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 Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Jewish history 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.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
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 Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism 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.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Overall: This nomination still needs work. As it's your first nomination, I'm happy to give you time to improve this. But, at minimum, you need to settle on an interesting hook with a reliable source that you can clearly cite for it. Unsourced sections need to either be removed, or reliable sources cited inline with them.
Grnrchst (
talk) 13:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Suggestion: if you find a source for current use of the same routes, that might be interesting (enough)?
FortunateSons (
talk) 17:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Marking as rejected due to a lack of response from
Owenglyndur. If they do not respond in the next few days, this can be closed as rejected.
Z1720 (
talk) 15:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Z1720, it appears that Owenglyndur responded to your original post on their talk page on 5 May rather than here, and made a number of edits to the article that same day. Do issues remain? Also pinging original reviewer
Grnrchst.
BlueMoonset (
talk) 04:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd be ok with passing this review now, as the biggest issues with the article and hook have been sufficiently addressed. There's still some bits that lack inline citations, but some of them make clear what they're citing in the text and others are rather minor things in larger paragraphs that contain inline citations elsewhere. --
Grnrchst (
talk) 08:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Grnrchst and
Owenglyndur: A hook cannot run at DYK with missing inline citations. This will need to be resolved.
Z1720 (
talk) 16:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your comments i will work on them. I will let you know once its ready. So we will be able to publish the DYK then?
Owenglyndur (
talk) 07:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hook should be a Monty Python reference imo. (
t ·
c) buidhe 03:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Buidhe: absolutely :) i don't know the sketch well enough, but if you've got something in your back pocket, that'd be hilarious.
theleekycauldron (
talk • she/her) 19:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Owenglyndur: it looks like there are still some missing inline citations. (Also, this article could use a stiff copyedit.) The nomination can move forward when the issues are addressed (although it does take a while), but could the issues be addressed within a week?
theleekycauldron (
talk • she/her) 19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for you comment, i did what i could to correct the article, If it is still not enough, you can remove it from DYK status
Owenglyndur
@
Grnrchst: As the original reviewer, have your concerns been resolved, and is this hook approved? If not, what else needs to be done?
Z1720 (
talk) 14:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Z1720: Yes, my concerns have been resolved, as all of the paragraphs now have inline citations. I'm happy to approve this. --
Grnrchst (
talk) 09:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Grnrchst: If this is approved, please add the green tick below.
Z1720 (
talk) 15:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Grnrchst,
Z1720, and
Owenglyndur: I've noted some significant issues with verifiability on the article talk page, but they have not been addressed. I have not gone through the article with a fine-tooth comb so there may be other issues. Regrettably, as a Monty Python hook would have been fun, I do not think the article is ready to be approved.
Richard Nevell (
talk) 18:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retracted my pending approval, per Richard's comments. Looking at the talk page, there's definitely some major issues with it that are keeping this from being approved. --
Grnrchst (
talk) 09:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Tracking down a quote
The article includes the quote "mathematical precision of 29 groups of millstones, which repeat and remind him of the titles of the great Roman emperors in the past and present - brainwashing - the embodiment of force of Roman power". It's a useful quote, but
millstone stood out to me as perhaps a typo so I tried to track it down and check. I used a keyword search in the
cited article but couldn't find the relevant quote. What page is it from?
Richard Nevell (
talk) 18:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The article cites
a book review 7 times. In some of those cases, the review does not support the cited text.
The Romans used the existing infrastructure for the empire's transportation needs in the province.
To an extent borne bout by the source but could imply that no new roads were built which would extrapolate beyond what the source says.
Relevant text in the review: In pre-Roman times it was a section of the "way of the Sea", the via maris, along which flowed much of the diplomatic and commercial traffic of Egypt and Mesopotamia.
The purpose of constructing these roads in ancient Rome was to establish an extensive network of thoroughfares, similar to those found throughout the Roman Empire.
Another source is also cited.
That roads were intended to connect places is uncontroversial to the point of the source being redundant.
These roads primarily served the movement of Roman military units and also facilitated public transportation, including mail delivery and travel for central government officials. Additionally, the roads played an economic role in transporting goods and people.
Another source is also cited.
Not especially controversial, but this isn't really addressed by the review.
From the headquarters of the Legio VI Ferrata, which camped at Legio, a strategic location on the Caesarea–Beit She'an road in the southern foothills of the Jezreel Valley near the modern Megiddo junction, roads were constructed in the year 120 CE to the provincial capital Caesarea, to Beit She'an, to Sepphoris, and to Acre. (specifically the part about Beit She'an; I've added bolding to indicate that part)
This contradicts the source.
