The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 July 2022 [1].

---

Royal necropolis of Byblos[edit]

Nominator(s): el.ziade (talkallam) 11:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a group of shaft and chamber tombs that housed the remains of Bronze Age Gebalite Kings. A chance landslide in the early 1920s uncovered the first of the underground tombs. Some of the burial chambers that escaped looting contained a great number of funerary goods; among these were ornate royal Egyptian gifts bearing the names of Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs. Inscriptions found in the tombs allowed the identification of some of the buried Kings. The most important of these finds was the famed Ahiram sarcophagus. The story of the re-emergence of the ancient city of Byblos/Gebal, and the subsequent discovery of the royal tombs, is reminiscent of Indiana Jones movies.

I have spent long hours searching archives and drafting this piece, and I have covered good ground so that it not only informative, but also compelling. The article underwent a thorough GA review, which made it significantly better, and I am very grateful for AirshipJungleman29's time and effort. I am hopeful, with your guidance, to drive the article to 'featured' status.el.ziade (talkallam) 11:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hi Elias, I don't think you've been to FAC before, in which case welcome! Some house-keeping... It looks like you have a peer review open for this article, and you need to close that now that the FAC has been opened. Also, as a fresh nominator, we'll want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, a hoop we as all newbies to jump through, as well as the regular source review for reliability and formatting; that can take place in the course of the overall review here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ian Rose , it is true that I edit sporadically, but I have 4 FAs under my belt already. Some guidelines may escape me since I am not here often. I welcome any feedback that will help improve the article. I will try to close the peer review, I haven't had many comments there. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, changed the name too... Okay the spotcheck is not a necessity. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the name change is confusing, it seemed liked a good idea then . I had the pleasure of working under your guidance before, and I am looking forward to this review too. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

• File:Byblos View.jpg, File:Ahiram Sarcophagus.jpg probably not freely licensed, nominated for deletion on Commons
• File:Cimetiere royal.png what's the source for the info on the map?
• The Montet maps and photograph; according to Internet Archive's scan these publications were in 1928 and 1929, after 1927 as indicated by the tag. Since it was published in France it would also need to be public domain in France to be kosher on Commons, which it does not seem to be if Montet created these sketches since he died in 1966

Other images look ok (t · c) buidhe 08:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi el.ziade, have all of these been addressed. If yes, could you ping Buidhe and ask if they are happy to pass the review? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have addressed them in the below section. @Buidhe, can you please take a look at my input? el.ziade (talkallam) 12:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a source review

• Article is well structured and length is reasonable. However, I noticed a majority of the citations are from the 1920s. Are there more recent sources that could be cited instead? I realize stuff like "The longer inscription is carved on the font (typo for front?), long edge of the lid" are not likely to change over time, making the datedness less of an issue, but, for example, it would be best to cite a more recent source for the number of grave goods recovered.
• akg-images is not a high-quality reliable source in my view

(t · c) buidhe 08:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your usual meticulous work Buidhe below are my comments.

• Concerning File:Byblos View.jpg, it's a real shame to see it go. There are no replacements. As for File:Ahiram Sarcophagus.jpg I am not oppose it's deletion, I have already replaced it in the article.
• File:Cimetiere royal.png: it's derived from the map in the early 1920s letters from Montet to Cagnat a copy of the Image on JSTOR. Shall I add this bit of info on commons?
• Montet's maps and photographs are sourced from the Internet Archive open source library, IA states that it respects the intellectual property rights and other proprietary rights of others. The Internet Archive may remove certain content or disable access to content that appears to infringe the copyright or other intellectual property rights of others. I believe we are safe in this regard, is there something else we can do? These images are fundamental to the understanding of the article. I can upload them here under a fair use label if this prevents them from being lost. Please advise. The copyright term in France was +50 years after the death of the author at the time of the publication of the above-mentioned works.
• I will try to find more recent sources to add to the early 20th century ones. But mind you these are seminal works and are still authoritative. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the copyright term in france is life + 70 years, including works that were published before the change came into effect. I agree that Internet Archive usually only shows full text for out of copyright works, but I don't think that's something we can rely on to determine copyright status. I've expanded the image description for File:Cimetiere royal.png. (t · c) buidhe 19:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m quoting a legal website pertaining to intellectual rights protection of sketches: «  Si le “dessinateur” a effectué quelque chose de visuellement très simple : par exemple un fond de carte faisant apparaître les frontières et le réseau hydrographique d’un pays. Ce “contenu” ne peut pas prétendre à la protection par le droit d’auteur. Il n’est qu’une information (plus exactement, une somme d’informations), donnant une représentation rudimentaire de la réalité. Le fond de carte nu n’est pas une œuvre originale, il n’a pas d’auteur. Ce fond de carte n’entre pas dans le champ du droit d’auteur ; il peut donc être repris sans problème. »

[ If the “dessinateur” has done something very simple visually: for example, a base map showing the borders and the hydrographic network of a country.  This “content” does not qualify for copyright protection.  It is only information (more exactly, a sum of information), giving a rudimentary representation of reality.  The bare basemap is not an original work, it has no author.  This base map does not fall within the scope of copyright;  it can therefore be resumed without any problem. ]

