This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles 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.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Te one at the top of the page takes you up on a ridge; the one in the infobox in the plain beneath, which IMO makes it credible, as it corresponds with description and is more logical for a settlement. Arminden (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References: inaccurate, huge number of useless repetitions, missing online access data
The apparatus can be reduced to a fraction if done systematically. Multiple editors mentioned in varying sequences (A + B, eds. and B + A, eds.) leading to repeating the same source, varying ways of quoting the same source, full details multiple times (also, but not only when dealing with different chapters of the same book), etc., etc. If a source is on the "Bibliography" list, there's no need to repeat all the details at every inline mention. Have started with the cleanup, but 5x more can be done, easily.
