Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman temple of Bziza/archive1

Roman temple of Bziza

 * Nominator(s): ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a Roman temple dedicated to the Semitic god Azizos. Sources pertaining to the article's subject were exhausted; the article covers all the available information about the temple, the deity, documented timeline, architecture and the function of the temple/later church. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Multiple citations in the lead – almost every sentence, in fact. The lead is supposed to summarise what's in the main text of the article; everything mentioned in the lead should be in the main text, which is where the information should be referenced. Apart from that, there seems to be substantial over-citing of simple facts, e.g. do you need three refs to support the statement about stamps? Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad, I tend to overdo it. I'm a bit rusty from an extended WikiLeave. I forgot about lead requirements. Regarding the stamps, I couldn't find one page that hosts all three images. I could upload them onto an image hosting website if that's okay. Also about over-citing, I prefer to do it to keep track from which source page each statement comes from. Multiple sources provide, for example, small bits of information about architectural elements. I had to sequence them in a logical way, from the outside of the structure to the inside. This is what caused me to cite every statement so that they are traceable. If that is a huge no no please let me know. Thank you for taking the time, it's a real privilege to have you guide. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 05:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On the issue of the stamps, or in any other case where you need multiple sources to support a single statement, you could follow WP:CITEBUNDLE, which tells you how to combine several citations into a single footnote (I often forget to do this myself, by the way). Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