In archeology

«  En élaborant ces dessins, ces relevés de fouilles, ce rapport de fouilles, l’auteur du dessin élabore des archives de recherche qui sont des archives publiques…  À l’instar des règles applicables à un fond de carte très simple et à une carte originale protégée (le fond de carte peut être utilisé sans demander d’autorisation mais il convient d’en indiquer la source par honnêteté intellectuelle ; la carte originale ne peut être reproduite ou réutilisée qu’avec l’accord de l’auteur), on peut appliquer le même raisonnement à un histogramme ou à un graphique. Si le graphique est très simple et fait apparaître quelques données en abscisse et en ordonnées, il constitue une représentation brute, non protégée par le droit d’auteur. Si l’histogramme ou le graphique sont très élaborés (ombre, couleurs, bref, de l’infographie qui donne à la représentation un caractère créatif original), ils sont originaux, donc protégés par le droit d’auteur. »

[ By developing these drawings, these excavation records, this excavation report, the author of the drawing develops research archives which are public archives… Like the rules applicable to a very simple background map and a protected original map (the background map can be used without asking permission, but the source should be indicated for intellectual honesty; the original map  can be reproduced or reused only with the agreement of the author), the same reasoning can be applied to a histogram or a graph.  If the graph is very simple and shows some data in abscissa and ordinate, it constitutes a raw representation, not protected by copyright.  If the histogram or the graph are very elaborate (shadow, colors, in short, computer graphics that give the representation an original creative character), they are original, therefore protected by copyright. ]

source el.ziade (talkallam) 00:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had to google translate because I didn't have the time, but you guys get the picture. el.ziade (talkallam) 16:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe Your decision please el.ziade (talkallam) 06:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The map does have details like shading though that show independent authorship. It's far above the threshold of originality in the US which tends to be higher than other countries. Hard to imagine this map is not copyrightable in France. (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

@Buidhe: According to legal definition these do not represent an “oeuvre d’esprit”. Also Commons is replete to similar images from the same period.el.ziade (talkallam) 21:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

• Nice to see some more Lebanese history here, especially during these hard times. Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• On the above note, I think the intro could mention explicitly that this is located in modern day Lebanon.

  done, thanks FunkMonk el.ziade (talkallam) 06:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Location of Royal necropolis" The royal? Add the and remove capital r?

It's the template Wallah it's not me lol. Fixed it.

• You mention an acropolis only once, in an image caption, could be mentioned and linked in the article body if it's important?

Linked it in the infobox, I think it's enough there.

Well, the main point is, why is it important enough to mention in the caption, but not in the article body? If it's not important for the article body, it's just confusing to introduce a new term just in a caption. Otherwise, it could be elaborated on in the text, or removed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last unaddressed issue. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Main article: Byblos" followed by "Byblos (modern Jubayl)", is the "main article" really necessary when you can just link the first word of the paragraph?

No problem

• "derived from the Canaanite Gubal" Link Canaanite.

Done

• Link more unlinked terms in the infobox and first mentions in image captions?

Sure, done

• "that has been inhabited, and continuously used" Why not just say "that has been continuously inhabited", means the same?

yes *smh*

• Link Bronze Age?

done

• Link ancient Crete?

done

• Link Ramses II.

done

• Link Phoenicia.

done

• Images are a bit clogged up in the lower right of the article, perhaps use some horizontal multiple image templates instead, like in for example quagga?

All done except for the images, will get to these later. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, do you mind if I don't change the layout? I am not fond of large blocks either, they are disruptive in an article where all the images are of the same size. Please don't ask me to alternate right and left too :( el.ziade (talkallam) 14:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the "problem" would still be there with the images below, so not easy to solve. But I think much of the cramming is caused by the huge image "Gold oenochoe from Tomb IV in Mycenae.", which I don't really think is even necessary to show here, as it is not from this necropolis, and the caption doesn't explain the connection. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, you're right, the Mycenae image doesn't really belong. I linked it for comparison. el.ziade (talkallam) 07:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Renan had relied on Strabo's writing" Strabo and other people could be presented like you do with other people, by nationality and occupation, for consistence.

done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Now Byblus, the royal residence of Cinyras,​ is sacred to Adonis; but Pompey freed it from tyranny by beheading its tyrant with an axe; and it is situated on a height only a slight distance from the sea." Is this a quote? If so, it would remove ambiguity if you added quotation marks.

done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Byblos is a much later Greek exonym, possibly a corruption of Gebal." I think it's important to add this at the beginning of the main text (Historical background) too instead of just in a footnote, because now it's a but confusing that you jump between using the terms Gebal and Byblos seemingly at random, for example: "Ancient texts and manuscripts hinted to the location of Gebal... Strabo identified Byblos as a city situated on a hill some distance away from the sea."
• "Renan correctly posited that the Ancient Byblos must have been located atop the circular hill dominated by the Crusader citadel of Jbeil." What was his reasoning?

done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Byblos (modern Jubayl)" Elsewhere you spell it Jbeil.

done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem be using British spelling (archaeology) some places, but others US (metres). Should be consistent.

On the other hand, you also say " work on the archeological tell" and "kilometres", So decide on one English variation and check throughout for consistency. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

archaeology works both ways, but I changed it. Sticking to US english. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I actually don't think you need to change archaeology then, but up to you, as long as the rest sticks to US English. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "During the period of French Mandate" Usually it would be "the French Mandate", definite.

done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "landslide in the seaside cliff of Jbeil" Wouldn't this be "on"?

done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The next day the administrative advisor of Mount-Lebanon" Mount Lebanon hasn't been introduced at this point, I don't think all readers would know what this refers to.

done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Link hypogeum and sarcophagus in the article body.

done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "the excavation of Ancient Byblos" Why capital A?

done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Maurice Dunand succeeded Montet" Again no introduction of this person, check for consistency throughout.

done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "had been emptied from their contents" Emptied of?

oops el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "instead of rock at a later period of time" Do we know how much later?

