A fact from Sosates appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 January 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Sosates was described as the "Jewish Homer", but all of his works are lost?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. 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.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-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.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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.
... that Sosates was described as the "Jewish Homer", but all of his works are lost? Source: Cohen, p. 392: "Of Sosates' work not a line is extant, but at least we are given ... a general description of his literary output ('the Jewish Homer')."
ALT1: ... that the "Jewish Homer" is known only through a single manuscript of a Latin translation of a lost Greek work? Source: Cohen, p. 391: "The Excerpta Latina Barbari is a seventh- or eighth-century Latin translation of a lost Greek chronicle written in the early fifth century. ... As is true of most medieval chronicles, ... we are occasionally we are treated to data recorded nowhere else. Such is the case with the following unique reference to Sosates ..."
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting:
QPQ: Done.
Overall: The article is new enough, long enough, good sources and the hook is interesting. I prefer ALT0 but both are good. The article does need some very minor copyediting for style, since the way it is written is a bit essay-like. I'll leave more specific advice on this below. It would be nice to add subheaders if possible, but this isn't necessary. Once these copyedits are done, it should be ready for promotion. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"No identifiable fragment of Sosates' poetry is preserved. This is unsurprising." The following paragraph explains that Sosates was too late to be preserved by Polyhistor unlike other Jewish poets, but it might help readers to rephrase these first two sentences or remove the second since it does not add much.
"It is one of five literary historical notices placed within a list of pharaohs that is correlated with a list of Jewish high priests. The correlation, however, is erroneous." Is it possible to rewrite these to be more clear? I take it to mean that the list is inaccurate in which pharaohs were contemporaries of what priests, but the meaning should be clearer since most readers will not be familiar with the subject. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lede says Sosates "flourished during the reign of Ptolemy XII (80–51 BC)." but the article presents two viewpoints on his era. Is one more widely accepted than the other? If so, the article should make this clear but it's OK to leave a broader range of time in the lede if it's uncertain (1st or 2nd century BC works). BuySomeApples (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding is correct that the list is inaccurate in which pharaohs were contemporaries of what priests. I added a clause. I removed "unsurprising" and reworded to make the point clearer. I opted for the conclusion of Burgess in the lead because he is more the expert on the Excerpta, but I have changed it to the broader range. Srnec (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is new enough, long enough, good sources and the hook is interesting. I prefer ALT0 but both are good.