern discovery" section should be slightly expanded or merged. There needs to be a citation to back the information as well.
  • When after the Israeli occupation was the temple cleared/renovated?
  • The third passage in the Architecture section should be merged with the second passage.
  • This is an extremely minor point, but why is there an extra white space between the title and lead of the article? I attempted to get rid of it, but could not.
  • Conversion parameters should be in place whenever something is measured in the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thank you for your feedback, these were very informative, i hv fixed most of the points, unfortunately the sources do not state the exact date of the renovation of the site. About the first passage of the "modern discovery" section, it is from the same source as the passage below, i merged these as suggested. Eli+ 22:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Just an additional note, the beginning of the Historical background section is unreferenced. Everything else seems GA-quality. Good luck! --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
To quote WP:MOS on the BC/AD vrs BCE/CE matter "No preference is given to either style". If the article was originally written in BC/AD it should stay that way unless there is a consensus for change on the article talk page. Unless there was a brief period when WP:MOS changed its line on this, the above suggestion that "All instances of "BC" and "AD" generally should be replaced with "BCE" and "CE" " was incorrect. Greenshed (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with above. Al Ameer son you are way out of line demanding that the era setting should be changed in any article-how much else are you so ignorant about?--90.205.121.39 (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have a full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • Lead. More linking is needed. Rivers, kings, architectural styles, etc.
    • Historical background subsection. This subsection is completely made up of short paragraphs. Could these please be combined to form fewer (maybe two?), longer paragraphs?
    • Same section. "Nevertheless, the Sidonian king was still held in the court of Babylon." I'm not sure what is trying to be said with this sentence.
    • Decline subsection. "Another earthquake hit Sidon around 570 A.D., Antonin de Plaisance, an Italian Christian pilgrim describes the city which was partly in ruins." Is this person of historical significance, or is he just a random pilgrim? If the latter, it would probably be best to just say something along the lines of "570 A.D.; contemporary pilgrims describe the city as being in ruins."
    • After 1975 subsection. "it was added to the UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List's Cultural category on July 1, 1996." Has there really been no update to this status in over a decade?
    • Throughout most of the article, it says "Ydll source by the cistern". However, in the Location according to ancient texts subsection, it says "Yidlal source by the cistern". Please standardize the spelling.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Ref #14 (Elayi, Josette) needs a publisher, and what makes this site reliable?
    • I think there's something wrong with the ISBN in ref #45 (Saleh, Nabil).
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Overall this looks like a nice article. There are a few minor issues with prose and referencing, but these shouldn't take too much time to fix, so I am placing the article on hold for now. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

RE

Hey Dana, thanks for your time, i have been waiting for a review for a while now

- Ref #14 (Elayi, Josette) needs a publisher, and what makes this site reliable?

Josette Elayi is a very respectable hisotorian and is a member of the french national scientific research center this is a link to a french wp article about her, i hope you are good in french. The site from which the article is taken is Digitorient.com, a branch of the the french CNRS a very respectable scientific body.

- I think there's something wrong with the ISBN in ref #45 (Saleh, Nabil).

fixed

- Antonin de plaisance aka Antoninus of Piacenza is not a random pilgrim, he is a catholic saint, patron saint of the italian city of piacenza and is therefore a notable historical person. saint's page hope you re good with italian too

- After 1975 subsection. "it was added to the UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List's Cultural category on July 1, 1996." Has there really been no update to this status in over a decade?

no updates so far, yep! a link to unesco whs tentative list is available among the references (ref 22)

- Throughout most of the article, it says "Ydll source by the cistern". However, in the Location according to ancient texts subsection, it says "Yidlal source by the cistern". Please standardize the spelling.

i donno if i should be faithful to the sources or to my knowledge in phoenician writing, you see, the Phoenicians did not write their vowels so 'Idll could be interpreted as Yidlal, Yodlal, Yadlal, Yidlel, Yedlel,Yedlil, Yedlol, and the list goes on since the word has no equivalent in modern (or old ) semitic languages (hebrew is usually the reference). personally i prefer keeping the word in its original written form (YDLL or IDLL), regardless of the reference.

As for c/e, well i do not excel in english, i'll do my best though Eli+ 22:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything that I have mentioned above has been satisfactorily completed. However, as one final comment, what is your reponse to WandalTouring's question on the talk page? I do agree with him that this novel is of questionable notability to be included in this article. Dana boomer (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed how wikipedia has a ton of articles about every fictional childish japanaese manga character that was ever imagined anywhere yet the notability of a novel that was published in the UK is questioned. If this book is so bothersome, i could remove it but i think it would not be fair; a writer's effort should be appreciated even in mere mention on a wikipedia article. Eli+ 09:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well, although I don't think "fair" is an argument that would be well-recived at A-class or FAC, I'm not going to argue about it for GA status. With that, I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What makes "Nabil Saleh's novel, The Curse of Ezekiel" noteable enough to merit mention here? Wandalstouring (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

He is fairly well known at least regionally and to some degree in the UK, i run a google search about him "Nabil Saleh curse of ezekiel" , i got >5000 links, does that say anything. I know this does not mean anything but I did read the book and found it surprisingly addicting (maybe its because of my affinity to anything Phoenician) Eli+ 15:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Name

Should this article be moved to Temple of Eshmun, which seems to be the more common name? [1][2] Raul654 (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

How do dates suggest relationship?

The lead of the article states that "The site was occupied from the 7th century BCE to the 8th century CE, suggesting an integrated relationship with the nearby city of Sidon". Its location makes it fairly uncontrovertible that it is closely related to the culture and populace of Sidon, but how is it that the dates of occupation suggest that? The Sidon article is not confident about dating the origins of the city any earlier than 4000BCE, and the 200,000 people who live there would presumably not agree that it collapsed some twelve hundred years ago. Kevin McE (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wording of blurb

"as paganism was overrun by Christianity"

Overrun? Paganism was a dying religion that died out as people converted to Christianity, especially in the Middle East. At the moment, the passage makes it look like Christians stormed the land and violently ended the temple's paganism, ironic considering the first 3 centuries of Christianity endured state-sanctioned or populist persecution. No such words like "overrun" are used when describing how other religions spread... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.12.43 (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This is wikipedia. If you think it's wrong, fix it. Aldenrw (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is linked from the main page, and he is trying to establish consensus: no need to WP:BITE. We are encouraged at WP:ERRORS to establish consensus for change on the article and then request there that it be changed on the Main Page.
Agree with IP, and suggest rewrite sentence to read "The Eshmun Temple declined and fell into oblivion as Christianity replaced paganism as the dominant religion in the area, and its large limestone blocks were used to build later structures." Kevin McE (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you should make a big deal out of the passage, fell free to change it as you will. I agree w/ Kevin's suggestion. Eli+ 17:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't edit it; that's why I raised the issue here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.12.43 (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ydll spring

It would be interesting to hear more about the Ydll spring. Does it still flow? Does it contain any interesting trace minerals? Wnt (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Alas no, the spring has dried out but the canalizations are still largely intactEli+ 17:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Temple of Eshmun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Temple_of_Eshmun/Archive_1&oldid=1246279814"