Talk:Law school of Berytus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments
Two small concerns at a glance:
 * The lead should be no more than four paragraphs per WP:LEAD.
 * A few terms need disambiguating; you can do that manually or via the link in the upper right-hand corner (disambig links). -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the above so quickly. I've now given it a top-to-bottom review, and I think the article looks strong overall; your research on this appears very thorough and impressive. I've raised a few issues below for your consideration, many of them quibbles. One broader issue I wanted to mention is that the article at times feels subtly promotional of its topic, directly making the case for the subject's importance and preeminence rather than letting the facts speak for themselves. The subject clearly is important, so this isn't a big deal in most places. But I made a few tweaks as I went to tone this down, and I have a few more suggestions below. Let me know your thoughts, and thanks again for all your work on this topic! It was fascinating reading.

Hello and thanks for your time and thorough review, I was overwhelmed lately and I missed it! Your comments and suggestions are eye-opening and helpful and I will fix the issues starting now. Thanks again. Eli +  11:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made some minor tweaks as I went. Please feel free to revert any with which you disagree.
 * 1) Check mark 2.svg "The Law School of Beirut was one of the most significant law schools of classical antiquity." -- this feels like a peacock term under WP:PEA. Could we just say "was a law school of classical antiquity"? The "preeminent center of jurisprudence" in the next sentence probably states its importance clearly enough.
 * 2) Check mark 2.svg " law school of Beirut" -- capitalization changing here-- is this generally "Law School of" or "law school of" in sources?
 * 3) Check mark 2.svg "when Byzantine Emperor Justinian I shut down other provincial law schools." -- is it possible to give the year, or year range, that this happened?
 * 4) Check mark 2.svg In the second paragraph of "History", it would be helpful to give year contexts for the different proposed founding dates--the reign of Augustus or Septimus Severus or Hadrian, the year of the Battle of Actium, etc. (You can just put this in parenthesis, or if necessary in an explanatory footnote.) Most readers won't know these off the top of their heads.
 * 5) Check mark 2.svg "Justinian I closed those of Alexandria, Caesarea Maritima and Athens" -- it'd be helpful to give a year or year range here, too.
 * 6) Check mark 2.svg "Ecumencial Masters" is inconsistently capitalized--it is on first use, but not later.
 * 7) Check mark 2.svg "The school professors who were contemporary to Justinian I" -- this phrase implies they were the only professors active during his reign; maybe say "Three school professors who were..."
 * 8) Check mark 2.svg "the use of legal vocabulary in favor of that of the Bible" -- this sentence isn't fully clear to me. Is this to say that Triphyllius preferred using the vocabulary of the Bible or the law?
 * 9) Check mark 2.svg  Huffington Post is generally not considered a reliable source. What part of this sentence relies on this reference?
 * 10) Check mark 2.svg  "A degree in law became highly sought after, an edict of Emperor Leo I" -- should this comma be replaced by a semicolon (i.e., is this two separate sentences)? Or is it just there by mistake?
 * 11) Check mark 2.svg "The Beirut law school remained, along with the schools of Rome and Constantinople as an official center for the teaching of jurisprudence when emperor Justinian I ordered all the other provincial law schools to be closed.[27]" -- this is the third time this has been mentioned in the article (once in the lead and once in the body); this sentence can probably just be cut.
 * 12) Check mark 2.svg "the imperial laws of the late fifth and sixth centuries were more cognizable and of a superior style " -- the "superiority" opinion should be attributed to an author in-text for NPOV reasons. "According to legal historian Janet Jones, ..."
 * 13) Check mark 2.svg  "Two school professors, Dorotheus and Anatolius were summoned by the emperor to collaborate with Tribonian in compiling the Codex of Justinian, the empire's body of civil laws that was issued between 529 and 534 CE.[27][29]" -- this is also appearing for the second time in the body and should probably be cut, unless there's more to add here about the significance of their achievement.
 * 14) Check mark 2.svg  "The repute of Beirut as "mother of laws" reemerged in modern times." -- do you have a source that says this directly? This seems like a generalization that could use citation.
 * 15) Check mark 2.svg "In 1913, Paul Huvelin the first dean of the newly established Université Saint-Joseph's faculty of law dedicated the inaugural speech to the school of Beirut in an effort to confer legitimacy to the new academy" -- since this includes an interpretation of Huvelin's actions, this should be sourced.
 * 16) Check mark 2.svg Vectorimages.com seems unlikely to be a reliable source (footnote 61). It also may be a copyrighted image that's being linked here, meaning we shouldn't link to it. Is it possible to find another source for this? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Eli. Would you mind checking off or otherwise indicating which you've completed as you go? Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! and sorry for the delay, I will adress the other issues whenever i find a little time, in the meantime I have followed your suggestions for issues # 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-10 and 11. Concerning the date of Emperor Justinian's action against the schools of alexandria, anthens and caesarea, i only added the date to the first passage in the body mentioning the closure (in the passage "after Justinian I closed those of Alexandria, Caesarea Maritima and Athens in 529 CE" - issue #5). I withheld stating the date in the lead (issue#3) do you think i should state it there too?
 * I also rephrased the passage where Saint Spyridon criticizes his student for not using religious terms in his writing; does my intervention make the saint's intentions clearer(issue #8)
 * I will remove the reference to Vectorimages.com, would the posted image of the flag of Beirut substitute for the reference? the website does not own the rights to the coat of arms anyway but im not very good at interpreting publishing/ownership rights so I'm relying on you to guide me through this too.
 * I deleted the repeated passage mentioned in issue# 11
 * I used the news article from the Huffington post to corroborate the information taken from other sources, namely the archaeological conference. Magda is a good journalist and i thought the more varied the sources the better. If you think I should remove the reference altogether please let me know. (issue# 9)
 * Please let me know if my interventions are clear so far, i will tend to the others ASAP. THANKS a lot :) - Eli  +  07:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your changes look good!
 * Re #3, I do think it's worth giving that date in the lead for a bit of context; I had to look up when Justinian reigned, and I think that would be case for some others, too.
 * Re #8, much clearer, thanks.
 * Re #9, yeah, the Huff Post reference should probably just be deleted even if it's only corroboration.
 * Re vectorimages, linking directly to the city site is a good idea and resolves the issue.
 * Thanks again! Just let me know when you've finished with the above points and I'll do some last checks on the article. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Eli, you've added checks to some of the above like #12, 13, 14, and 15, but these don't appear to have been changed in the article. Am I just missing it? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've seen you've done it now. I'll take a look at this in more detail later on today--thanks for the revisions! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey and thanks for your swift response. i had a connection error saving the page :S please let me know if there's anything else i can do... Eli  +  16:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Checklist
I've noted a small spelling/grammar point above, but this otherwise looks just about ready for promotion. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have used a uniform citing template across the article and fixed the comments in category 1.a , thank you - Eli  +  08:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't explain clearly enough--I meant the section titled "Notes". There's six explanatory footnotes there (a-f) that need attention for punctuation and capitalization. Also, is it correct for nothing in "de iudiciis (books 5 to 11) and the de rebus (books 12 to 19) and the libri singularis" to be capitalized? Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought I got these covered, looks like I didn't save my changes earlier. Eli  +  05:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. You're all set now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)