This is detailed in the dating section. I'd rather not repeat it here if you don't mind it el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "was closer to that the northern group" That of?

yep el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You use the name "Abi Chemu" in captions, but "Abishemu" in the article body.

Yeah, depending on the sources. Older French sources use Abi Chemu. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, as long as you're consistent within the article about which version you use, I see you changed one caption, but there is still "Sarcophagus of Abi Chemu featuring lengthwise fluting on its lid". FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "on Tomb I chamber's north wall" A bit oddly worded, perhaps "on the north wall of tomb I's chamber?

done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "A coarsely built wall separated the chamber of Tomb I from its well." Why is this past tense when the previous description is present? There are other cases of this too where it seems pretty random.

The walls and other structures were dismantled during excavation, this is why. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The two conduits did not communicate." Connect?

Right el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was also the only tomb to have an inscription within its shaft." State in which language.

I did in the following sentence, or else it could have been understood as "the only Phoenician inscription as opposed to "only inscription" . el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The semicircular shape of Tomb V, known as "Ahiram's tomb"" I think it would be less confusing if you state already here it was a king.

done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since you have this section without having mentioned a king before: "According to Montet, the builders of the tomb did not consider that the king's corpse was". FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "at the center" If you use British English, should be "centre".

I haven't even given it a thought. I will consider this from now on. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "on their down to the royal grave" way down?

Right thanks, el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "All of the three chamber sarcophagi were looted and only contained human bones" Do we know of who?

No we don't have any surviving clues el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Did other sarcophagi contain bodies or bones?

no bodies we recovered. The environment is too wet to preserve soft tissue. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Is enough known about any of these interred people to warrant articles, or just short descriptions of who they were here in this article?

I will look into this, Good idea el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Link sedimentary.

done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think ashlar could be linked.

done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ", without any masonry retaining walls" The walls?

Done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @FunkMonk for the review. I could have read and re-read the article a hundred times and not have picked up the areas of improvement you suggested. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review of the rest of the article below. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "and an entire corner section of the lid have broken off" Has broken (singular).

"the lug at the northwestern corner and an entire corner section..."

• "body of the sarcophagus IV is" I don't think definite "the" is needed here.

Fixed the sentence

• "Montet ascertains that" Why present tense?

Fixed

• "while the rest of the lions' bodies appears in bas-relief on the long sides" I think it should be "appear", because bodies is plural.

Right

• "Two scene of a funerary procession of four mourning women occupies the" Scenes, as it's plural? And "occupy" because it's plural.

Fixed

• Do we have any images of these scenes?

Added

• "Tomb I contained a 12 centimeters (4.7 in) obsidian vase" I think it could be specified if this is the height?

Indeed it is

• "Tomb II had two royal Egyptian gifts, 45 centimeters (18 in) long obsidian box" Missing "a" in front of the measurement?

Done

• Link the two Amenemhat names in the article body too.

Done

• "which French art history expert Edmond Pottier likened its spiral decorative patterns to that of the gold oenochoe from Tomb IV" I think the grammar is a bit odd here, could be "the spiral decorative patterns of which the French art history expert Edmond Pottier likened to that of the gold oenochoe from Tomb IV".

Thank you, done

• Link Mycenae and Aegean in article body.

Done

• "which divide the body of the receptacles in into several parts" First "in" seems superfluous.

Done

• "A funerary inscription written in Phoenician identify the names" Identifies, singular.

Done

• "triggered a landslide in the seaside cliff of Jbeil" By this point in the intro, you have not connected the name Byblos to Jbeil, so unfamiliar readers will not know its the same.

Clarification in the lead.

Thanks @FunkMonk el.ziade (talkallam) 15:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I've marked one unaddressed issue left above. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk Solved, thanks for pointing that out. I left an explanation in the edit summary. el.ziade (talkallam) 10:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - nice work, and certainly something I think would be worth giving a look for our ancient Egypt interested reviewers. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you buddy, I know I could have made your review much smoother had I given the article a few more reads. Truth is I find it very hard to catch my own typos and grammar mistakes. This review gave me a much needed boost to step up my game. el.ziade (talkallam) 18:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of stuff is ok for me as long as the content itself is good. But it may scare other reviewers off, so hopefully we've addressed most of it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

After nearly five weeks this nomination has only attracted one general support. Unless further attention is forthcoming over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps tagging editors who have reviewed your earlier FACs could be an idea. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea Monk, I’m not good at making connections here. I already left a message on WP:PHO for more input. 🤞🏼el.ziade (talkallam) 19:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Gog the Mild, I know you're coordinating this discussion but can I ask you for your own input? What do you think I should do to make this one better? el.ziade (talkallam) 11:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get too involved in suggesting improvements at this stage, or I will have to recuse. If Buidhe, Nikkimaria, Anarchyte and A. Parrot all feel that their concerns have been addressed I will have a look at it myself with a view to closing. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My sole concern has been addressed, and I doubt yet another prose review this far in to the FAC would be useful. I have very little experience at FA so if the other commenters support this nomination, I will definitely not stand in its way. Anarchyte (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

Marking my spot, will review as soon as possible. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• but was rediscovered in the late 19th century by the French biblical scholar and orientalist Ernest Renan. – Not sure if the scholar is relevant here (because he discovered the city, not the necropolis). But in any case I would add where Byblos was rediscovered; a reader without any knowledge might be confused otherwise because the previous sentence talked about a "continuously populated city". Maybe add where in modern Byblos it was discovered?

Right! Thanks. ^^^

• Byblos (modern Jbeil) – that seemingly indicates that "Byblos" only refers to the ancient city, but according to Byblos it is the most common name of the modern city?

