I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets FA requirements. -EliasZ 16:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment - (note) Previous reviews (GA, first FAC, PR) can be found under "Law School of Beirut" with uppercase "School". The article has been moved to lowercase "school" due to MOS naming concerns (see article talk). GermanJoe (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I have already reviewed this article at its previous FAC, which included an image check and source spotchecks. Most of this issues I identified were dealt with at the time, and the remaining issues have been dealt with subsequently. When I read the article now, I am gratified to see that the prose is much improved throughout. I review it according to the featured article criteria:
1a. Yes, the prose is well-written and of a professional standard. Little of the prose could be called "brilliant", but it is accurate and engaging, without stylistic errors or undue clunkiness.
1b. Yes, the article is broad. It neglects no major facts about the school, and it places the subject in context.
1c. Yes, it is well-researched. It uses high-quality reliable sources, and spot-checks verify the claims made.
1d. Yes, it presents the topic fairly and without bias.
1e. Yes, the article is stable.
2a. Yes, the lead section conforms to our MOS. I feel like the prose in the lead could be improved, but it does fairly summarize the article.
2b. Yes, it is well organized, with an appropriate structure.
2c. Yes, the citations are consistently formatted.
3. Yes, All images are legitimately free, and all required information is present. All images are relevant, and captions are appropriate.
4. Yes, the length is appropriate. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail, and it uses summary style.
Support. I believe this article passes all our featured article criteria. – Quadell(talk) 17:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Support and comments from Jim Just a couple of minor points Jimfbleak -talk to me? 16:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Iulia Augusta Felix — worth saying who she was?
Named after Julia the Elder, info added in a note
Rhetoric — link?
First instance of the word is already wikilinked (rhetorician)
Digest — seems to be italicised in its own article
Digest is the anglicization of Digestorum or Digesta, I don't know why it's italicized in the other article. -EliasZ 05:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Support So happy with this article's improvement. I commend Eli! Awesome effort. ceranthor 20:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Leaning to supportComments: This looks to be an excellent piece of work overall. The prose looks good, albeit a little dry in places, but that is probably unavoidable given the subject. I'm not a subject expert, but the coverage seems good and other than my few general queries below, there is nothing obviously missing. I will be happy to switch to full support once my minor queries are answered. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Sourcing: I did wonder if the sources were representative, but I'm reassured by the nominator's replies to a query in the previous FAC. Did Cynwolfe ever respond to that? Generally, I think that if modern sources refer to Collinet, then that is fine, but it might be reassuring to quote from one of them, even if just to say that everyone defers to him, and he remains the authority.
I have spent a lot of time coupling Collinet references with other modern scholar's work, there remains only a few instances where I haven't done this. I would have done the same for the others but I don't have much time. I believe Collinet's authority is already established. -EliasZ 19:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
OK. The pedant in me wonders if a note should be added to establish his authority for the simple reason that someone is certain to question why we are using such an old source, and it can be good to head off criticism. However, that is my own view and does not remotely affect my support. I am happy his authority is established. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
”The earliest written mention of the school dates to 239 CE, when its reputation had already been established”: The lead says that its reputation was established in 239, but the main body merely states that it was mentioned at that date.
”After arriving in Beirut, these were translated into Greek, published and archived”: In this context, what does published mean?
I would've used other words but "disseminate" sounds like we're talking about something infectious, I also find "distribute" lacking and diminutive. Basically what they did back then was reproduce the edicts by copying, posting and distributing them, it's kinda like the modern sense of publishing. I think it's pretty clear :S-EliasZ 19:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how obvious this would be to modern readers, and my favoured phrasing would be something like "copied and distributed". But again, I am not insisting and this does not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
”In the fourth century, the Greek rhetorician Libanius reported that the school attracted young students from affluent families and deplored the school's instructional use of Latin, which was gradually abandoned in favor of Greek in the course of the century”: Is it worth saying why Greek was favoured? And similarly in the curriculum section.
Greek was the dominant language in the mediterranean even after centuries of Roman rule, Koine Greek was introduced by Alexander and the Romans were tolerant and even favored the use of Greek especially in the learning circles. I left a small notion in the curriculum paragraph. -EliasZ 13:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
”and was the only school, along with Beirut's, to be maintained after Justinian I closed those of Alexandria, Caesarea Maritima and Athens in 529 CE”: The obvious question is why? Perhaps a sentence could be added to avoid making the reader follow links?
”The law school was not reopened, and all prospect for its return was abandoned with the Arab conquest in 635 CE.”: We say what happened to the buildings in Beirut, but is there any more detail about what actually happened to the institution in Sidon at the time of the conquest?
After the conquest there was very few written materials referring to the coastal cities of Phoenicia :( -EliasZ 13:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
In the curriculum section, the paragraph beginning “Little is known about the curriculum before the fifth century…” may be better placed at the beginning of that section. From what is said in that paragraph, I presume the preceding paragraphs give details of what was studied after the Justinian reforms. So it may be worth beginning with that section which says we know little about the curriculum before this date. If the first two paragraphs are just about general methods, perhaps this should be explicitly stated.
Why did Justinian make his reforms and get so involved? Is anything known (or more likely, speculated)?
Justinian was not only an emperor but also the only leader of the church since there wasn't any other strong leaders. Justinian's meddling in the affairs of the city, his move to shut down schools where pagan ideas were being taught and the adoption of christian dogmas in the law school of beirut (maybe out of an act of self-preservation) should be viewed from this context. Unfortunately i haven't found any sources yet directly stating (or speculating) his motives for interfering with the affairs of the school -EliasZ 13:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if an explanatory note could be added, but I appreciate you may consider it off-topic, and will go with your view. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Should the last section be renamed to “Reputation and legacy”, as the first part of the section is not really about its legacy?
good idea, done EliasZ 13:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
”The Ecloga was a shortened and more philanthropic version of the Codex of Justinian, whose dispositions were more in tune with Christian values.”: Could we give an idea of what this meant practically? Sarastro1 (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I've gone off topic enough by adding this much detail about the evolution of the Justinian Codex at the request of an editor in a previous FA nomination. the link to Ecloga leads to a small paragraph in the Byzantine law article. I will be happy to develop an article about it later on but this level of detail is already too much here.-EliasZ 13:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Support: My concerns were fairly minor, and I am happy with the nominator's responses. An impressively authoritative piece of work, well done. One minor point which does not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
"Justinian's Omnem constitution at the beginning of the Digest is the only source of information about the existing study system in the fifth century until the Justinian reforms of 533 CE.": Can we avoid using "Justinian" twice in the same sentence? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Done, thanks -EliasZ 04:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)