Talk:Amulet MS 5236

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Amulet MS 5236 was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Greece (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Typography (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Books (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Reliable sources?[edit]

This article appears to rely on two unpublished studies, both incompletely referenced. Can someone explain why they should be treated as reliable? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion in German Wikipedia[edit]

After a lengthy discussion the German wikipedia has decied to delete this article. Main reason was very douptful sources, mainly one "unpublished" document, which never will reach a peer-review as long it stays in this status. The second source was a private memo and it seems douptful if the author intended it for publication or if he still believed in into before his death. See: de:Wikipedia:Löschprüfung/Archiv/2010/Woche_48#Amulett_MS_5236_.28erl..2C_gel.C3.B6scht.29 --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What you call "doubtful" sources were actually written by international experts (see author links) and your claim that one of them "may not have believed in into before his death" is exactly one of those claims totally made up of out of thin air which made the German discussion such a mockery. A discussion which became in fact lenghty only because the deletion was first disapproved by an admin for a lack of real reasons. I freely acknowledge that peer-reviewed sources would be more preferable to the studies now cited, but trying to transplant the somehwat dishonest arguments from the German WP is in no way helpful in determing the real worth of the sources on which this article is based. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)