Mosaic of Rehob has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 3, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Mosaic of Rehob appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 April 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
So-called "references" are nothing but (well-funded) commentaries by the author of the article (cannot even speak of a "Wikipedia editor" in this case). Great resource, except if one wants to quote it - or if it's to be judged by Wikipedia rules, which I'm not a great fan of, but... there are limits to freelancing. I am sure the author has published this content in at least one paper; just quote that paper and it's all halakhically kosher. PS: the English is great, except for some transliteration errors, which makes it look like the work of a possibly Hebrew native-speaker with good enough practice in academic English. But why do we need to guess? Arminden ( talk) 12:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Davidbena: Hi! I don't get it: you write that the inscription is from the 3rd-7th c. and link to an Israel Museum link, where all I can see is: 6th c.
Second, the lead defines the topic of the article as "Mosaic of Reḥob, also known as the Tel Rehov inscription and Baraita of the Boundaries". I understand from this that all 3 names refer to the narthex inscription ONLY, not to all mosaic fragments from the synagogue, surviving from all its 3 phases. So 6th c., or if Vitto or anyone still has doubts, 6th-7th. Apart from the date of the halakhical text, this is essential as it defines what the article is all about. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 05:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
This article contains an excessive amount of material cited directly to ancient primary sources such as Talmud and Mishna. These sources need to be replaced or augmented by modern secondary sources. If that's not possible, the material should be removed. Zero talk 07:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ganesha811 ( talk · contribs) 01:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on
my talk page, either's fine!
—Ganesha811 (
talk) 01:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Ganesha811:, I wish to inform you and others that I have completed the task of bringing this article up to the standard that was requested of me, and now you and others are free to do with the article as you wish. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to improve this article. Davidbena ( talk) 01:52, 27 January 2023 (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. |
| |
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. |
The result was: promoted by
BorgQueen (
talk) 00:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Created by Davidbena ( talk). Self-nominated at 18:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mosaic of Rehob, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: @ Davidbena: Welcome to DYK! Now, when I say the hook isn't interesting, i mean that the hook is confusing. I'm not understanding what the hook is supposed to say and I think that's because the hook doesn't have any links to other wikipedia articles in it. Also Mosaic of Rehob Isn't linked in the hook either so i'm not sure what the mosaic is. Also, i'm not sure what citation that's supposed to be as i'm not used to the citation style of the article. Also, I'm stumped specfically on "left an indelible mark on how the Jewish nation is to perform certain religious practices?" because i don't know what you mean by "indelible mark", what "Jewish nation", and what "certain religious practices". Also the hook is too long, it's at 220 characters when it should be less than 200. I know I said a lot but hopefully it doesn't scare you. I saw this "The mosaic contains the longest written text yet discovered in any mosaic in the region, and also the oldest known Talmudic text" in the lead that could work as two possible hooks if this doesn't work. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 19:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
"Did you know that the Mosaic of Rehob contains the longest written text yet discovered in any mosaic in the region, and also the oldest known Talmudic text?" Davidbena ( talk) 20:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Onegreatjoke:, Wikipedia allows only seven days to submit a nomination for DYK after an article has reached "Good Article" status. Should I re-submit the nomination before this time-frame has expired? Davidbena ( talk) 23:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Mosaic of Rehob has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 3, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Mosaic of Rehob appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 April 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
So-called "references" are nothing but (well-funded) commentaries by the author of the article (cannot even speak of a "Wikipedia editor" in this case). Great resource, except if one wants to quote it - or if it's to be judged by Wikipedia rules, which I'm not a great fan of, but... there are limits to freelancing. I am sure the author has published this content in at least one paper; just quote that paper and it's all halakhically kosher. PS: the English is great, except for some transliteration errors, which makes it look like the work of a possibly Hebrew native-speaker with good enough practice in academic English. But why do we need to guess? Arminden ( talk) 12:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Davidbena: Hi! I don't get it: you write that the inscription is from the 3rd-7th c. and link to an Israel Museum link, where all I can see is: 6th c.
Second, the lead defines the topic of the article as "Mosaic of Reḥob, also known as the Tel Rehov inscription and Baraita of the Boundaries". I understand from this that all 3 names refer to the narthex inscription ONLY, not to all mosaic fragments from the synagogue, surviving from all its 3 phases. So 6th c., or if Vitto or anyone still has doubts, 6th-7th. Apart from the date of the halakhical text, this is essential as it defines what the article is all about. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 05:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
This article contains an excessive amount of material cited directly to ancient primary sources such as Talmud and Mishna. These sources need to be replaced or augmented by modern secondary sources. If that's not possible, the material should be removed. Zero talk 07:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ganesha811 ( talk · contribs) 01:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on
my talk page, either's fine!
—Ganesha811 (
talk) 01:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Ganesha811:, I wish to inform you and others that I have completed the task of bringing this article up to the standard that was requested of me, and now you and others are free to do with the article as you wish. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to improve this article. Davidbena ( talk) 01:52, 27 January 2023 (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. |
| |
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. |
The result was: promoted by
BorgQueen (
talk) 00:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Created by Davidbena ( talk). Self-nominated at 18:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mosaic of Rehob, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: @ Davidbena: Welcome to DYK! Now, when I say the hook isn't interesting, i mean that the hook is confusing. I'm not understanding what the hook is supposed to say and I think that's because the hook doesn't have any links to other wikipedia articles in it. Also Mosaic of Rehob Isn't linked in the hook either so i'm not sure what the mosaic is. Also, i'm not sure what citation that's supposed to be as i'm not used to the citation style of the article. Also, I'm stumped specfically on "left an indelible mark on how the Jewish nation is to perform certain religious practices?" because i don't know what you mean by "indelible mark", what "Jewish nation", and what "certain religious practices". Also the hook is too long, it's at 220 characters when it should be less than 200. I know I said a lot but hopefully it doesn't scare you. I saw this "The mosaic contains the longest written text yet discovered in any mosaic in the region, and also the oldest known Talmudic text" in the lead that could work as two possible hooks if this doesn't work. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 19:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
"Did you know that the Mosaic of Rehob contains the longest written text yet discovered in any mosaic in the region, and also the oldest known Talmudic text?" Davidbena ( talk) 20:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Onegreatjoke:, Wikipedia allows only seven days to submit a nomination for DYK after an article has reached "Good Article" status. Should I re-submit the nomination before this time-frame has expired? Davidbena ( talk) 23:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)