Talk:Temple of Eshmun

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)

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)

popular culture

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)