Talk:Lachish ewer

Back to sandbox
, hi. I would like to add to this discussion - hi Liz.

Temerarius, I truly appreciate your enthusiasm and the fact that you've created articles for very notable, but so far ignored topics. However, if we don't respect a very minimum of professionality, such article attempts end up confusing more than helping, and pulling down the overall quality of Wikipedia.

Please check out the tags I've placed in this article. My issues (a few I've tried to fix already):
 * Definition first, in the lead, and commentaries after: WHAT, WHERE, WHEN (here: when created; maybe when discovered), WHY (notability, as per mainstream opinion)
 * Structure: DESCRIPTION and how it was DATED among the first sections after the lead. Only then comments.
 * Only relevant material - text & illustrations. Unless the text explains the connection, dumping images that some author or maybe the Wiki editor associates to the topic, is not just not useful, but plain clutter and confusing.
 * Captions for illustrations, always, incl. in galleries.
 * Don't copy & paste passages from sources, unless very hard to paraphrase. If you do: always between quotation marks.
 * Never use stilted, incomprehensible language borrowed from sources. Scholars might get away with it, we don't, plus they introduce their terminology & develop their ideas step by step, whereas short text fragments taken out of context and pasted onto Wiki pages are completely incomprehensible.
 * If item is declared comparable to others: explain why.
 * Terms already wikilinked in article, as a rule, should not appear again under "See also". I'm breaking that rule myself sometimes, but only when a long article threatens to "hide" wikilinked term, or in complex, well-structured (hierarchically-built, Xmas tree-like) "See also" sections.
 * Are you sure that all the uploaded Commons photos aren't breaking copyright laws? Museum items for instance cannot be usually freely photogaphed and published. Book illustrations can also be problematic.
 * References must be complete: author, title, year, publisher, PAGE number always, etc. When copying refs from one article to another,pls check that the details aren't "forgotten" on initial page's "Bibliography".

IMO, for all these reasons, this article, definitely as I found it - and even as it is now - is on the verge of requiring to be deleted. Liz, what do you think? A complete rework is obligatory, and it must be done with patience and while respecting at least minimal logical and fomal standards. I'm happy to help when asked via this talk-page, but cannot take over the project. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)