Talk:PHerc. Paris. 4

Sourcing in this article
The article currently relies too much on primary sources, especially those like the Vesuvius Challenge. This is warned against at WP:PRIMARY: I do not believe LiveScience to be reliable. (See WP:RS; but note also that my standards are very high on reliability.) The citations to the LiveScience articles regardless add very little of value. They should excised inasmuch as the claims made thereat are repeated by more reliable publications such as Nature or Smithsonian Magazine. Ifly6 (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Duly noted. Done. NeverBeGameOver (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I also think further work should be done on previous attempts to read this scroll. Articles on the scroll and attempts to read it have been published in Nature previous to the recent breakthrough. Ifly6 (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can definitely elaborate on that after I am done with work. The scroll was a topic of discussion in NYT's Podcast "Hard Fork" and they did go thru some details I can tack on. NeverBeGameOver (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Podcasts are not reliable sources. The best sources are scholarly ones and articles, especially on archaeology and classics, should be focused on those. Ifly6 (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not say I was going to source the podcast. I meant to say I caught wind of a few facts that were already in the journals and artivles. NeverBeGameOver (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)