Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Museiliha inscription

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 01:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Museiliha inscription

(
)
  • Source: de Ruggiero 1893, p. 443.
    Louvre Museum, 2024
  • ALT1: ... that the Museiliha inscription, a boundary marker from the first century AD, helped delineate ancient territories between the citizens of Caesarea-ad-Libanum and the Gigartans? Source: Renan 1864, p. 149.
    Mommsen, Hirschfeld & Domaszewski 1873, p. 31, insc. 183.
    Louvre Museum, 2024
  • ALT2: ... that the Museiliha inscription, a boundary marker from the first century AD, is considered a rare ancient example of a documented border dispute? Source: de Ruggiero 1893, p. 443.
    Louvre Museum, 2024
  • ALT3: ... that the Museiliha inscription, a boundary marker from the first century AD, includes carefully erased names, likely of Roman officials? Source: Mancini 1884, pp. 71–72.
    Louvre Museum, 2024
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Abu Sulayman Da'ud
Created by Elias Ziade (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 38 past nominations.

el.ziade (talkallam) 10:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - ?
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article was created on November 1, and nominated for DYK on November 6. Length and sourcing are adequate. The article is neutral in tone, and I found no plagiarism concerns. All of the proposed hooks are reasonably interesting to a broad audience. ALT0 states "Roman legal judgment", but I cannot locate the word Roman anywhere in the "Discovery history and interpretation" section. ALT1 is confusing because a boundary marking would delineate the line between territories rather than citizens. I cannot locate the text nor citation for ALT2 anywhere in the article. ALT3 implies" likely of Roman officials", but I cannot find this wording anywhere in the article to verify the citation. No images are used in the article, and the QPQ requirement is complete. Flibirigit (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: I revised the hooks and removed the problematic one which was indeed a synthesis.el.ziade (talkallam) 15:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • ALT4: ... that the Museiliha inscription, a boundary marker from the first century AD, hints at a border dispute between ancient Caesarea-ad-Libanum and Gigarta? Source: de Ruggiero 1893, p. 443.
    Louvre Museum, 2024
    Aliquot 2009, pp. 77–78.
  • ALT5: ... that the Museiliha inscription, a boundary marker from the first century AD, delineated the territories of Caesarea-ad-Libanum and the Gigarta? Source: Renan 1864, p. 149.
    Mommsen, Hirschfeld & Domaszewski 1873, p. 31, insc. 183.
    Louvre Museum, 2024
  • ALT6: ... that the name of the procurator who adjudicated the territorial boundary between Caesarea-ad-Libanum and Gigarta was carefully erased from the Museiliha inscription, a first-century AD boundary marker? Source: Mancini 1884, pp. 71–72.
    Louvre Museum, 2024
    Aliquot 2009, pp. 77–78.
    Ledrain 1888, p. 69.
When proposing new hooks, please use a new ALT# instead of recycling previously rejected hooks. Please keep the conversation in chronological order instead of inserting new hooks before the review. I will look at the new hooks later today. Flibirigit (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
ALT4 and ALT5 would be improved by removing the words "a boundary marker from the first century AD". Shorter hooks are snappier. Omitting some facts while remaining true is suggested as per WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE. I have struck ALT6, since it is too wordy. Also, the corresponding article does not mention the words "procurator" nor "adjudicated", making verification difficult. Flibirigit (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Approving shortened ALT4 and ALT5. The shorter hooks are snappier, interesting to a broad audience, mentioned in the article, and I will AGF on the sources. The article adheres to all other DYK criteria as per my review. Flibirigit (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Museiliha_inscription&oldid=1262988037"