Template:Did you know nominations/Giants of Monte Prama

Age

Giants of Monte Prama
Created/expanded by Shardan (talk). Self nom at 08:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that the most ancient anthropomorphic sculptures of the Mediterranean area, after the Egyptian statues, preceding the kouroi of ancient Greece, are the Giants of Monte Prama?


 * Review 1: Wow! Nice work. Perhaps an alternate hook? ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT1... that two farmers found the Giants of Monte Prama in March, 1974? ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! What do you mean for alternate hook ? Another article? ....However, the early stages of discovery are a bit 'slippery due to the failure to fence the site. Huge was the controversy.(Maybe I will not answer right away, I'll be out for a few days.)--Shardan (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Alternate hook" merely means another way the link to this article might appear on the front page. I was aiming to write a hook which is a short factual statement which evokes curiosity in the reader and influences them to click the link. If I have misread the article and the farmers did not indeed find the Giants of Monte Prama, then we should try something else. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT2... that it took four excavation campaigns to unearth the Giants of Monte Prama? ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free. The kouroi are dated in the 7th-6th century, the Giants in the 8th century for sure, maybe even older. This finding may arouse curiosity because it changes our understanding of early sculptures of the western world.--Shardan (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free. The kouroi are dated in the 7th-6th century, the Giants in the 8th century for sure, maybe even older. This finding may arouse curiosity because it changes our understanding of early sculptures of the western world.--Shardan (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT3... that the eyes of the Giants of Monte Prama are made of two concentric circles that seem to be perfect circles but there is no sign of the compass in the center of the eye?--Shardan (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason why we can't go with (perhaps a shortened) version of the original hook? The fact (if referenced -- I can't read Italian) that they are believed to be the oldest anthropomorphic statues in the region seems extremely interesting to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Espresso Addict. The end of the 8th century has also been reaffirmed recently by four famous archaeologists (C. Tronchetti, R. Zucca, A. Bedini, G. Ugas) in the book "Stone Giants" (Giganti di Pietra). Here is a recent article that talks about that book: ; on dating says:... As for the absolute chronology of the three phases, we are talking about an arc between the 9th and the end of the 8th century.--Shardan (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about this area to verify, but does anyone have any problems with ALT4: "... that the Giants of Monte Prama (pictured) are believed to be the most ancient anthropomorphic sculptures of the Mediterranean area?" Espresso Addict (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If we use the term Mediterranean area, we must also mention Egypt. Imho it is better in this case to use the term Western world, even to shorten the sentence. --Shardan (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT5 can be so: "... that the Giants of Monte Prama (pictured) are believed to be the most ancient tutto tondo sculptures of the Western world?"--Shardan (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Need a reviewer now that a satisfactory hook has been created. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg A fascinating article! However, looking at the "readable prose size" (text only):
 * on Nov 30th it was 45144 B (7121 words) and
 * on Dec 06th it was 45214 B (7125 words) (no edits on nom day, the 5th)
 * for a difference of 70 B in size. Am I missing something? &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Unfortunately, Sctechlaw, you're quite correct. The article's major expansion took place on October 18, which took it from over 5000 characters to well over 40000 characters. The time to nominate it was then. Regrettably, by the time December 4 came around, it was far too late to nominate the article, as good as it may have become by that point. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I think what is important (in accordance with the rules of the Encyclopaedia), is to provide a valuable service to our readers, a service that helps spread knowledge. But I also have a real life and the time available for the Wiki is... my free time :-)) If what matters is the speed but not the content, I think this is a mistake. However, the first hook was the right one; then we lost unnecessarily time looking for an alternative; then was asked for a review, when the article was first reviewed by user John of Reading on November 27. I have the impression that this is only the bureaucracy, all at the expense of the service to give to users of Wikipedia. We are perhaps in a hurry? Are you sure that a certain elasticity, in this case, it is not necessary? In any case I will be absent for a few weeks. For now, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everybody :-).--Shardan (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Is this a nice expansion? Heck yes. Does it fit the DYK criteria? Sadly, no. It was nominated too late. Can we give some manoevering room? Not when it's 2 months late. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)