Well... Yes and no, the official name and the common name locally is Jbeil (Jubeil, Gebeil) which derives from the ancient Semitic roots "GBL". Byblos is a Greek corruption of the city's name, and it used in the scientific literature, and in the touristic context. Road sings use both names btw. I cleared the confusion now I think. Good call ^^^

• The whole first paragraph of the lead is just background information, and I'm not sure if all details are relevant there, for example the meaning of the word Byblos. I am not sure if the article should try to focus more on the topic, which is the Royal necropolis.

I take a holistic approach to keep the reader interested. I believe information like this provide more insight and spice up the article without going off-topic. ^^^ el.ziade (talkallam) 14:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• making precise dating problematic, however – I think this needs a ; instead of ,

It can go both ways ^^

I am not sure it can: As it is now, it is not clear if the "however" goes with the previous or the following part of the sentence. The ; would make this clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• the temple of Baalat Gebal complex – is this correct? Or should it be "the temple of Baalat Gebal" or the "temple complex of Baalat Gebal"?

Done ^^

• The grave goods were not affected by the landslide; inside the burial chamber the excavators discovered several pottery jars floating in damp clay, and a large white limestone sarcophagus with three protruding lugs on its lid by which it could be manipulated. – Source?

Fixed ^^

• Sarcophagus of Abishemu (Tomb I) in situ – Is that tomb still in situ (which would be an information to add to the article), or is that picture taken after discovery (then, please add "after discovery in 19xx")

This is a recent image. Most of the sarcophagi were moved above ground. This one is kept in place. I modified the caption, I think it is clear now. ^^

• Section "The search for the ancient city" goes a bit off-topic, as it is not about the necropolis. Under "excavation history", I would expect the excavation history of the necropolis. Maybe better placed in another article, or move to a background section (which could have two headings, "History of ancient Byblos" and "The search for the ancient city")?

I am trying to keep the article interesting, and encyclopedic at the same time. The subject, if approached from a narrow scope, would be too dry. The story of Renan (much like Schliemann's) provides some nice insight, and an interesting backdrop for the following sections. I would rather not move the part related to Renan to the historical background; I want to keep all the excavation stuff together. ^^

• In the "Historical background" section, maybe mention those tombs that could be dated when talking about that particular time, to make the connection with the necropolis? That would help the reader I think.

I would, except the chronology is patchy, and I don't believe it helps with the flow of the article. But I will keep this in mind when I fall on some peer-reviewed source that could help clear this up without affecting the flow of the narrative. ^^

• more later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^^ Thanks Jens, waiting for more from you el.ziade (talkallam) 14:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• kept in siture – in situ? Link to in situ?

Done el.ziade (talkallam) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The sandstone sarcophagus of Ahiram was found in Tomb V and is so called for its bas-relief carvings – Why is the "Ahiram sarcophagus" referring to the bas-relief carvings? I can't follow here.

The sarcophagus features a funerary inscription naming the occupant, Ahiram, who is shown seated on a throne in the bas-relief. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• it represents the terminus post quem of the transmission of the alphabet to the west. – Without context this is very hard to understand.

I modified the punctuation as the previous sentence provides context el.ziade (talkallam) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• link lotus flowers

Done

• of the main sarcophagus bas-relief scenery – I am irritated by the "sarcophagus" here. Are their sarcophagi other than the main one? Or should this mean "the main bas-relief scenery"? (I think it is very clear from the context that these are on the sarcophagus)

Good point. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The longer inscription is carved on the front, long edge of the lid. – Maybe add a sentence stating the content of these inscriptions?

Okay, done. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• link obsidian

done. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• lid set with gold; the rectangular box rests on four legs; it has at the center – I think this needs reformulation or better interpunctation.

done el.ziade (talkallam) 18:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• One difference however, – I think this needs a comma behind "difference"

done el.ziade (talkallam) 18:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Two grand silver hand mirrors, were recovered in tombs I and II – comma too much

done el.ziade (talkallam) 18:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Some signs point to a range spanning from the end of the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age for others – I don't understand the "for others" here.

must be a remnant of a deleted passage el.ziade (talkallam) 21:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• French priest and archeologist Father Louis-Hugues Vincent, Pierre Montet, and other early scholars believed – But the section "dating" does only contain the interpretations of the early scholars. The sentence, however, reads as if this would be no longer accepted. Is it a widely accepted fact, or are there simply no newer studies available?

The dating of the tombs by early scholars still holds. The dating of the Ahiram sarcophagus however, is now widely accepted to fall between the 11th and the mid-ninth century BC. Scholars advanced this date based on rubble material suggesting that Tomb V was reused in the Iron Age to bury Ahiram. In short, the sarcophagus of Ahiram was introduced to the preexisting shaft tomb. This is detailed in the Ahiram sarcophagus article. Should I include this here or it would be going off topic ? el.ziade (talkallam) 19:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That is almost everything now. I will be away until Sunday, and take a last look as soon as I am back. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rest looks good, as do the changes. Support --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Been super busy IRL...will look soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd link exonym

Done ^

• Foreign words are generally italicised not in quotation marks.

mudir, mastaba, serdab, khopesh, italicized ^

• link Middle Bronze Age

Done ^

• The Historical background is a bit choppy. I would combine some small into larger paragraphs

Neater I guess ^

• Relation with Egypt dwindled again.... "Relations"?

Right ^

• He based his assumption on an ancient coin depicting a representation of the city... - "ancient" is a bit general. Can the coin be described in a bit more exacting way?

