Talk:Schick models of Jerusalem

A fact from Schick models of Jerusalem appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 November 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that 150-year-old wooden models of the Temple Mount (example pictured) are important to archaeology, as their creator was the last European ever permitted to survey its foundations?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Schick models of Jerusalem.

Did you know nomination

The following 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Model of the Temple Mount foundations

... that 150-year-old wooden models of the Temple Mount are important to archaeology, as their creator was the last person ever permitted to survey its foundations? Source: Gibson & Jacobson 1994 "Religious sensitivities have discouraged scientific investigation of subterranean features within the Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem, which incorporates the area of the ancient Temple Mount. In consequence, the mystery of this sacred place has been heightened, providing fertile ground for flights of fancy concerning the two Jewish temples that formerly occupied the site. Even serious scholars have had to make do with hypotheses concerning the position and layout of these ancient complexes… However, for a brief period in the second half of the nineteenth century a handful of intrepid European explorers, in particular Charles Wilson, Charles Warren, Claude Regnier Conder, and Conrad Schick, succeeded in lifting this veil of secrecy and visited many of the underground chambers that pepper this sacred site… They left records of some 45 subterranean chambers that they classified as cisterns as well as other cavities and structural remains. Much of this material was published by them (Wilson 1866: 42-45; Warren 1871:204-17; Warren and Conder 1884; Schick 1887:72-87; 1896: 292-305), but many important details were confined to manuscript and deposited in the archives of the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) in London. Some of the most reliable and detailed information was recorded by the German-born Conrad Schick… Yet, Schick, with his sharp eye for detail, subsequently provided superior information about the subterranean cisterns of the Haram."
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele)

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 23:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Schick models of Jerusalem; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: The nomination is still needed for a work to be done. You must provide a citation at the lead section in 2nd paragraph and at the 5th paragraph of the "Current location of the models" section. Another remaining problem is a QPQ. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JeBonSer: thanks for your review. I have now completed the QPQ, added the citations, and made a few additional improvements to the article as well. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QPQ acquired, all is clear, and it is good to go now for the current hook. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 04:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JeBonSer: thank you! Please could you add a tick? I think this is needed for the system to move it to approved. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tense

The first sentence uses the past tense, but don't some models still exist? Srnec (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for pointing out. I have fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]