Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Museum of Beirut/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:39 June 19, 2008.

National Museum of Beirut edit

Self-nominator

I'm nominating this article for featured article because i expanded from stub status and was encouraged by reviewers to proceed to the next step after it gained GA status. it is a fairly well written article not cluttered with irrelevant info and has overall consensus from the local wikiproject ( no edit wars) thank you Eli+ 05:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Some web references are missing publishers and/or accessdates. Gary King (talk) 06:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
books citations do no require access dates, one reference (jean-Michel wilmotte biography article) does not have a publisher it was published on a website Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Perhaps "archaeological museum" rather than "archaeology museum"?
i kept it as it is in accordance with the name of the category (archaeology museums) both work actuallyEli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest renaming the "Early beginnings" section. The "early" part just serves to confuse, but I'm not sure it works just as "Beginnings" on its own. Perhaps something more explanatory like "Origin and inauguration"?
totally AGREE Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The National Museum closed its doors when the Lebanese war broke out." - "its doors" is unnecessary.
changed Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the first paragraph of the Closing and Devastation section could do with some editing to improve the prose. Plus, at the moment the whole section seems to be a pretty much direct copy from the first reference (the museum website history section), with some minor changes. This could have copyright problems.
rewritten Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Armed elements"? What about "soldiers"?
this term was used explicitly and on purpose since there was not one soldier or army group but many militias, foreign armies and factions of the fractured lebanese army as well. Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps change the "Prehistory" section to "Prehistoric" (this makes sense if you think of it as "Prehistoric Collections" as opposed to "Prehistory Collections", imo).
yes it may work... but the official NMB brochures and publications name it like this Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe change "amidst the exacerbation of the civil war" to "amidst the worsening civil war", or similar.
  • I'd suggest decreasing the resolution of the museum logo to better conform with the fair use policy. I also wonder about the public domain status of the Sarcophagus of King Ahiram photo, I think it's probably ok, so I'll leave it to one of the more experienced image rights FAC reviewers.

In general I think a lot of the prose could do with tidying up, quite a bit seems to be copied from sources without much paraphrasing or rewording. Adacore (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

we can do without it Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
totally biased website, i agree but this one was used a secondary website for citation. Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
also used as secondary ref Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no, it's actually the daily star newspaper, look further down,, the end of the article Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
also used as secondary ref Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
biography article is featured on the website, no publishers Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, and web links checked out with the link checker tool. I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: You say in your preamble that the article is fairly well written. Unfortunately (see WP:Featured article criteria) the standard of prose required for a featured article is higher than that. In fact, the prose in this article requires a lot of work. Here are three examples of poor construction:-

  • "These excavations were carried out by Dr Georges Contenau at Saida and the Renan mission at Saida, Tyre and Byblos". Excavations have not previously been mentioned, so "these" makes no sense. The rest of the sentence is confused.
  • "The Museum was supposed to be inaugurated in 1938, but due to the Second World War the museum was not opened until 1942. The Museum was inaugurated on May 27, 1942 by…"(repetitions, inconsistent capitalization of "museum", "inaugurated" and "opened" meaning the same thing).
  • "…turned down by the general director of antiquities […] since there were still no doors or windows preventing the looting of the museum". I have no idea from this what the general director’s objection was based on.

Please note that these are examples, and that there are other cases of inadequate prose. Other random comments:-

  • History section is unbalanced. The 33 years up to 1975 are dealt with in a single sentence (relating to Mir Maurice Chehab), followed by long subsections relating to the 17 years of civil war and the post-1992 reconstruction. The earlier period should be more adequately summarised.
  • Why does an Architecture section appear in the middle of the article? Surely this information belongs to the Foundation section, where you first mention the architects?
  • Terms like "neo-pharonic" are incomprehensible to the vast majority, and must be explained and/or linked. Your later use of the term "aisle" is wrong; an aisle is an interior gangway. I think you mean alleyway or something similar. Also, I believe that "pre-emptive" is always hyphenated, but it may be non-hyphenated in AmEng.
Egyptian Revival architecture is the normal English term here. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The detailed list of names in the Foundation section is unnecessary and tedious to read.
  • Re Hellenistic period. Alexander died in 323 BC, so it’s a bit strange to read: "After Alexander’s untimely death, Phonecia came under Seleucid rule in 198 BC." That's 125 years after Alexander’s death – so what was happening meanwhile? It’s not relevant to your article, so rather than go into detailed ancient history I’d insert "eventually" between "came" and "under".

Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i appreciate your comments, not your tone Eli+ 20:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if my tone has offended you - what exactly are you referring to? I am trying to help you improve the article, and some criticism is inevitable, but it's not personal. Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The Architecture section has inconsistent measurement/unit combinations - since it's in the main text, all units should be written out in full.
i think we ought to report this issue to the convert template talk page Eli+ 22:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd really like to see the "Collections" section prosified - I'm uncomfortable with the list-like format.
  • The lead should be two paragraphs, not only because of WP:LEAD but because "During the 1975 Lebanese Civil War, the...." begins a new topic, and thus should start a new paragraph.
  • Link "20th century" - it provides context.

Prose is excellent in general; I couldn't find any of the problems I find in most articles. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your time, I'll see that the changes you proposed be done Eli+ 22:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what description, what repetitions, where ???? Thank you for your useful "comment" Eli+ 08:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I replied you here. [1]--Mojska 08:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now.
  • Prose is not up to FA standard, & needs tweaking throughout. Lots of redundancies, and some vocabulary that is not right. Otherwise, the organisation and content seem ok. Taking the first para after the lead:

"In 1919, a small collection of ancient artifacts compiled WRONG WORD by Raymond Weill (a French officer stationed in Lebanon), was CUT [housed and] exhibited at a provisional museum in the German Deaconesses APOSTROPHE building in Georges Picot Street, Beirut.[1] Meanwhile, a prototype HMMM of the Archaeological and Fine Arts Service was instigated "BEGUN" OR SIMILAR and began assembling items, which were scattered WRONG WORD in the vicinity of Beirut.IS THIS CLAUSE NEEDED? The initial collection was rapidly enriched through the work DID THEY MAKE THEM? of the successive antiquity directors DIRECTORS OF ANTIQUITIES, I THINK along with the addition of excavation finds CUT [that have been carried out] GRAMMAR, REDUNDANCY, MADE by Dr. Georges Contenau at Saida and the Renan mission MISSIONARIES? OR EXPEDITION/DIGS/EXCAVATIONS? at Saida, Tyre[2] and Byblos.[3] Donations from private collectors SIMPLIFY[also contributed to the inventory],[2] among CUT [which were] THEM Henry Seyrig’s private OBVIOUSLY coin collection[4], General Weygand's collection in 1925[2] and that of Dr George Ford (Director of the American Mission School of Sidon) in 1930.[5][2]"

I could give it a copy-edit if you like.

  • Sourcing - all sources are mostly on-line, which is not a good sign. There must be printed sources, which usually have more in-depth information.

Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now copy-edited it, at Elie's invitation, so I hope those concerned with the prose will take another look. I may have missed MoS points - for example it uses "B.C.", not "BC" which I prefer, but can't remember the Mos position - and there are a lot of these. Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - I didn't look at the website until after I copy-edited, and I'm now concerned at how much I was correcting the Ministry's English, from pages like this [2]. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/National_Museum_of_Beirut/archive1&oldid=1136096412"