I wanted to add the description, but I was hesitant to go off topic. I am glad you find including these details helpful. ^

Rest of it looks pretty good. Will have another look later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ Thank you, will be waiting for more.el.ziade (talkallam) 12:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Casliber:, do you have more feedback? el.ziade (talkallam) 15:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's a thumbs up from me, though as a neophyte on hte topic area I will defer to others more familiar with the field Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

General impression so far: the article is well written, thorough and will be a valuable addition to our featured articles if accepted.

• lead
  • "Byblos (also called Jbeil) ... "Gabal" ...": just reading the lead, why does the article use the "also called" name Jbeil rather than Byblos which appears in the title? I'm not suggesting a change, but would like to see the motivation expressed a little more clearly in the lead. Subsequent content does clarify.

    yes, and Jens had the same question. It is quite like the case of Troy/Ilium/Hisarlik. Byblos is a Greek exonym that was apparently favored by 19th century scholars because of hellenocentrism. Most of what was know about the city was sourced from classical writers. The local name has always names Jbeil which directly derives from the Canaanite root ‘GBL’ (Gebal). Even in crusader times the city was known as. Gibelet. Ancient Gebal and modern Jbeil are one and the same. The ancient city was forgotten on a hill directly under the medieval castle and skirting the medieval city walls from the outside. The medieval city was moved closer to a shallow natural harbor used for fishing. The medieval city, was enclosed by a defensive wall, and the Harbour is still guarded by a medieval tower. The names Byblos and Jbeil are both corruptions of Gebal, and are now used interchangeably on road signs in Lebanon mostly for touristic reasons, especially that the exonym took root because of European scholars. If I could rewrite the literature, I’d revert back to the old, pre classical exonym, but unfortunately this is the common name of the necropolis in literature. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    

  • "the sarcophagi of several kings of the city." I would link thus: "the sarcophagi of several kings of the city." so that the link text more accurately matches the contents of the link.
    

    done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The city established major trade links with Egypt during the Bronze Age, leading to the latter heavily influencing local culture and funerary practices." This is not clear on first reading, although subsequent content is clearer. I suggest rephrase to avoid using "the latter".

    Done el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The search for the ancient city
  • "hinted to": "hinted at" is the more usual idiom.

    Fixed el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Discovery of the royal necropolis
  • "he uncovered eight other tombs, bringing the total number to nine." Nine does not include the original sarcophagus, whereas the previous "A second tomb" did. Unless the eight includes the second in which case "other" is confusing. Subsequent content in §Description shows that Montet numbered the tombs I–IX, implying that he was not including the original sarcophagus as one of the tombs. In that case "A second tomb" needs to change somehow.

    OMG good eye! and math :/ el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • wl tell: I had never seen this term before.

    Done el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bibliography: Dever (1976) does not appear in the references list.

  Was gonna use it, hid it for now. el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue in detail with the individual tombs later. ---- Mirokado (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In the article as a whole, the vertical shafts are referred to as wells. I am more familiar with a "well" being something that is used to draw water, so I wonder if "shaft" would be a better word. I am not requesting a change just to keep me quiet, but please consider which term is best.

  You're right, they're called shaft and chamber tombs for that reason. el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think "well" needs to be "shaft" in current note d. Otherwise fine, thanks. ---- Mirokado (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done thanks el.ziade (talkallam) 14:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tombs I and II
  • In this context (followed by "wide" or "deep") I think meter should be singular, we are specifying the unit used, not counting them.

    fixed, thanks el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    your change to use Convert throughout is much better, well done. ---- Mirokado (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "disused archaic tomb": does this mean "created but never used" or "used but emptied by the contemporaneous authorities" (or something else)?

    I checked the french source, it says that the archaic tomb was "accidentally gutted" by the builders of Tomb I and Tomb II. So I will drop "disused" el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tombs III and IV
  • "Another, similarly sized and shaped conduit": lose the comma here (if you want "similarly sized and shaped" to be more parenthetical, you can place a second comma after "shaped", but I don't think this is necessary.

    Done. el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More later. ---- Mirokado (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tombs VI, VII, VIII, and IX
  • "The burial chamber of wells VI, VII, VIII, and IX are completely dug in muddy soil." I think "chambers" should be plural here.
  • wl lozenge, I was imagining something different until I checked.

    It is borrowed from French and you're right, it might be confusing. Replaced it with 'rhombus'.el.ziade (talkallam) 20:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sarcophagi
  • "One difference however, is that the lids of said Gebalite sarcophagi retain the lid lugs which allowed workmen to maneuver them." I find "said" here rather stilted, "these Gebalite sarcophagi" would read better.

    done el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "decreasingly smaller": I suggest "successively smaller".

    Thanks! el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Ahiram sarcophagus
  • "The Phoenician inscription is composed of two parts": wl (section link) The Phoenician inscription.

    Done el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps expand this paragraph a bit to summarise the contents of both parts of the inscription (see the section link). Also please consider whether we should be describing this as two parts or two inscriptions: the positions described here and different contents described in the section link imply two inscriptions.

    I have added an abridged summary of the contents of the inscription. I specified that the inscription is broken in two parts, not two distinct inscriptions. Please let me know if you think i should add more detail about the contents of the inscription. el.ziade (talkallam) 20:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    <I'm afraid I don't agree with this. Montet (1928, pp. 236–237) clearly refers to two inscriptions: "Les Inscriptions ... La plus courte des deux inscriptions ... La seconde inscription, beaucoup plus longue, ...". I don't have access to Lehmann (2005), but the title has "Die Inschrift(en) des Ahirom-Sarkophags ...", where "Die" can be either singular or plural and the "(en)" also implies either. Looking elsewhere, "Les cités Phéniciennes: Byblos" shows one reason why both usages may occur: "... la première inscription en alphabet Phénicien a été constatée ..." (concentration on "here you can find the earliest Phoenician inscription") and (next sentence) "Les inscriptions sur son tombeau sont les plus anciens textes Phéniciens connus." (describing the inscriptions themselves). Please change the content accordingly or, of course, provide a good reason why not.

    I am citing another one of Lehmann's works where he indeed mentions two inscriptions: The sarcophagus inscription, and the second, the tomb shaft inscription "Around eighty years ago, in the course of the French excavations in Jbeil, the site of ancient Gubla, or Byblos, Pierre Montet unearthed the famous Aìîrôm sarcophagus.1 The discovery was due to a landslide in autumn 1923 and revealed a series of royal tombs dating back to the late second millennium b.c.e. situated under the cliffs of ancient Byblos, the ifth of which was ten meters deep, the now famous Aìîrôm burial.2 Two older cofins lanked the richly decorated sarcophagus3 of an alleged Old Byblian king named Aìîrôm.4 The latter is inscribed with a Phoenician text that is generally estimated to be the oldest Phoenician inscription of considerable length known at present. Following preliminary reports by the excavator himself in several French magazines, newspapers and journals early in 1924,5 the scholarly editio princeps of this important new inscription was made as early as 1924 by the French scholar René Dussaud.6 In subsequent years, numerous discussions took place about the script, the reading, and the translation of the inscription, especially of the last few words. In summer 2003, I carried out a thorough re-investigation of the famous Aìîrôm inscriptions, both of the short inscription, which was found on the wall of tomb V at Byblos, and of the longer sarcophagusinscription in the National Museum of Beirut. The results of this research are published in my 2005 book Die Inschrift(en) des Aìîrôm-Sarkophags und die Schachtinschrift des Grabes V in Jbeil (Byblos).7" _ Lehmann, Reinhard G. (2008). "Calligraphy and Craftsmanship in the Ahirom inscription. Considerations on skilled linear flat writing in early first millennium Byblos".

    He then goes on to address the exact issue we are addressing: "The Aìîrôm sarcophagus inscription, which in the following is simply referred to as the Aìîrôm inscription, can be divided into two parts that are carved in two different places. It starts at the small southern” upper rim of the cofin, and continues on its “western” lid.8 In spite of suggestions in the past that these might be two separate inscriptions, there is actually one inscription only, and for convenience’s sake those two parts can be labelled as partition A and partition B.9" _ ^Idem.\

    I hope this settles the above. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    With Lehmann (2008) I think this is OK, you are going with the most recent scholarly analysis. Please add a callout to Lehmann (2008) to this final paragraph (I suggest after "distributed in two parts,") to make that clear. ---- Mirokado (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mirokado Done. Thank you so much for your very thorough review. el.ziade (talkallam) 11:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the subject matter for the two lines is different, I think you need to summarise both.

    Explained above. el.ziade (talkallam) 16:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I now see that the first line is summarised in §Attribution. ---- Mirokado (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide page numbers for Lehmann (2005). ---- Mirokado (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More later. ---- Mirokado (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Working on these, Thanks a lot​! el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Egyptian royal gifts
  • "This type of vase is known from representations ...": Does this mean that the vase found here is the only actual example of what has been illustrated elsewhere? If so I would mention that more explicitly.

    Hi again, sorry for the late reply I am still recovering from a bad flu. No, the vase in question is not the only example. There are many specimens uneartched in Egypt and elsewhere. Please let me know if you would like me to rephrase. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, please rephrase. By "representations of Egyptian sarcophagi" I had understood reliefs or other illustrations of the vases, not actual finds of that type of vase. ---- Mirokado (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The mentioned vessel is an obsidian ointment vase and lid that was commonly used in ancient Egyptian funerary practices. There's no added value to keeping the sentence as it is mentioned earlier that it is of Egyptian origin.el.ziade (talkallam) 16:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, thanks. ---- Mirokado (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Attribution
  • "Scholars have noted the similarity of the spiral decorative patterns of which the French art history expert Edmond Pottier likened to that of the gold Oenochoe found in Tomb IV in Mycenae." Needs to be rephrased, perhaps: "Scholars, following the French art history expert Edmond Pottier, have noted the similarity of the spiral decorative patterns found in Tomb I to those of the gold oenochoe found in Tomb IV in Mycenae." (a bit of context for "the ... patterns", correct "of which ... likened to ...", no capital O for oenochoe). At the same time, please remove the space before [compare].

    Fine now, thanks. ---- Mirokado (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fixes so far, I will check and start striking over the next day or so. I've finished a first read through, I will read it again, probably during next week. ---- Mirokado (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirokado: Thanks! I'll be here :) el.ziade (talkallam) 12:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mirokado do you have any additional input? el.ziade (talkallam) 15:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a few interspersed comments while you were fighting the dreaded lurgi. I've now marked them with PENDING so they are easier to see. ---- Mirokado (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Mirokado: can you please recheck? el.ziade (talkallam) 16:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One new PENDING response above, I look forward to supporting once that is dealt with. ---- Mirokado (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thank you for your clear and detailed responses to some of the questions. ---- Mirokado (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from A. Parrot[edit]

• I agree with Jens Lallensack that the first paragraph of the lead contains too much background for the lead. I think you should at least cut the second and third sentences, starting the fourth sentence with "The city of Byblos, also called Jbeil, established major trade links with Egypt during the Bronze Age…"

I kept the first sentence which informs of the location of the site. I removed the following sentence.el.ziade (talkallam) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As WP's unofficial ancient Egyptian religion specialist, I dislike the wording "the deceased was believed to take the form of a bird" (found in both the lead and the body). The bird form of the ba is a metaphor. You could say "the soul of the deceased was believed to fly from the burial chamber…", and possibly have a wikilink to Ancient Egyptian conception of the soul#Ba (personality).

That's great! thanks el.ziade (talkallam) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My Egyptological sources (Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (1992) by Donald B. Redford, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (2000) by Ian Shaw, and Ancient Perspectives on Egypt (2003) edited by Roger Mathews and Cornelia Roemer) treat relations between Egypt and Byblos in the Old Kingdom as an exceptionally close trading relationship, not as direct control, which doesn't seem to have existed until the Middle Kingdom at the earliest. The link to the archived Awada Jalu source doesn't work for me, but the DeVries source, written by a religious scholar, doesn't seem strong enough to support the claim when other sources don't.

Good point. I reviewed the sources and will update the text accordingly as soon as I can. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even Byblos, the oldest state in the Levant to have been subverted by Egypt, demanded payment for its goods; and the present ruler averred strenuously that his ancestors had been paid for their services:63 in response to the statement that his fathers had willingly sent timber, Zakar-Ba'al replied:
Of course they did, and if you pay me something I will do it! But my (fathers) performed this service only after Pharaoh l.p.h. had despatched six cargo boats laden with Egyptian products and they were unloaded into their storehouses (i.e., in payment). And you? What have you brought for me? . . . Now if the ruler of Egypt were my lord, and if I were his vassal, he would not have to cause gold and silver to be brought with the request “Perform the business of Amun!”

— Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, https://books.google.nl/books?id=G9PgDwAAQBAJ

• "the advent of the 19th century" gives the impression that the city was rediscovered when the 19th century arrived, which, as the next sentence shows, was not the case.

thanks! el.ziade (talkallam) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notes @A. Parrot:. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A. Parrot, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I didn't look through it thoroughly enough to support, but all of my concerns have been addressed. A. Parrot (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for the detailed article. I'll comment while reading, leaving the lead for afterwards. Please reply only when I'm done for today, to avoid edit conflicts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and TOC are basically fine, but I don't need four headers for references. I read the prose without problems, fixing minor things, - please check. I suggest to use "cm" (abbreviated) instead of "centimeter", for consistency with "m". I like the image arrangement all right, but wonder if the connection to the prose might be clearer by positioning, for example getting the gold pectoral closer to where it's mentioned. The last two images of grave findings remain a mystery to me, but it's a topic I am not familiar with. Will look at the lead tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gerda Arendt: I'm on it. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The format of the units of measures is now uniform, thanks for pointing this out - I moved the gold pectoral upwards - I understand your frustration about the references section but this is how to categorize sources and notes best. 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it would look almost the same if the lower-level headers were just bold, not sections to be edited, - there's probably not much to edit now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now to the lead.

I think it is where readers unfamiliar with the topic meet new information, and believe that you could do a few things to make that easier. Some of those will just result from me not being a native speaker, so I may not now terms that everybody else knows. Please ignore such things ;)

• link shaft tomb, sarcophagi (which is linked later, why?)?

Done Thanks!

• be a little more wordy about Byblos being the modern name for the ancient city, or is it the other way round? (The linked article is also not clear. The prose later on has the many names, but in the lead, it's not clear enough for me.)

  I have addressed this with Jens and other reviewers. We have rephrased the passages to clarify any ambiguity. Byblos is a classical exonym (given by the Greeks), it was repopularized in the 19th century by Hellenocentric western scholars, and we are stuck with this appellation. The oldest attested name is a form of "Gebal", the root of the current name (Jbeil / Gebeil). el.ziade (talkallam) 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would understand - if you don't want to say this in prose in the article, or the Byblos article - if there was a colon after "modern". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• translate hypogeum? yes, there's a link, but someone who wants a quick overview will not want to go back and forth.

replaced the word completely. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• split the sentence beginning "Montet categorized the graves"?

Done el.ziade (talkallam) 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "dated back" - they still do, no?

Yes of course, fixed. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elias Ziade:? Hog Farm _Talk 02:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Can't see your review, did I miss something? el.ziade (talkallam) 12:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(I think Hog Farm is just the coordinator alerting you, which seems to have worked.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me! It must be the fever SMH. I'll be back with you Gerda, i am running through the page history so I don't miss anything. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now problem. I support the article as it is, but you can still think about the remaining details. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

• Clearly pretty much there (I haven't read all the comments above) but a few points.
• There needs to be some indication of the dates in the first sentence or two.

Absolutely! Thank you el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't done this yet. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• in the lead, a bit more specificity on the grave goods - materials etc. "Egyptian-style local crafts" isn't very helpful.

I added some details.el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You are rather too fond of hyphenated adjectival phrases - "reliefs inscribed with Egyptian hieroglyphs" is better than "Egyptian hieroglyph-inscribed reliefs".

Thank you, done.el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Another interpretation of the Gebal is "mountain town" - "name" missing?

Added el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ancient texts and manuscripts hinted at the location of Gebal.." this para pretty long - split?

Split el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "floating in damp clay" - don't think one can do that.

No indeed, fixed. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The opening leads to a 1.8 m (5.9 ft) high and 1.2 m (3.9 ft) to 1.5 m (4.9 ft) wide corridor that adjoins the south side of the shaft of Tomb II" - should "adjoins" be "joins" or "enters"? Unclear what it means as it is. From the Montet plan illustrated it should be "enters".

