Jump to content

Talk:Museiliha inscription

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Museiliha inscription/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Elias Ziade (talk · contribs) 12:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 19:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I'll give this a look. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • We don't get a date, either in the lead or body, for Renan's first publication of the inscription. Can we have one?
  • The inscription transcription doesn't quite match the infobox image. Line 2 in the image begins CAESARENSES, not CAESARENS. There are also clearly letters missing after SIDONIOR (presumably SIDONIOR[VM]). It should also be indicated that there are clearly missing letters after the restored DOM[ITIVM].
  • The translation is accordingly not quite right. We should be consistent in referring to Caesarea ad Libanum by its Latin name, but the inscription talks about the people rather than the city. It should also be indicated in the translation that "procurator of Augustus" is a restoration.
  • Nineteenth-century French orientalist Ernest Renan : a false title: stick a The at the start to fix. There are a few others.
  • because the cities of Caesarea ad Libanum (modern Arqa) and Gigarta were not neighboring, the land in question likely was an enclave that belonged to Caesarea of Lebanon: see above re naming consistency.
  • We are quite vague on the dates of many people and events in this story. Precise dates, where they are known, would be beneficial.
  • the inscription is dated to the fourth quarter of the first century AD (75–100 AD).: I don't think we really need the brackets here for what is a routine calculation.
  • All footnotes should end in a full stop/period.
  • One image; PD status is fine, alt text is provided (though contains transcription errors).
  • I assume there's no chance of a photograph of the actual thing?
  • Heavy reliance in the bibliography on nineteenth-century sources. If they say things that are also found in modern scholarship, it is preferable to substitute or add the modern source to show that it is still the general belief.
  • Spot checks to follow.