![]() | Law school of Berytus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 6, 2013. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm very happy to see this article, and did a little copyediting (all I have time for at present). Quick question: in the first paragraph, what does 'utmost' mean? I'm not sure, and the usage seems slightly non-idiomatic, but I'm going to try replacing it with 'preeminent': please change if that isn't what's meant. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Just explaining some edicts that I hope don't seem heavy handed. I changed "right" to "prerogative" because in Roman law it often means a special privilege to a select group, not an inherent right in the modern sense (for example, the ius trium liberorum is a privilege of distinction and an exemption from some restrictions against women, not "the right of [having] three children") . I may be wrong; "privilege" may be the better word, if anyone wants to check. I'm no law scholar, so my edits may need further tweaking.
"Imperial constitutions" is probably better as "imperial edicts" (for an example, see Constitutio Antoniniana), since it doesn't mean constitution in the modern sense, or the sense in which WP uses it as Constitution of the Roman Empire. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 02:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 02:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Two small concerns at a glance:
Thanks for addressing the above so quickly. I've now given it a top-to-bottom review, and I think the article looks strong overall; your research on this appears very thorough and impressive. I've raised a few issues below for your consideration, many of them quibbles. One broader issue I wanted to mention is that the article at times feels subtly promotional of its topic, directly making the case for the subject's importance and preeminence rather than letting the facts speak for themselves. The subject clearly is important, so this isn't a big deal in most places. But I made a few tweaks as I went to tone this down, and I have a few more suggestions below. Let me know your thoughts, and thanks again for all your work on this topic! It was fascinating reading.
Hello and thanks for your time and thorough review, I was overwhelmed lately and I missed it! Your comments and suggestions are eye-opening and helpful and I will fix the issues starting now. Thanks again. Eli + 11:06, 19 June 2013 (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. | Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues. |
![]() |
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. | |
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). | The references to Dorotheus still seem to me mildly repetitive, but within GA bounds. |
![]() |
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. | Pass |
I've noted a small spelling/grammar point above, but this otherwise looks just about ready for promotion. Cheers, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Why on earth is peer review bot archiving new and empty peer review requests? - Eli + 10:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, one of the proper names of the subject of this article is "Law School of Beirut". If that is so, then "school" should be capitalized as it is in the article title. This was recommended as a change in the GA review but appeared not to have been implemented. My recent attempt to correct that was reverted with the comment that it is not a proper name. Is it the proper name of the school or not? If it's not a proper name why is the"school" capitalized in the title? (Also, if someone would explain what "FAC1" is, I'd appreciate it.) Joja lozzo 02:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Jojalozzo I'm disregarding your accusation of ownership and I don't feel the need to justify myself anyway but just because I happen to be almost the sole editor of the article doesn't mean I calim ownership over it. On the other hand I hold every right to revert unhelpful edits such as yours when these compromise the article's quality especially that you have chosen to omit reading the constructive notes left on the article's FA nomination. Cynwolfe, if adding "Roman" to the title makes things clearer then I support you. - Eli + 04:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The link to the latest peer review was broken due to page move. Here's the link - Elias Z 16:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
was changed by the article creator [1], shortly after the creation, thus WP:RETAIN does not apply. Materialscientist ( talk) 03:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The hyperlink to precedent under the Background section appears (as far as I can tell) to be incorrect. It points to common law legal precedent. My understanding of Roman law is limited, but I am under the impression that it was much closer to civil law than common law. If there was some form of legal precedent (or judge made law), perhaps the link can be removed while (a softer form of the word) "precedent" can be retained? Gulbenk ( talk) 06:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Law school of Beirut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Law school of Beirut →
Law school of Berytus – Much better attested overall as the "Law school of
Berytus" in English-language historical sources, as can be seen by using the
Google Ngram Viewer (
raw diagram,
diagram with smoothing), as well as by comparing on
JSTOR (
"law school of Berytus" vs.
"law school of Beirut"). Also "law school of Berytus" would be less ambiguous as there are nowadays several law faculties in Beirut (at
Saint Joseph University,
La Sagesse University, the
Beirut Arab University...), that are sometimes considered "law schools" (see for example
this website or
this question with answers on Quora).
