Talk:Charon's obol

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mythology Mid‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Charon's obol has been listed as one of the History 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 2, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

misunderstood editing

There were some minor edits recently that seemed incorrect to me, so I've changed them back. For instance, in the sentence on the demographic distribution of the custom, a needed conjunction was deleted (why?), and a correctly-used comma was replaced by an unnecessary em-dash. In the first footnote, the phrase "Charon's obol" was changed to the phrase "this term", which is simply incorrect; the point is not that the term is used to explain the placement of coins on the eyes, but rather the custom is incorrectly adduced to explain the placement. People placing coins on the eyes in the modern era may in fact use the term "Charon's obol" to describe what they're doing, for all I know, but that wasn't the ancient custom. There are a couple of other little things: In the sentence 'The phrase "Charon's obol" as used by archaeologists ... ", for some reason Charon's obol became italicized; it should be either placed in quotation marks OR italicized to show that it is a phrase used paratactically, but why both? I admire good copy-editing, which renders the original statement with greater architectural precision, but I confess I didn't understand what principles were being brought to bear here. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good article?

I ended up here from today's FA on funerary art. This is also a really good article - has anyone considered putting it up for GA status? Bob talk 17:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having just come across it, it looks to me at least GA-level, and could quite probably pass FA. It would be up to the primary author (Cynwolfe) to submit it, though; I'm not going to try to take credit for his work. Robofish (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can nominate a good article. I just did, because this article is worthy. --bender235 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medusa coin

Noticed your edit summary. These show very similar types, with "obvious maritime connections", or so goes the description (somewhere or other, but not at that site). Why a crayfish in particular? I've no idea, and google-scholar had nothing to say on the matter. Ah, not quite nothing. A rather ancient British Museum catalogue offers "lobster/crayfish". Crustacean! QED. Haploidavey (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The crawdaddy, as we called 'em, is plainer on some of the examples in your link. I am utterly unaware of any myth that references crustaceans. Scorpions, yes, and though I wondered whether that was the confusion, they don't seem to have the curled tail. Pass the lemon. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 13:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Will review this over the weekend[reply]

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

looks in good nick

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Mostly fine. A few minor points under comments that should be easily sorted
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Spot checks on information good
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Felt the Christian transformation sections focus was more on viaticum than the obol, but not enough to concern Good article status
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
History and talk page look stable.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
File:Medusa coin.jpg should be alright, but the license doesn't seem right. It says permission has been provided by CNG, yet it does not link to that permission.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Commments

The custom is primarily associated with the ancient Greeks and Romans, but is found also in the Near East, and later in Western Europe, particularly in the regions inhabited by Celts of the Gallo-Roman, Hispano-Roman and Romano-British cultures, and among Germanic peoples of late antiquity and the early Christian era, with sporadic examples into the early 20th century. Could this sentence be rewritten slightly to renove some of the commas. Maybe split into two senteces or rearranged someway. It is a bit awkward to read.
The word naulon (ναῦλον) is defined by the Christian-era lexicographer Hesychius of Alexandria as the coin put into the mouth of the dead; What does Christian era mean? this?
I would describe Charon very briefly somewhere under terminology.
In investigations reported 2001 by A. Destrooper-Georgiades, a specialist in Achaemenid numismatics, 33 tombs had yielded 77 coins. Grammar
In his best-known representation, on the problematic Gundestrup Cauldron, why is this problematic

Review almost a month unanswered

I left a note on the nominator's talk page, in the hopes of getting the review comments answered. User:bender235 replied, "I'm sorry, but I cannot improve this article's content, because I did not write it. I'm no expert in this field."

It would seem to me that after waiting a month, it's time to close this nomination one way or the other. There won't be any further edits from the nominator, who has refused to proceed further. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's close enough. I will make a few edits then pass it. Any other comments can be regarded as suggestions if it wants to be carried further. AIRcorn (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Medusa coin.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Medusa coin.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Medusa coin.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added missing source (http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=128768) for File:Medusa coin.jpg. Odysses (○) 16:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charon's obol. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1054631/Greek-dig-unearths-secrets-Alexander-Greats-golden-era.html?printingPage=true
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303104238/http://hss.ulb.uni-bonn.de:90/2009/1909/1909.htm to http://hss.ulb.uni-bonn.de:90/2009/1909/1909.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1054631/Greek-dig-unearths-secrets-Alexander-Greats-golden-era.html?printingPage=true

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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]