Template:Did you know nominations/Esquiline Treasure

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 15:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Esquiline Treasure[edit]

(
)

Created by Jononmac46 (talk), Johnbod (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 00:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC).

  • Great article. Date of creation and length of article OK; reliably sourced with ample citations; image is available under a suitable license. However, the hook fact is not directly supported by the cited reference, which only specifies the names of "the 5 surviving major hoards; to say that these four hoards are "probably the most important assemblage of late Roman silverware" is an editorial extrapolation -- probably true, but the precise hook fact must be present in the cited source, and it is not. The hook length is also a little long (204 characters if you include "(casket pictured)". Please suggest a different hook. BabelStone (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
hmm good point - the articles claim has been finessed Victuallers (talk) 14:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it's not a good point personally, and I don't much like the fiddling with the text to address it. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
"fiddling with the text" is called editing. Not very encouraging points you are making. "Not liking" is unpersuasive. Victuallers (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not happy that the hook fact is present in the cited source (it does not mention that the hoards are in the British Museum). It is not a terribly interesting hook anyway, so can we try something else? A couple of alternate hooks suggested below. BabelStone (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You may not think it interesting that nearly all the world's discovered hoards of this type are in one museum but Johnbod has clearly added the reference "the 5 surviving major hoards of late Roman silver, of which four (Esquiline, Carthage, Mildenhall and the earlier Chaourse) are in the British Museum." which I think does "mention that the hoards are in the British Museum" Victuallers (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why we're arguing over an interesting article with plenty of hookworthy facts. As far as I can ascertain, the hook fact above (alt1) is not actually supported by the cited reference, and as far as I can see the words "of which four (Esquiline, Carthage, Mildenhall and the earlier Chaourse) are in the British Museum" in Note 5 you quote above are an editorial explanation, not part of the quote from the reference (the only quotation in Note 5 is "the 5 surviving major hoards"). The reference merely states: "My starting-points were the 5 surviving major hoards (Chaourse, Mildenhall, Esquiline, Kaiseraugst, and Carthage) and the results of the major scientific examiniation of late-Roman silver which was put in hand by the British Museum Research Laboratory in 1977", but that does not state that the hoards are in the British Museum (maybe I can confirm that fact by searching the BM website, but I shouldn't have to do that). Perhaps I'm getting confused by the "Reply to Alan Cameron" reference, and the hook fact is specified in Kent and Painter p.9, which I don't have access to. If you can you provide a link to or quotation from a source that actually includes the hook fact then I can pass your preferred hook. BabelStone (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • (alt2)... that some pieces of the Esquiline Treasure (casket pictured) are thought to have been made as gifts for the marriage of a Christian lady into a pagan family?
  • (alt3)... that the Esquiline Treasure (casket pictured) includes one piece with a Christian inscription and pagan iconography?
  • New reviewer needed to give a second opinion on ALT1 hook (both interest and source support) and to review ALT2 and ALT3 hooks, which were proposed by reviewer and must be independently reviewed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Alt2 and Alt3 are referenced a number of times. Both with one on line source to the British Museum. Both hooks are OK for length Victuallers (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I had hoped never again to see Victuallers approve an article that he nominated, yet that's just what happened here. There should be consequences for that kind of error, and this is the most appropriate one I can think of. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • %%(&%! @BLUEMOONSET - You said New reviewer needed to give a second opinion on ALT1 hook (both interest and source support) and to review ALT2 and ALT3 hooks - My note above is "JUST TO APPROVE THE ALTS!" - The symbol notes that the approval is now complete given your summary. Someone? gets very upset when a comment is placed without a summary symbol. I have not approved this nomination and I find it divisive for you to claim that is the case. Why don't you assist this review rather than just supplying meta comments. Victuallers (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The comment would have been fine without the symbol, which certainly implies a review. I've never seen anyone complain about comments intended as comments being without a symbol. Reviews intended as reviews are different, & the two types of edits need to be clearly distinguished. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Precisely what Johnbod said. You put the tick, which at DYK means approval of the nomination; any person assembling a prep would assume that the nomination was ready for promotion with either of the ALT2 and ALT3 hooks. By definition, as nominator, you can't be the reviewer of anything here. If you'd commented—as nominator—that as far as you were concerned the new alts were fine and supported, that would have been okay; doing it as reviewer isn't, because it's still your nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed for Alts. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
What I don't like about ALT2 is "are thought to have been made". ALT3 is simple and factual, but could you name the casket and picture it? You could also say something about being made in Rome which seems to be unique, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a different casket in fact, but the better pic at this size. More important would be to add a rough date, I'd have thought. Johnbod (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (alt4)... that the 4th-century Esquiline Treasure (casket pictured) from Rome includes one piece with a Christian inscription and pagan iconography? - I don't think Rome needs a link. Johnbod (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The casket referred to in Alts 2-4 is the Projecta Casket, but unfortunately the images of this casket are probably not good enough to use on DYK, otherwise it would be nice to have a picture of the Projecta Casket rather than the suggested picture of the Muse Casket. BabelStone (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the casket deserves to have its name mentioned - even a redirect, right? - and to be pictured. In small size, you don't see that it is of lesser quality. What do you think of
ALT5: ... that the 4th-century Esquiline Treasure from Rome includes the Projecta Casket (pictured), which has a Christian inscription and pagan iconography? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Fine by me (a comment!). Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
for ALT5 (too lazy to strike the others), offline and JSTOR sources accepted AGF, image free, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Gerda, you can't approve your own hook. Independent reviewer needed to verify that the image is indeed free and in the article (since Gerda suggested it) and that the hook is covered and sourced in the article. I'd also suggest adding a comma after (pictured) and changing "with" to "which has" for clarity. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
If you ask me, this is getting ridiculous. Gerda is an independent reviewer, and ALT5 is just a modification of Johnbod's ALT4 which is just a modification of my ALT3, so Gerda has not made up a new hook, just verified and tweaked it, and changed the picture, which I am sure she has also verified as being available under a suitable license -- and if you don't trust Gerda it would take you 10 seconds to confirm it yourself. BabelStone (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but after Victuallers attacked me on my talk page over this nomination, it would be inappropriate for me to approve it. However, I still feel that the rules need to be followed. It isn't about trust: anyone can make mistakes, and both I and Gerda have done so here at DYK in the past. Any reason you didn't verify the picture yourself, since Gerda wasn't eligible? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT5 approved; hook fact is present and cited in the article, AGF on offline source. I've made BlueMoonset's suggested change (replacing "with" with "which has"); this is a minor copyedit which doesn't require independent approval. Image is CC licensed and included in the article. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Esquiline_Treasure&oldid=804402256"