Template:Did you know nominations/Oxus Treasure
- The following discussion 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 PumpkinSky talk 22:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Oxus Treasure
[edit]
- ... that the Ancient Persian Oxus Treasure (armlet illustrated) in the British Museum "has passed through places of evil repute and cannot have come out quite unscathed"?
5x expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self nominated at 16:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC).
Length (>5x expansion) and date verified. All refs appear to be RS but at least one paragraph is missing a reference so that needs attention. I'm not fond of 1 or 2 sentence paragraphs, and there are multiples of these, so a bit of re-arranging might be in order, though not required. There are too many images within the body of the article which are a detraction from reading it, so moving some of the images to a Gallery section, or at least decreasing their size, would help with reading flow, but this, too, is not a requirement. QPQ done. The hook, interesting and of appropriate length, lacks an inline citation, so this review is incomplete. This is a really good article otherwise. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- The only "paragraph" without a citation says, in its entirety: "The surviving objects, an uncertain proportion of the original finds, can be divided into a number of groups." and is just an organizing point, whose content is referenced elsewhere. The hook is cited with note 36. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well no, the hook sentence (The circumstances of the discovery and trading of the pieces, and their variety of styles and quality of workmanship, cast some doubt on their authenticity from the start, and "necessitate a cautious treatment of the Oxus Treasure, for it has passed through places of evil repute and cannot have come out quite unscathed", as Dalton put it in 1905.) is not cited with note 36; the next sentence is. As for the sentence/paragraph which lacks a reference, I'll agree that the D2 exception, "...paragraphs which summarize other cited content", can be applied here. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
