Talk:Incense trade route/Archive 1

Good article nomination
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of September 3, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Pass. Obviously no serious problems, if any, here.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Pass. Although I don't have the books themselves, nothing in this article seems to stand out as obviously factually inaccurate.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Fail. I think if you're going to make "The Incense Route in Sacred Literature" its own section, you should elaborate not only on what is said about the route in those sources, but why these mentions are important, what is notable about them, what the mentions show about the notability/importance of the route etc. Also, even though it's fairly obvious, you should still in-line cite those passages (I think there are sites that post copies of bible passages that you can use for direct citations). I'd also like to see a section on the decline or current status of the route. Is it still used today? What factors (political/technological etc.) contributed to its downfall if not? You seem to touch on these, but it could stand to be fleshed out a bit so that it really stands out to someone who is unfamiliar with the subject, but would like to know more (like say, me).
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass. A direct citation of "The incense Route involved both land and sea routes. The importance of the land routes would later be overshadowed by the growing sea trade, largely independent of middle men and taxes" would help it seem less like original research. You do seem to go into this, however, so it's not a reason for a fail.
 * 5. Article stability? Pass. No problems here.
 * 6. Images?: Pass. A great collection of images! Perhaps one or two could afford being moved to the left side of the page, but that's a stylistic subjectivity, not a reason for fail.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.

Also as a small note, the citations could use some clean up as well. For example, you cite many pages more than once. Instead of referencing them individually each time, you could use the "name" feature. ie. If I wanted to cite www.example.com twice. The first time I could use this. Then, if I wanted to reference it again, I just need to do this. Cheers, CP 17:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Addressing concerns
1. The section "The Incense Route in Sacred Literature" has been deleted. Reliable secondary sources just deal barely (a para or so) with this section and it may not be enough.

2. Addressed the decline.

3. The present status of these sites is in the form of multiple UNESCO world heritage sites. The Frankincense trail was assigned UNESCO World Heritage Site status in 2000; Multiple sites along the Incense Route - Desert Cities in the Negev have been assigned World Heritage Site status by UNESCO.

4. Extensive sourcing done to cover in some detail how how the Nabateans came to power and how the bypassing by Rome was done and what were the consequences.

5. Old Images aligned for better view and new images introduced.

6. Removed "The incense Route involved both land and sea routes. The importance of the land routes would later be overshadowed by the growing sea trade, largely independent of middle men and taxes." Slow explaination in entire sections does a better job than a messy summation in a line.

I have continued to use multiple reference tags for a single page as I feel if the line containing is deleted then it may result in multiple blanks in citations.

I'm a relatively new user and this concern of mine may turn out to be trivial and untrue but I'd like to keep the relatively safer option.

With Regards, Havelock the Dane  01:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, fast and excellent work! There's just a few quick things I would like addressed before I would feel comfortable in promoting this to GA status:


 * I should have mentioned before (and this is my fault for forgetting) that the lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD. Specifically, it should contain in-line citations for all non-general assertions (even if you repeat them within the body of the article) and should briefly touch on all or most of the major sections in the article.
 * A few statements requires citations:
 * Following the Roman-Persian Wars the areas under the Roman Byzantine Empire were captured by Khosrau I of the Persian Sassanian Dynasty. The Arabs crossed into Egypt from Palestine in December 639 and advanced rapidly into the Nile Delta, marking the beginning of the Islamic conquest of Egypt.
 * The ports of Berenice, Myos Hormos and Arsinoe, under the control of the Greco-Roman world since the Ptolemaic dynasty, fell under the control of newer administrations. This loss of important ports, and consequently the direct sea routes, led to the collapse of the Roman trade with India.
 * UNESCO attached similar status to Incense Route - Desert Cities in the Negev in southern Israel. The site consists of desert settlements which flourished during the frankincense and myrrh trade of ancient time, notably Haluza, Mamshit, Avdat and Shivta. The site was proclaimed of outstanding universal value by UNESCO in 2005.


 * Other than that, it looks great and I look forward to promoting it! Cheers, CP 02:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Further addressing concerns
1. Reformed and sourced lede. 2. Sourced all of the lines in the "Decline" and "Present status" sections. 3. Partially made use of the since I had not contemplated the use of multiple references to one website as I tend to mostly cite using books. With Regards, Havelock the Dane  05:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks to be good, so I have passed it, congratulations! Cheers, CP 05:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Image needs replacement
Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:Avdat view to the Negev.JPG, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)