Relevant text in the review: These texts form the basis of the detailed history of the road from A.D. 69 (when it appears to have been first constructed by Vespasian's army) to A.D. 326 (the date of the latest surviving inscription),
(Matching to today's Highway 4 and Highway 2)
The review does not mention Highways 2 and 4.
The southern road, from Jerusalem to Ashkelon through Beit Guvrin. On this road, many milestones have were found, as it continues to Gaza as well as connecting to the long road that reaches Beersheba and Mampsis.
Another source is also cited.
The stretch of road that is the focus of the book is north of Jerusalem; the review mentions that milestones were found along the Legio to Scythopolis route, but that's irrelevant to the point here.
They were placed at a consistent distances of about 2000 paces (about 1.5 km) from each other. The milestones were usually made of limestone and were 150 on 250 centimeters high.
Another source is also cited.
The review does not mention the spacing of milestones, their size, or material.
The review itself is a useful summary of the book, but does not include many of the details here. Some of this may be addressed by the book that was under review.
Richard Nevell (
talk) 21:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Original research
The section titled 'Latitudinal' currently contains the following statement:
The road that started at Amman (Philadelphia), passed through the Jordan Valley, Nablus, Sebastia to Caesarea. (Parallel to Highway 57) Part of it runs between Gesher Adam and Nablus along Nahal Tirzah. It is possible that this is the biblical "way of the sun" mentioned in the book of Deuteronomy.
The only source given for that is a passage from the
Book of Deuteronomy. At the very least the link between this road and the "way of the sun" mentioned in the book is
original research. It is also worth noting that the preceding two sentences are not supported by the reference.
Richard Nevell (
talk) 18:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A different issue with sourcing
The entry for
Hugh Chisholm in the 2007 edition of Who Was Who is
currently used five times in the article. The 200-word biographical summary of Chisholm does not mention Romans, roads, or the region, let alone any of the specifics that the source is ostensibly used for. Clearly there has been some mistake. Was some other source intended?
Richard Nevell (
talk) 19:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
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 Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Jewish history 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.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
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 Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism 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.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Overall: This nomination still needs work. As it's your first nomination, I'm happy to give you time to improve this. But, at minimum, you need to settle on an interesting hook with a reliable source that you can clearly cite for it. Unsourced sections need to either be removed, or reliable sources cited inline with them.
Grnrchst (
talk) 13:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Suggestion: if you find a source for current use of the same routes, that might be interesting (enough)?
FortunateSons (
talk) 17:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Marking as rejected due to a lack of response from
Owenglyndur. If they do not respond in the next few days, this can be closed as rejected.
Z1720 (
talk) 15:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Z1720, it appears that Owenglyndur responded to your original post on their talk page on 5 May rather than here, and made a number of edits to the article that same day. Do issues remain? Also pinging original reviewer
Grnrchst.
BlueMoonset (
talk) 04:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd be ok with passing this review now, as the biggest issues with the article and hook have been sufficiently addressed. There's still some bits that lack inline citations, but some of them make clear what they're citing in the text and others are rather minor things in larger paragraphs that contain inline citations elsewhere. --
Grnrchst (
talk) 08:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Grnrchst and
Owenglyndur: A hook cannot run at DYK with missing inline citations. This will need to be resolved.
Z1720 (
talk) 16:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your comments i will work on them. I will let you know once its ready. So we will be able to publish the DYK then?
Owenglyndur (
talk) 07:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hook should be a Monty Python reference imo. (
t ·
c) buidhe 03:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Buidhe: absolutely :) i don't know the sketch well enough, but if you've got something in your back pocket, that'd be hilarious.
theleekycauldron (
talk • she/her) 19:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Owenglyndur: it looks like there are still some missing inline citations. (Also, this article could use a stiff copyedit.) The nomination can move forward when the issues are addressed (although it does take a while), but could the issues be addressed within a week?
theleekycauldron (
talk • she/her) 19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for you comment, i did what i could to correct the article, If it is still not enough, you can remove it from DYK status
Owenglyndur
@
Grnrchst: As the original reviewer, have your concerns been resolved, and is this hook approved? If not, what else needs to be done?
