Talk:Antiphellus

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Archaeology Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Antiphellus 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.
Review: July 4, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Name[edit]

The meaning of Antiphellus is "the land opposite the rocks", as stated by Bayburtluoğlu, who is an acknowledged expert of the region's ancient history. Phellus (meaning "rocks") was located inland and cannot be considered to be opposite Antiphellus, which served for a period as its port. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. :3 F4U (they /it) 22:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Antiphellus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freedom4U (talk · contribs) 05:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

Start the article with what the subject is, rather than what it did.

Done. AM

The lede feels lopsided, there's a noticeable lack of information on the site's history. It states that Antiphellus became the region's largest city, but then starts the next paragraph by stating that it was discovered. This needs to be expanded and made clearer.

Sorted. AM

Per spotcheck, In 1952, archaeologists showed that Antiphellus had only ever consisted of a few buildings. is just flat out untrue.

Sorted. AM

History[edit]

The Strabo quote appears to be unnecessarily long. Is there a way to cut it down, potentially into prose?

It seems to have been done already. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of having (British Museum) in the image caption?

Image now removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph of the coins was released under a non-commercial license, which is incompatible with the commons. I've flagged it there.

Image now removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology[edit]

There's a clarification tag that needs to be addressed. I'm also concerned about how necessary such a long quote is

Quote now reduced down. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Description of Existing ruins[edit]

I think "diazoma" would be better off linking to a wiktionary entry, rather than that article which has one very short sentence on the subject.

no link used here, as the word is explained in the text. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5 blocks -> five blocks

Done. AM

There is a moulding at the base -> The base has a moulding

Done. AM

most notable While the source does state this, I believe this is a peacock term.

Removed. AM

Other[edit]

There's a notes section with no notes.

Sorted (someone else removed the note, I think). Amitchell125 (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary, but I'd always encourage editors to add alt text to any images.

Done, but (as you point out) alt text is not GA. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be quite a lot of information about the site in Bean (1978) that doesn't appear to be in the article (eg. the port being used to transport timber).

Bean presumes about the timber trade, so I won't add that, but I'll check through his chapter for other items of secondary information I may have missed out. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a few short (1-2 sentence) paragraphs. These should be merged or expanded.

Done. AM

Spotcheck[edit]

7 - Clear

10 - excavators sank trial pits in numerous places at Kaş is directly copied from source. The next part of the sentence also is too closely paraphrased to the original source.

Text amended. AM

12 - It states that the earthquake was strong, but does not mention the city or how it was affected. Citation 11 only mentions that the city was affected by the earthquake with no further information. Checking citation 13, I still have issues: 1) I can't find a mention of the tsunami relating to the city, 2) I'm questioning why the paragraph says "probably", when there's no sources stating that they were affected by an unknown earthquake, 3) where does it state "well-documented"?

Paragraph rewritten. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19 - The quote jumps around, although I would suggest severely editing down this quote, you do also need to add an ellipsis if you're condensing what other people have written.

Done. AM

27 - Clear

28 - Clear

38 - Where was this originally published? Otherwise, clear.

Sorted. AM

44 - The page number is incorrect, but clear.

I'm not sure you are right here—the text does come from p. 44 (I have a copy of the book). Amitchell125 (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reference should be for page 96? (and not page 94 as its listed in the article) Page 96 states: on the south side the wall is almost entirely destroyed down to ground-level, though its line is recognizable in places. The highest point is occupied by an enclosure with a rough wall surrounding a hollow now filled with scrub; this apparently represents a medieval fortification of the summit. Internet Archive :3 F4U (they /it) 17:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the book. You have accessed the 2004 edition (the book I am using was published in 2006, as stated in the article). It also appears you are referring to the chapter on Phellos, a different place. Amitchell125 (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedom4U: The above points have now been addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125: Oop just noticed this. FYI, your message didn't ping because you didn't add a signature when you added it (it needs to be done in the same edit for it to ping). Everything looks good to me, I'll pass it now. :3 F4U (they /it) 22:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See above
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
See above
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
See above
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
See above, I've added a copyvio tag to one of the images
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Seven day hold to address the above concerns :3 F4U (they /it) 05:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.