I see, it's the corridor that joins the shaft. I will replace "adjoin" with "join". el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "damaged by falling rock shards" not sure rock has "shards". The word doesn't seem needed, or "fragments" maybe.

You're right. I often make this kind of mistakes when I am thinking and rephrasing from French. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Beware, here is your loss (is) below" - whose translation is this? The English doesn't make much sense.

Neither does the French LOL. This is Dussaud's interpretation of the tiny inscription. Another interpretation is Charles Torrey is "Take notice! Strength will fail you beyond this point" Torrey 1925. Lehmann 2005 interpreted the lines as such: :Concerning knowledge: here and now be humble (you yourself!) ‹in› this basement!". el.ziade (talkallam) 23:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There are generally a number of missing links.
• More later, Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @Johnbod:, do you have more input? el.ziade (talkallam) 15:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, sorry I haven't completed my read-through. Don't hold up promotion on my account, but I hope to continue this week. Have more links been added? Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Ok, nothing more, though i have made some changes, which I hope are ok. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source for Governing body?

added el.ziade (talkallam) 23:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Tomb V part of the second group, or not? The article seems inconsistent about this

It belongs to the second group. It is given a separate section however because of its importance.el.ziade (talkallam) 23:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - was it robbed in antiquity?Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it’s mentioned in the article el.ziade (talkallam) 18:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Make sure that multipage citations use pp rather than p

Done

• FN77: page(s)?

I lost access to the resource, so did another fellow editor I contacted for help. If someone can provide me with a library access I would be grateful. NB: Could not find it in the Wikipedia Library

• Suggest asking at WP:RX.Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested

I haven't had access yet, I removed the citations temporarily until I get access, or use another of Lehmann's works as reference. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in whether publication locations are included for books. If they are, don't use postal abbreviations

done

• Barry is missing edition

I couldn't find it, i also checked worldcat

• Don't duplicate identifiers in |url=

I ran through the references, I can't find any duplicates. Are there still any? el.ziade (talkallam) 15:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Cook, RD, etc all have JSTOR url and JSTOR id. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria Done el.ziade (talkallam) 11:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ranges should use endashes, including in titles

Done

• Be consistent in when/if you include |via=

I removed these, thanks for pointing this out

• Formatting of Jidejian doesn't match other sources, and is there any information available about this publisher?

Right

Can you elaborate on why this publisher qualifies as a high-quality reliable source Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jidejian is an archaeologist and historian. Her works are widely cited and distributed as evidenced by a worldcat / scholar search. The publisher is one of the oldest publishing houses in the Levant. Do we need more details? el.ziade (talkallam) 18:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in whether you include location and/or publisher for periodicals

Added also for articles

This is still inconsistent - some have location, others have publisher. (Also noticed a missing language on Dussaud, suggest checking throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I reviewed all the references el.ziade (talkallam) 01:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes Livius a high-quality reliable source?

Jona Lendering is a highly regarded and awarded Dutch historian. Livius is not another blog site.

Can you elaborate? What awards? Highly regarded according to what source? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lendering is a Dutch classicist and writer , in addition to being a member of faculty at the Dutch Vrije Universiteit, he is known to be a revisionist employing a holistic approach to historiography by including subaltern narratives to complement traditional western sources. He was awarded by the Dutch classical society among others.

• What is the role of University of Michigan in Mionnet?

It uploaded the book to archive.org I guess. I removed it because it was an automatically generated citation.

• How does Moore meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

I guess we can do without it, but it corroborates the other source and provides a more vivid description of the site.

Sure, but secondary/peer-reviewed sourcing is preferred. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria Would it matter if Moore was ex-President and is a current Honorary President of the Archaeological Institute of America? el.ziade (talkallam) 11:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No - that indicates that he is a reliable source now, but this is student work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strabo ref is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will need your help to format this one, I don't have much experience. @Nikkimaria: Please let me know if there's anything left.el.ziade (talkallam) 12:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an online republication of a previous print source - the citation should reflect both the original and where it's being read. (The latter is a case where |via= would indeed be appropriate). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Nikkimaria, is there anything else I can improve? el.ziade (talkallam) 11:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: please advise if I should ping the reviewers. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't hurt (within reason). Hog Farm _Talk 16:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There are p/pp errors at cites 50 and 90.
• Dunand - usually earlier works are listed first in "Bibliography".
• You should find an OCLC for Dunand 1939 here.
• Similarly there should be an identifier for Jidejian here.

I have only checked two sources for missing identifiers and they are both available. Could you please recheck the others? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild I reviewed all the sources and added identifiers where applicable. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be some queries from Nikkimaria outstanding. Eg "How does Moore meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?" Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild I removed the Moore reference although I don’t agree that it should not be included, and I strongly believe that the thesis meets scholarship requirements. @Nikkimaria if you still have pending notes please let me know. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no suggestion that it didn't, merely a request that you state the case for it being considered to do so. Have you now addressed all of Nikkimaria's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have, thank you for following up @Gog the Mild el.ziade (talkallam) 11:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, how's this one now? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria I have addressed your issues. Can we please move forward? el.ziade (talkallam) 06:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick prose question from Anarchyte[edit]

• I've not read through the whole article, but is it standard practice to use "us" in articles like these? #Attribution says the following: The names of some of the sarcophagi occupants are known to us from archeological finds (emphasis added). Surely this could be condensed by removing "to us"? Anarchyte (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchyte is quite right, see MOS:WE. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte Thank you for pointing this out, please let me know if there's anything else you noticed.el.ziade (talkallam) 10:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.