Z1720 (
talk) 14:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Z1720: Yes, my concerns have been resolved, as all of the paragraphs now have inline citations. I'm happy to approve this. --
Grnrchst (
talk) 09:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Grnrchst: If this is approved, please add the green tick below.
Z1720 (
talk) 15:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Grnrchst,
Z1720, and
Owenglyndur: I've noted some significant issues with verifiability on the article talk page, but they have not been addressed. I have not gone through the article with a fine-tooth comb so there may be other issues. Regrettably, as a Monty Python hook would have been fun, I do not think the article is ready to be approved.
Richard Nevell (
talk) 18:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retracted my pending approval, per Richard's comments. Looking at the talk page, there's definitely some major issues with it that are keeping this from being approved. --
Grnrchst (
talk) 09:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Tracking down a quote
The article includes the quote "mathematical precision of 29 groups of millstones, which repeat and remind him of the titles of the great Roman emperors in the past and present - brainwashing - the embodiment of force of Roman power". It's a useful quote, but
millstone stood out to me as perhaps a typo so I tried to track it down and check. I used a keyword search in the
cited article but couldn't find the relevant quote. What page is it from?
Richard Nevell (
talk) 18:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The article cites
a book review 7 times. In some of those cases, the review does not support the cited text.
The Romans used the existing infrastructure for the empire's transportation needs in the province.
To an extent borne bout by the source but could imply that no new roads were built which would extrapolate beyond what the source says.
Relevant text in the review: In pre-Roman times it was a section of the "way of the Sea", the via maris, along which flowed much of the diplomatic and commercial traffic of Egypt and Mesopotamia.
The purpose of constructing these roads in ancient Rome was to establish an extensive network of thoroughfares, similar to those found throughout the Roman Empire.
Another source is also cited.
That roads were intended to connect places is uncontroversial to the point of the source being redundant.
These roads primarily served the movement of Roman military units and also facilitated public transportation, including mail delivery and travel for central government officials. Additionally, the roads played an economic role in transporting goods and people.
Another source is also cited.
Not especially controversial, but this isn't really addressed by the review.
From the headquarters of the Legio VI Ferrata, which camped at Legio, a strategic location on the Caesarea–Beit She'an road in the southern foothills of the Jezreel Valley near the modern Megiddo junction, roads were constructed in the year 120 CE to the provincial capital Caesarea, to Beit She'an, to Sepphoris, and to Acre. (specifically the part about Beit She'an; I've added bolding to indicate that part)
This contradicts the source.
Relevant text in the review: These texts form the basis of the detailed history of the road from A.D. 69 (when it appears to have been first constructed by Vespasian's army) to A.D. 326 (the date of the latest surviving inscription),
(Matching to today's Highway 4 and Highway 2)
The review does not mention Highways 2 and 4.
The southern road, from Jerusalem to Ashkelon through Beit Guvrin. On this road, many milestones have were found, as it continues to Gaza as well as connecting to the long road that reaches Beersheba and Mampsis.
Another source is also cited.
The stretch of road that is the focus of the book is north of Jerusalem; the review mentions that milestones were found along the Legio to Scythopolis route, but that's irrelevant to the point here.
They were placed at a consistent distances of about 2000 paces (about 1.5 km) from each other. The milestones were usually made of limestone and were 150 on 250 centimeters high.
Another source is also cited.
The review does not mention the spacing of milestones, their size, or material.
The review itself is a useful summary of the book, but does not include many of the details here. Some of this may be addressed by the book that was under review.
Richard Nevell (
talk) 21:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Original research
The section titled 'Latitudinal' currently contains the following statement:
The road that started at Amman (Philadelphia), passed through the Jordan Valley, Nablus, Sebastia to Caesarea. (Parallel to Highway 57) Part of it runs between Gesher Adam and Nablus along Nahal Tirzah. It is possible that this is the biblical "way of the sun" mentioned in the book of Deuteronomy.
The only source given for that is a passage from the
Book of Deuteronomy. At the very least the link between this road and the "way of the sun" mentioned in the book is
original research. It is also worth noting that the preceding two sentences are not supported by the reference.
Richard Nevell (
talk) 18:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A different issue with sourcing
The entry for
Hugh Chisholm in the 2007 edition of Who Was Who is
currently used five times in the article. The 200-word biographical summary of Chisholm does not mention Romans, roads, or the region, let alone any of the specifics that the source is ostensibly used for. Clearly there has been some mistake. Was some other source intended?
Richard Nevell (
talk) 19:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply