Monte Testaccio has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 12, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that
Monte Testaccio (pictured) in
Rome is an artificial hill, 35 m (115 ft) high and 1 km (3,300 ft) in circumference, consisting entirely of the fragments of 53 million
ancient Roman
amphorae? |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 31 May 2007. Further details are available here. |
This review is transcluded from Talk:Monte Testaccio/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hello. I will be doing the Good Article review for this article. Overall, the article is very good, sourced, and easy to understand. The only suggestion I have is that per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the article. I'd add something about its later uses or tituli picti inscriptions to the lead, as they both are covered in depth in the article. I'll allow seven days to make the improvement. Nikki 311 03:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Monte testaccio novecento.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monte Testaccio. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
So, Attack Ramon insists on wikilinking "gay", and again and insists that ""gay" doesn't need a wikilink," is not a policy based argument. Well, it is, and it's common sense too. The most obvious one first: "gay" links to gay, primary meaning "homosexual", a meaning the word did not really have in 1831; the passage, It is impossible to conceive a more animating scene than the summit of the hill presents. Gay groups dancing the saltarella, intermingled with the jovial circles which surround the tables; the immense crowd of walkers who, leaving their carriages below, stroll about to enjoy the festive scene, makes it pretty clear that we're not talking about groups of dancing homosexuals dancing in Rome, and saying otherwise is a really poor case of WP:OR. Second, even where "gay" meant " gay", linking it is discouraged via WP:OVERLINK. Thirdly, wikilinking within a quotation is strongly discouraged via MOS:LWQ, in part because (as in this case) you're putting words in the author's mouth--that is, you're making them say "homosexuals". Are those three reasons enough? Drmies ( talk) 14:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Monte Testaccio has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 12, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that
Monte Testaccio (pictured) in
Rome is an artificial hill, 35 m (115 ft) high and 1 km (3,300 ft) in circumference, consisting entirely of the fragments of 53 million
ancient Roman
amphorae? |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 31 May 2007. Further details are available here. |
This review is transcluded from Talk:Monte Testaccio/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hello. I will be doing the Good Article review for this article. Overall, the article is very good, sourced, and easy to understand. The only suggestion I have is that per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the article. I'd add something about its later uses or tituli picti inscriptions to the lead, as they both are covered in depth in the article. I'll allow seven days to make the improvement. Nikki 311 03:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Monte testaccio novecento.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monte Testaccio. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
So, Attack Ramon insists on wikilinking "gay", and again and insists that ""gay" doesn't need a wikilink," is not a policy based argument. Well, it is, and it's common sense too. The most obvious one first: "gay" links to gay, primary meaning "homosexual", a meaning the word did not really have in 1831; the passage, It is impossible to conceive a more animating scene than the summit of the hill presents. Gay groups dancing the saltarella, intermingled with the jovial circles which surround the tables; the immense crowd of walkers who, leaving their carriages below, stroll about to enjoy the festive scene, makes it pretty clear that we're not talking about groups of dancing homosexuals dancing in Rome, and saying otherwise is a really poor case of WP:OR. Second, even where "gay" meant " gay", linking it is discouraged via WP:OVERLINK. Thirdly, wikilinking within a quotation is strongly discouraged via MOS:LWQ, in part because (as in this case) you're putting words in the author's mouth--that is, you're making them say "homosexuals". Are those three reasons enough? Drmies ( talk) 14:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)