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 Yoninah (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
... that almost half the known words on Phoenician inscriptions are never used again? Source: Rollig, 1983, "The Phoenician-Punic vocabulary attested to date amounts to some 668 words, some of which occur frequently. Among these are 321 hapax legomena and about 15 foreign or loan words. In comparison with Hebrew with around 7000-8000 words and 1500 hapax legomena (8), the number is remarkable."
5x expanded by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 20:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC).
@Onceinawhile: I'm only getting 1104 characters of readable prose, which is lower than the required 1500. Note that bulleted lists generally don't count towards the length criterion. This would still be eligible if expanded to 1500 characters. Also, the hook and article aren't clear about the relationship between Canaanite, Aramaic, Phoenician, and Punic. The article also mentions "Northwest Semitic script" which links to "Northwest Semitic languages", but this is confusing since scripts and languages are distinct. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Antony-22, thanks for the review. I will address these items. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Article has been expanded and now meets length requirements. Here is a review: New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen in online sources. Images are freely licensed. Hook is interesting and offline hook ref AGF and cited inline. However, the text in the image caption, while mentioned in the article, is not sourced, and therefore the image shouldn't be used. QPQ still outstanding. Yoninah (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Yoninah. The caption undersells it actually - this was the first ancient inscription in "local characters" found anywhere in the Levant - i.e. its discovery preceded all other ancient Hebrew/Aramaic/Phoenician inscriptions. I will find a source which explains it properly. QPQ now done. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The hook is unclear—the words are only used once within the extant corpus. Presumably they were used other times in works that have been lost. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Narutolovehinata5, I am working on the image caption one at the moment. Regarding the second point, having "in the extant corpus" in the hook, I think it will feel less "hooky" with those extra words, which I consider to be already implied. If others agree with Antony I don't mind though. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I have added these sources to the article image caption as well:
Lehmann, Reinhard G.[in German] (2013). "Wilhelm Gesenius and the Rise of Phoenician Philology"(PDF). Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 427. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter: 209–266. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2015-04-08. Quote: "Alas, all these were either late or Punic, and came from Cyprus, from the ruins of Kition, from Malta, Sardinia, Athens, and Carthage, but not yet from the Phoenician homeland. The first Phoenician text as such was found as late as 1855, the Eshmunazor sarcophagus inscription from Sidon."
William Wadden Turner, 3 July 1855, The Sidon Inscription, p.259: "Its interest is greater both on this account and as being the first inscription properly so-called that has yet been found in Phoenicia proper, which had previously furnished only some coins and an inscribed gem. It is also the longest inscription hitherto discovered, that of Marseilles—which approaches it the nearest in the form of its characters, the purity of its language, and its extent — consisting of but 21 lines and fragments of lines."
We may need a new reviewer here as Antony hasn't responded to a talk page asking them if they could return. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 12:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about that. The length and newness check out now, Earwig finds no copyvios, QPQ done. The last two bullet points in the list are missing refs, as is the table. (You don't need a ref for each row, you can place the refs in the column headings, or in the paragraph just before the table.) My point about the hook has not been addressed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Antony-22, do you mean the "in the extant corpus" point? How about if we swap the word “used” for “found”? So it would be: “that almost half the known words on Phoenician inscriptions are never found again?” Onceinawhile (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Antony-22, on the question of references in the table, I have added a column labeled "Ref" in which I have added references for the two rows at the bottom which are not part of the published corpuses. All of the others are referenced via the existence of the corpus references. With respect to the two last bullets, they are themselves references, and their relevance to this article is covered in the references prior to the bulleted list. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I think writing either "never used again" or "never found again" are just too confusing. You have to explain it a little more.
I see about the links in the two bullet points being references themselves. For the table, are you saying that the "Concordance" block acts as a reference by referring back to the corpora in the bullet list? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Antony-22, yes exactly – that is what the concordance does. Most of those corpora are online so you can spot check if you like (or I can show you one or two if you wish). On the hook, that’s fine, I don’t feel strongly, Onceinawhile (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Overall: This review has been updated in respect of ALT1 ALT2. I am offering another review here, in the hope of moving this DYK nom through the system quickly, as this is a well-written and useful article which has been here maybe too long. I have done the above checks mainly to familiarise myself with the situation. I have read carefully through the above comments. As far as I can see, all is well now, except for the hook. It appears to be settled (and I agree) that all that needs to be done is to substitute "found" for "used" in the hook. So please could you kindly contribute an ALT1 as a copy of ALT0 but with the word "found"? I believe that should resolve things and this nomination should then get a green tick. Storye book (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Onceinawhile. This nom is good to go. Storye book (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this, but I have some questions. I find the ALT1 hook wording confusing. If there are limited instances of ancient writings, how can you say they are never found again? Maybe if you found more examples, you would see those words too? Secondly, the image caption should be changed to what it's actually showing, an inscription on a sarcophagus. Thirdly, what is going on with the referencing in the chart? There are dozens of entries and only two have cites. Yoninah (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Yoninah, thanks for your message. To your points:
we could use the term “hapax legomena” per the reference at the top of this page, but it strikes me as too technical – “never found again” is an attempt to put in into more digestible language
ok to change the image caption, albeit seems a shame to lose its true notability
the sources are the references in the “concordance” in the table – each one can be referred to the sources in the bulleted list at the top of the table
(Edit conflict: I had just written this reply). @Yoninah:(1) Re wording of ALT1: we can create an ALT2 and substitute something like, "have never been found again", or "have each only been found once". (2) Re image caption: we could change it to something like, "Phoenician inscription on a sarcophagus". (3) The referencing for the chart is clear to me. It's the whole of the List of notable inscriptions section just above the chart. A sentence between that section and the chart explains to the effect that all the items in the chart are mentioned in the sources above, except for the bottom two which have their own citations (my italics). I think that the italicised bit should be made more clear in that sentence, though. @Onceinawhile: Please could you correct these issues or give us your preferences? Thank you.Storye book (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
ALT2... that almost half the known words in Phoenician inscriptions(example pictured) have never been found again?
Thanks @Storye book: see ALT2 above. I have also amended the sentence in the article regarding the concordance per your comment above. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I like ALT2 a lot better. I was also going to suggest the same about adding the sentence clarifying the table references. I think the caption is fine as is, though I'm not sure if there's a rule about having wikilinks there. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
for ALT2. Thank you, everyone, for spotting and sorting out the remaining issues. ALT2 is OK, the sentence about citations for the chart has been clarified, and the image caption will have to be left up to the gods (in my experience, admins will sometimes have to shorten captions if there is too little space in the DYK box). There is one point which does not affect DYK: @Onceinawhile: you have a typo in the corrected sentence "relate cross-refer" - I think you only intended one of those?). Storye book (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you – typo fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: I'm only getting 1104 characters of readable prose, which is lower than the required 1500. Note that bulleted lists generally don't count towards the length criterion. This would still be eligible if expanded to 1500 characters. Also, the hook and article aren't clear about the relationship between Canaanite, Aramaic, Phoenician, and Punic. The article also mentions "Northwest Semitic script" which links to "Northwest Semitic languages", but this is confusing since scripts and languages are distinct. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Article has been expanded and now meets length requirements. Here is a review: New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen in online sources. Images are freely licensed. Hook is interesting and offline hook ref AGF and cited inline. However, the text in the image caption, while mentioned in the article, is not sourced, and therefore the image shouldn't be used. QPQ still outstanding. Yoninah (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
We may need a new reviewer here as Antony hasn't responded to a talk page asking them if they could return. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
This review has been updated in respect of 
Thank you, Onceinawhile. This nom is good to go. Storye book (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)