Template:Did you know nominations/Law School of Beirut
The following is an archived discussion of Law School of Beirut's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Ashwin147 (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Law School of Beirut[edit]
- ... that the Roman Law School of Beirut achieved such distinction in classical antiquity that Beirut was accorded the title of "Mother of laws"?
- ALT1:... that the Roman Law School of Beirut was the prime destination for the young Roman nobility wishing to learn jurisprudence?
- ALT2:... that in 551 AD a massive earthquake, followed by a tsunami and a fire destroyed the Roman Law School of Beirut putting an end to the schools primacy?
- ALT3:... that the jurists of the ancient Law School of Beirut played a major part in drafting the Justinian body of civil law?
- ALT4:... that the Law School of Beirut was the leading institution for studying Roman law in the later Roman Empire?
Created by Elie plus (talk). Self nominated at 20:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC).
- I did a little copyediting on the article, but it probably needs more. I proposed Hook 4 because I think it makes the significance and interest more immediately apparent (it's more like what I'd say to someone if I just learned about this and thought it might be interesting). It also links to articles that are more directly related. Not sure whether the qualifier "eastern" is necessary; perhaps it was the leading institution for Roman law of its time, period. If a reviewer finds things to fix, I'd be willing to offer a little time to help the article creator address any issues. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
A DYK QPQ review needs to be done for this article. There have been extensive article edits lately; when the edits and QPQ are done we can call for a reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have reviewed Getar River a fact from which appeared on the main page on 8 April 2013, and I have also reviewed Oikopleura cophocerca earlier today. -Eli+ 14:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- and Harran al-Awamid -Eli+ 15:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. You only need to submit one of those (a review is only used once, for a single nominated article): it helps if you can link to the actual nomination template rather than the article, so we can find it without having to search around. Which of the three do you want to use here? Also, are you ready to have this nomination reviewed yet, or are you still doing significant work to the article? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, so I guess i used up Harran al-Awamid for my Saint George Greek Orthodox Cathedral article nomination, and I will stick with Getar River for this one. This article is already in good shape IMHO and it's currently being reviewed by Cynwolfe. I can't judge my own work and I will leave it to Cynwolfe to decide if it's good enough to go through. -Eli+ 21:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- About Alt1: doesn't the article now say "Mother of law"? That makes more sense to me as a phrase: it didn't generate the laws per se, but was an incubator for jurisprudence. I might tweak the article some more, but I don't think that should hold it back as a DYK. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Need a reviewer to fully check the article, including all the ALT hooks. (Cynwolfe, as creator of ALT4, would not be eligible to review it.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Being someone moderately informed on Roman law myself, I would say ALT3 is the most interesting hook. Justinian corpus is the most notable thing out there in this field. Establishing a link to this important and vast legal document may very well raise some eyebrows when this DYK is on the main page. I could not check any of the sources (but one, which appears fine), since they're not on the internet, so I am accepting those in good faith. The article itself appears well written, was indeed a new article and appropriately referenced. Thumbs up!—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 17:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
