Talk:Charon's obol

misunderstood editing
There were some minor edits recently that seemed incorrect to me, so I've changed them back. For instance, in the sentence on the demographic distribution of the custom, a needed conjunction was deleted (why?), and a correctly-used comma was replaced by an unnecessary em-dash. In the first footnote, the phrase "Charon's obol" was changed to the phrase "this term", which is simply incorrect; the point is not that the term is used to explain the placement of coins on the eyes, but rather the custom is incorrectly adduced to explain the placement. People placing coins on the eyes in the modern era may in fact use the term "Charon's obol" to describe what they're doing, for all I know, but that wasn't the ancient custom. There are a couple of other little things: In the sentence 'The phrase "Charon's obol" as used by archaeologists ... ", for some reason Charon's obol became italicized; it should be either placed in quotation marks OR italicized to show that it is a phrase used paratactically, but why both? I admire good copy-editing, which renders the original statement with greater architectural precision, but I confess I didn't understand what principles were being brought to bear here. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Good article?
I ended up here from today's FA on funerary art. This is also a really good article - has anyone considered putting it up for GA status? Bob talk 17:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Having just come across it, it looks to me at least GA-level, and could quite probably pass FA. It would be up to the primary author (Cynwolfe) to submit it, though; I'm not going to try to take credit for his work. Robofish (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone can nominate a good article. I just did, because this article is worthy. --bender235 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Medusa coin
Noticed your edit summary. These show very similar types, with "obvious maritime connections", or so goes the description (somewhere or other, but not at that site). Why a crayfish in particular? I've no idea, and google-scholar had nothing to say on the matter. Ah, not quite nothing. A rather ancient British Museum catalogue offers "lobster/crayfish". Crustacean! QED. Haploidavey (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The crawdaddy, as we called 'em, is plainer on some of the examples in your link. I am utterly unaware of any myth that references crustaceans. Scorpions, yes, and though I wondered whether that was the confusion, they don't seem to have the curled tail. Pass the lemon. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Medusa coin.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
I have added missing source (http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=128768) for File:Medusa coin.jpg. Odysses (○) 16:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charon's obol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1054631/Greek-dig-unearths-secrets-Alexander-Greats-golden-era.html?printingPage=true
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303104238/http://hss.ulb.uni-bonn.de:90/2009/1909/1909.htm to http://hss.ulb.uni-bonn.de:90/2009/1909/1909.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1054631/Greek-dig-unearths-secrets-Alexander-Greats-golden-era.html?printingPage=true

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)