Gibranist (
talk)
10:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
It seems that there are some shown images not corresponding to the issue. Siculena ( talk) 14:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Law school of Berytus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 6, 2013. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm very happy to see this article, and did a little copyediting (all I have time for at present). Quick question: in the first paragraph, what does 'utmost' mean? I'm not sure, and the usage seems slightly non-idiomatic, but I'm going to try replacing it with 'preeminent': please change if that isn't what's meant. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Just explaining some edicts that I hope don't seem heavy handed. I changed "right" to "prerogative" because in Roman law it often means a special privilege to a select group, not an inherent right in the modern sense (for example, the ius trium liberorum is a privilege of distinction and an exemption from some restrictions against women, not "the right of [having] three children") . I may be wrong; "privilege" may be the better word, if anyone wants to check. I'm no law scholar, so my edits may need further tweaking.
"Imperial constitutions" is probably better as "imperial edicts" (for an example, see Constitutio Antoniniana), since it doesn't mean constitution in the modern sense, or the sense in which WP uses it as Constitution of the Roman Empire. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 02:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 02:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Two small concerns at a glance:
Thanks for addressing the above so quickly. I've now given it a top-to-bottom review, and I think the article looks strong overall; your research on this appears very thorough and impressive. I've raised a few issues below for your consideration, many of them quibbles. One broader issue I wanted to mention is that the article at times feels subtly promotional of its topic, directly making the case for the subject's importance and preeminence rather than letting the facts speak for themselves. The subject clearly is important, so this isn't a big deal in most places. But I made a few tweaks as I went to tone this down, and I have a few more suggestions below. Let me know your thoughts, and thanks again for all your work on this topic! It was fascinating reading.
Hello and thanks for your time and thorough review, I was overwhelmed lately and I missed it! Your comments and suggestions are eye-opening and helpful and I will fix the issues starting now. Thanks again. Eli + 11:06, 19 June 2013 (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. | Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues. |
![]() |
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. | |
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). | The references to Dorotheus still seem to me mildly repetitive, but within GA bounds. |
![]() |
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. | Pass |
I've noted a small spelling/grammar point above, but this otherwise looks just about ready for promotion. Cheers, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Why on earth is peer review bot archiving new and empty peer review requests? - Eli + 10:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, one of the proper names of the subject of this article is "Law School of Beirut". If that is so, then "school" should be capitalized as it is in the article title. This was recommended as a change in the GA review but appeared not to have been implemented. My recent attempt to correct that was reverted with the comment that it is not a proper name. Is it the proper name of the school or not? If it's not a proper name why is the"school" capitalized in the title? (Also, if someone would explain what "FAC1" is, I'd appreciate it.) Joja lozzo 02:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Jojalozzo I'm disregarding your accusation of ownership and I don't feel the need to justify myself anyway but just because I happen to be almost the sole editor of the article doesn't mean I calim ownership over it. On the other hand I hold every right to revert unhelpful edits such as yours when these compromise the article's quality especially that you have chosen to omit reading the constructive notes left on the article's FA nomination. Cynwolfe, if adding "Roman" to the title makes things clearer then I support you. - Eli + 04:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The link to the latest peer review was broken due to page move. Here's the link - Elias Z 16:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
was changed by the article creator [1], shortly after the creation, thus WP:RETAIN does not apply. Materialscientist ( talk) 03:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The hyperlink to precedent under the Background section appears (as far as I can tell) to be incorrect. It points to common law legal precedent. My understanding of Roman law is limited, but I am under the impression that it was much closer to civil law than common law. If there was some form of legal precedent (or judge made law), perhaps the link can be removed while (a softer form of the word) "precedent" can be retained? Gulbenk ( talk) 06:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Law school of Beirut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Law school of Beirut →
Law school of Berytus – Much better attested overall as the "Law school of
Berytus" in English-language historical sources, as can be seen by using the
Google Ngram Viewer (
raw diagram,
diagram with smoothing), as well as by comparing on
JSTOR (
"law school of Berytus" vs.
"law school of Beirut"). Also "law school of Berytus" would be less ambiguous as there are nowadays several law faculties in Beirut (at
Saint Joseph University,
La Sagesse University, the
Beirut Arab University...), that are sometimes considered "law schools" (see for example
this website or
this question with answers on Quora).
Gibranist (
talk)
10:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
It seems that there are some shown images not corresponding to the issue. Siculena ( talk) 14:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)