Talk:Tel Yokneam
Appearance
![]() | Tel Yokneam was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 30, 2019). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
Why are live URL doubled up by archive URL?
[edit]Isn't it just a waste of space? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
PS: new comments like this, if placed at the bottom of the page, get swallowed up by the table, so I brought this up here. Also: how does one create a "Contents" template on this/a talk-page? Arminden (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
To-do list
[edit]Add acres/sqm/hectars to 40 dunams in the lead.Done
When was the site excavated, How long were the excavations going on?? + write about Miriam Avissar's excavation in the 90s and thisDone
When was it first settled? When was it abandonedDone
Who runs the regional project?Done
In Persian and Hellenistic periods: "Archaeologists suggested..." - who?Done
"The survey did find a Byzantine church..." - what survey?Done
"It was suggested the city was abandoned..." - who?Done
- More of the above
Paragraphs relient on one sourceDone
Unsourced claims: "These finds are quite meager", "Amnon Ben-Tor remarks", "one interesting offering"Done
Anything more recent than 1878?Done
Who runs the site now? Is it protected? + expand from hereDone
Ottoman fortress: Yes or no?Done
Mamluk period needs expansion, as well as archaeological finds in the Crusader, Byzantine, Roman, Persian and HellenisticDone
Source the shit out of the lead sectionDone
What was the name during Roman times? Also where's Jerome's account?Done
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Tel Yokneam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 17:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Bolter21: - I'm not done with the review yet, but there are a couple of big issues I wanted to let you know about asap. First of all, there are consistent grammatical issues which need a thorough copyedit. More importantly (and content-wise), the article needs expansion to include a description of Tel Yokneam as an *archaeological* site, not just a historic one. Who owns it, who runs it, when was it excavated, how has it been studied, etc? These two things at a minimum need to be addressed before this article can pass GAN. If you think you'll have time to do that over the next few weeks, then go ahead and make those improvements. If not, the article could be failed and you can make the improvements without any time-pressure and renominate the article when you're done. Let me know what you want to do! Ganesha811 (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the initial review. Indeed these issues must be solved and I already know how to solve all of them. It's the problem of accessibility now. Next time I'll have access to a PC will be in the weekend after the next. I'll try to solve as many issues through my phone. Others will be more tricky.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Borrowed a computer from one of my soldiers. I might be able to address most issues by this weekend.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good. No rush! Ganesha811 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Alright, I've spent the better part of the day working on the article and it seems since the begining of the review, the article has grown by about 40% which is great! Not wishing to enter a state of fatigue I stop here and wait for your new review.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Bolter21, hi! I'll take another look through this weekend. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Bolter21 - first of all, great work on all of your additions. You have really added a lot of great content, and responded very comprehensively to the feedback I gave. Unfortunately, I think I will still have to fail this GA nomination. The main reason is copyediting. As I look through, there are a number of typos, extremely awkward construction, grammatical errors, and other copyediting issues that are visible. I would recommend reaching out and asking the Guild of Copy Editors (WP:GUILD to do a scrub on the page. A side note - the lead does not generally need to be sourced, per the Manual of Style. It can summarize the rest of the page without the need for direct sourcing. You've put in a lot of great work to this article and I feel confident that with a good copyedit and some other tweaks it will pass the next Good Article nomination! Ganesha811 (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Not being an English speaker sure makes it difficult. I'll try and ask for copy editing, this should help.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'll tell you what. I am going to submit the article to a copyedit review and on the meantime I'll try and expand it even more. The Iron and Bronze Age eras can definitely enjoy more content. So I'll appreciate if you'll have another look when I'm done for the content and less for the grammar. Your comments imply we shall keep the review discussion for now, as we are on the right direction.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Great! I did fail the nomination for now, but let me know when you re-nominate it. You have done some excellent work improving the article, and I appreciate it must be difficult as a non-English speaker to get all the grammar/etc down. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Bolter21 - first of all, great work on all of your additions. You have really added a lot of great content, and responded very comprehensively to the feedback I gave. Unfortunately, I think I will still have to fail this GA nomination. The main reason is copyediting. As I look through, there are a number of typos, extremely awkward construction, grammatical errors, and other copyediting issues that are visible. I would recommend reaching out and asking the Guild of Copy Editors (WP:GUILD to do a scrub on the page. A side note - the lead does not generally need to be sourced, per the Manual of Style. It can summarize the rest of the page without the need for direct sourcing. You've put in a lot of great work to this article and I feel confident that with a good copyedit and some other tweaks it will pass the next Good Article nomination! Ganesha811 (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Bolter21, hi! I'll take another look through this weekend. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Alright, I've spent the better part of the day working on the article and it seems since the begining of the review, the article has grown by about 40% which is great! Not wishing to enter a state of fatigue I stop here and wait for your new review.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good. No rush! Ganesha811 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
|
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. |
In 'Bronze age' "one interesting offering" has same issue as above. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
|
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
|
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
|
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
|
Categories:
- Former good article nominees
- B-Class Western Asia articles
- Low-importance Western Asia articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Unknown-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- WikiProject Western Asia articles
- Low-importance Israel-related articles
- B-Class Archaeology articles
- Mid-importance Archaeology articles