Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days
Lilith was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kabbalah, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.KabbalahWikipedia:WikiProject KabbalahTemplate:WikiProject KabbalahKabbalah articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Assess : -Consider rewording article to adhere more to standards of Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. Many sentences read as though "Lilith" existed and previous cultures have aspects that relate back to "her" rather than that the concept of Lilith arose during the middle ages and may have been inspired by previous cultures. There are multiple places in this article and related articles that also mention Lilith and present "facts" which are then immediately contradicted by sentences after. The whole article is mildly schizophrenic, stating facts then contradicting them.
Cleanup : -Shorten and remove least notable uses of Lilith in popular culture section.
Copyedit : -Patai and Hurwitz have two sources and it's confused which source is being called upon in the notes. For example, no note should read Hurwitz p. xx but instead read Hurwitz (1980) p.xx or Huritz (1992) p.xx
-There are missing page numbers from many sources.
-This article is using the NOTES - REFERENCES style of annotation so the <ref name="NAME"/> inline notations for sources with multiple pages listed in the Reference section is not used and need to be edited to a <ref>Author (DATE) p. xx</ref> style.
-Check on capitalization and individualism throughout. If it is a common demon lilitu then it's lower case if it's the Lilith it's upper case. In each usage what are we talking about? Is it THE Ki-sikil-lil-la-ke? Is it Lilu or lilu? Is it ever Lilitu or should it alwasy be lilitu? Is it Ardat-lil or is there ardat-lil's? There is consistency in Hurwitz's book but not across sources.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Lilith#cite note-47|[47]]
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 February 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Patricia.alexander.
@Ogress Hi, clarifying here because of typo in edit summary. Biblical Hebrew does distinguish length in hireq. Generally a long hireq is indicated by hireq-yodh such as both hireqs in לִי-לִי-ת. While this is not itself an absolute principle, we can confirm the hireqs' status by other rules. 1) A word-final and stressed hireq like the second syllable is always long. 2) A short hireq necessitates a dagesh hazaq in a following lamed; as the second lamed is rafe, the first hireq must also be long. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GordonGlottal hmmmm while inherent length does appear in ɔː iː eː [a macron, i macron, e macron), at least if we agree on a system akin to geoffrey khan's work, it is extremely difficult to determine in the case of iː. i defer to you here but i think it might be overspecifying? nonetheless you are technically correct, and as hermes notes, that's the best kind of correct.
also forgive the lack of caps for some reason recently when i use the shift when commenting on someone's page, it sends me to the beginning of the section and so i haven't bothered copypasting except for the question mark above and the following sig marker Ogress 23:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.png){kind=small}
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 February 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Patricia.alexander.