Talk:Tel Yokneam

Why are live URL doubled up by archive URL?

Isn't it just a waste of space? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

PS: new comments like this, if placed at the bottom of the page, get swallowed up by the table, so I brought this up here. Also: how does one create a "Contents" template on this/a talk-page? Arminden (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

To-do list

• Add acres/sqm/hectars to 40 dunams in the lead.  Done
• When was the site excavated, How long were the excavations going on?? ⁺ write about Miriam Avissar's excavation in the 90s and this  Done
• When was it first settled? When was it abandoned Done
• Who runs the regional project?  Done
• In Persian and Hellenistic periods: "Archaeologists suggested..." - who? Done
• "The survey did find a Byzantine church..." - what survey? Done
• "It was suggested the city was abandoned..." - who? Done
• More of the above
• Paragraphs relient on one source Done
• Unsourced claims: "These finds are quite meager", "Amnon Ben-Tor remarks", "one interesting offering" Done
• Anything more recent than 1878?  Done
• Who runs the site now? Is it protected? ⁺ expand from here  Done

• Ottoman fortress: Yes or no? Done
• Mamluk period needs expansion, as well as archaeological finds in the Crusader, Byzantine, Roman, Persian and Hellenistic Done
• Source the shit out of the lead section Done
• What was the name during Roman times? Also where's Jerome's account? Done

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 17:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bolter21: - I'm not done with the review yet, but there are a couple of big issues I wanted to let you know about asap. First of all, there are consistent grammatical issues which need a thorough copyedit. More importantly (and content-wise), the article needs expansion to include a description of Tel Yokneam as an *archaeological* site, not just a historic one. Who owns it, who runs it, when was it excavated, how has it been studied, etc? These two things at a minimum need to be addressed before this article can pass GAN. If you think you'll have time to do that over the next few weeks, then go ahead and make those improvements. If not, the article could be failed and you can make the improvements without any time-pressure and renominate the article when you're done. Let me know what you want to do! Ganesha811 (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the initial review. Indeed these issues must be solved and I already know how to solve all of them. It's the problem of accessibility now. Next time I'll have access to a PC will be in the weekend after the next. I'll try to solve as many issues through my phone. Others will be more tricky.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Borrowed a computer from one of my soldiers. I might be able to address most issues by this weekend.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. No rush! Ganesha811 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I've spent the better part of the day working on the article and it seems since the begining of the review, the article has grown by about 40% which is great! Not wishing to enter a state of fatigue I stop here and wait for your new review.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Bolter21, hi! I'll take another look through this weekend. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Bolter21 - first of all, great work on all of your additions. You have really added a lot of great content, and responded very comprehensively to the feedback I gave. Unfortunately, I think I will still have to fail this GA nomination. The main reason is copyediting. As I look through, there are a number of typos, extremely awkward construction, grammatical errors, and other copyediting issues that are visible. I would recommend reaching out and asking the Guild of Copy Editors (WP:GUILD to do a scrub on the page. A side note - the lead does not generally need to be sourced, per the Manual of Style. It can summarize the rest of the page without the need for direct sourcing. You've put in a lot of great work to this article and I feel confident that with a good copyedit and some other tweaks it will pass the next Good Article nomination! Ganesha811 (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Not being an English speaker sure makes it difficult. I'll try and ask for copy editing, this should help.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll tell you what. I am going to submit the article to a copyedit review and on the meantime I'll try and expand it even more. The Iron and Bronze Age eras can definitely enjoy more content. So I'll appreciate if you'll have another look when I'm done for the content and less for the grammar. Your comments imply we shall keep the review discussion for now, as we are on the right direction.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Great! I did fail the nomination for now, but let me know when you re-nominate it. You have done some excellent work improving the article, and I appreciate it must be difficult as a non-English speaker to get all the grammar/etc down. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	In lead, area given as "40 dunams" should be given equivalent in acres or sq m or hectares - dunams is a unit specific to the area and not as useful for a general English-language encylopedia In lead - when was the site excavated? When was it last occupied? These questions are raised but not answered. Who runs the "regional project"? Grammatical issues throughout - subject-verb agreement, tense - I will try and copyedit for these myself. Capitalization occasionally as well. *In 'Ottoman period', for instance, "in a map" should be "In a map" * In 'Crusader, Ayubbid..' this is a typical sentence with wonky grammar: "In the place of Acre, Caymont, known by the Muslims as "Qaymun", would be preserved made the main Muslim stronghold in the region." In 'Persian and Hellenistic periods', "Archeologists [sp] suggested..." which archaeologists? In 'Roman, Byzantine...', "The survey did find a Byzantine... " what survey? "it was suggested the city was abandoned..." suggested by who? * Those kinds of issues are frequent throughout the article.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass. No issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Quite a few paragraphs reliant on only one source - the whole Geography section has only one source. Some unsourced claims, including but not limited to: "Although Yokneam doesn't appear in any sources from the Persian period, it was a dense city at that time." "Very little [grammar - should be 'few'] findings from the Hellenistic period were found in Yokneam. A Hellenistic square shaped watch-tower was found in the northern part of the tell. The tower has deep foundations and it overlooked the junction of two international routes in the foot of the tell. This site is dated to the 2nd century BCE." "Ceramics from this period are some of the most luxurious of their time, and they indicate the city was established around the 9th century, probably during the rule of Ahmad ibn Tulun, who united Egypt, Syria and the Levant under his rule in 878 CE." "Crusader Yokneam was a fortified city. It was probably the largest settlement since the Iron Age."
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	In 'Ottoman period' - "these finds are quite meager" sounds like opinion / original research. Ammon Ben-Tor is brought up without prior introduction or mention and no reason is given we should believe his criticism. In 'Bronze age' "one interesting offering" has same issue as above.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass. No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There is no coverage of anything more recent than 1878. Who runs the site now? Is it protected? How long have excavations been going on? This is important information for an archaeological GA and must be included and well-sourced to pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass. No issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass. No issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass. No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.	Did not pass GAN, despite significant improvements, due to copyediting issues among other things.