 * Nice to see this here, will review soon. Some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Single sentence paragraphs are advised against, perhaps the ones here could be placed together with other paragraphs. [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] -ez
 * There are a good deal of unnecessary WP:duplinks, they can be highlighted with this script: [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] -ez
 * Images should generally be spread around in the article body rather than being "dumped" in galleries at the end (see WP:galleries). I think you could place some in the article where relevant, and some could probably go since they are somewhat repetitive.[[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] -ez
 * Beautiful tool, thank you. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 19:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "Greek god of war Ares" Some links could be given here? Byzantine could also be linked at first occurrence instead of where it is now (perhaps other words are also only linked at second mentions, could be checked).[[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] -ez
 * "the church of Our Lady of the Pillars" Shouldn't church be capitalised too if the word is part of this name?[[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] -ez
 * The image captions could have some links for names and places.[[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] (as much as possible) -ez
 * "Nineteenth century paintings and photographs taken in the early twentieth century show the removed chapel remains" Are these shown in any of the images used here? If so, could they be pointed out in the captions? [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] -ez
 * I wonder if the Azizos section should be incorporated into the history section? It stands a bit alone now with no context.[[File:Three_dots.jpg ]] (moved it under the said section, I prefer not to merge them) -ez
 * "uncovering the podium and an architectural sketch" What is meant by sketch here? Anything to link to?[[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] (explained) -ez
 * "Lebanese Directorate General of Antiquities" Is this a person? Name?[[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] (linked, its a governmental entity) -ez
 * "was converted to a church" Into? [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] -ez
 * In other articles about such monuments, like for example Smythe's Megalith, the location section is first, perhaps it should be the same here.[[File:Three_dots.jpg ]] (in that article it adds context, here it doesn't. I prefer to keep tucked down there) -ez
 * I wonder if any useful Arabic sources have been overlooked? [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] (added some, mostly etymologists. Lebanese archaeologists and historians mostly publish in French or English, depending on their academic affiliation) -ez
 * Where in the town is the temple located? Outskirts? [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] (Added, including Bziza's close proximity to Ain Akrine temple) -ez
 * "he interpreted the name of the town of Bziza as a corruption of Beit (or Beth) Azizo" So is this still considered a fact? It is written now as if it is only a theory. [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] (In page 134 Renan wrote it implying interpretation, turned assertion in a later chapter when the town names was compared with other town names with reference to Semitic gods. This attribution is widely accepted) -ez
 * So is the idea that the temple was built for Azizos only based on the name Bziza perhaps referring to Azizos, or is there other evidence? If not, I think it should be clearly stated that it is one interpretation, now it it is presented as fact. In extension of this, I think it would be best to present the theory first, and then explain who Azizos is afterwards (under history or function); now his section doesn't really establish any context, even though it is the first one, and is therefore somewhat confusing.[[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] (agreed, Azizos section moved down- As for the toponym; Renan explained in length the origin of town name stemming from, as mentioned earlier, a combination of two words: Beth / Beit followed the divinity name. Beth or Beit means both house and temple in the ancient semitic languages thus the inference. Renan and later archaeologists did not find any epigraphic evidence on site. Renan notes in his report that the townspeople told him of an inscribed stone but they later negated this; Renan believes that the townspeople hid the stone thinking that he is a treasure hunter. Evidence of this stone is yet to be found. The orientation of the temple is west-east as the morning star rises in the east. This finds root in Vitruvius' writings and Taylor noting that Bziza's temple and the Beit Mery temple are the only ones facing west, an anomaly in Lebanon. Around the hermon mountain, the temples are arranged in a what seems like a circle with the front oriented to the mountain peek. in baalbeck, the temple of Jupiter heliopolitanus and the temple attributed to Bacchus point eastward. Renan's conclusion is widely accepted by later writers) -ez
 * "meaning the house or temple of Aziz" Aziz or Azizos, as you say elsewhere? [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] (fixed but it's the same difference, the phenicians rarely wrote vowels. In epigraphies found in palmyra the name is written, as would have been expected in ancient semitic writing systems as ('ziz). The greeks may have hellenized the name to Azizos which is the name we find in Julian's hymn. Also i have to note that in norhtern lebanon highlands, the letter A is written as A but pronounced as a soft O. In The north, Bziza is written بزيزا but is spelled Bzizo (بزيزو).-ez
 * What language is the towns name thought to be derived from? (northern Semitic - phoenician, REnan explains this when he explains about the town names starting with B /Beth.) -ez
 * "categorized the temples of Lebanon into three groups" Only based on location? [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] (removed, it's based solely on geographical location, i did not find an accessible source explaining this categorization or if features differ; there is one publication [published in an IFPO journal in 1971] that is not accessible online, nor did i find it the local library. The snippets I found online allude to Groups A, B and C but i need to the entirety of the text to tell if this is also based on attributes. I think that taylor did not come up with this categorization.) -ez
 * "showing, among the different temple types, a tetrastyle prostyle temple without an adyton." If that represents the type of the one in the article, it should be stated clearly in the caption. [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] (done but i don't think i can put it in less words) -ez
 * "Lebanese-Armenian archaeologist Harutune Kalayan noted that" He is already presented under history, so you only need to refer to him by last name after that point.[[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] -ez
 * "The apses have a four-sided polygonal chevet, the apses are horseshoe-shaped" Repetitive, you could say "and they are horseshoe-shaped" at second mention.[[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] -ez
 * "comparable to that of the ancient blocks that they reuse" Reused? [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]] (rewritten; you're right it wasn't clear) -ez
 * "reuse and date, according to Krencker and Zchietschmann, to the early Byzantine period." A bit confusingly written, I thought the "according to Krencker and Zchietschmann" referred to both "reuse and date". Perhaps divide reuse and date with a comma, like "reused, and, according to Krencker and Zchietschmann, date to the early Byzantine period", or similar. [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]]-ez
 * "that were removed during the restoration of the temple" Which restoration, the recent one? I'd specify "1990s restoration" then.
 * "Subterranean rock-carved tomb" Tombs or a tomb? [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]]-ez
 * I see no difference? If it is singular, it should say "a subterranean rock carved tomb". FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the Philately single sentence paragraph could be moved into the end of the modern history section. Single sentence sections are discouraged.[[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]]-ez
 * "contrasted to the private character of modern religious services" Contrasting? [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]]-ez
 * You link Vitruvius twice. [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]]-ez
 * "is a well-preserved" You only state this in the intro, which should not have unique info. [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]]-ez
 * Canaanite mythology could be linked in the article body as well. [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]]-ez
 * byzantine should be capitalised in the intro. [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]]-ez
 * "Christian devotion was still maintained in the nineteenth century" Period only stated in the intro. [[File:BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif]]-ez
 * I addressed all the issues you pointed out; kudos for your good eye. I may have to do a cleanup pass but gotta run for now. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a bunch of points that don't seem to have been addressed, always a good idea to check each point with "done" or another response (that's what people generally do anyway), then oneself as a nominator will also have a better overview of what has been done or not. FunkMonk (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Funkmonk, I marked the changes I made, and one of your recommendations that I did not apply. my replies for 24/09/2019 at 14:30 EET are followed by "-ez" ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Much easier to navigate now, thanks. Though it is hard to see where my comment ends and yours begin, so in the future, it would be good to make the indentations in the same way as here, so it is clear your reply is separate from mine (if you understand from my weird explanation). I have added one comment above, then I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You know when I write something, no matter how many times I proofread it I always miss something because i read what i intended to write not what is actually written :(, thus the grammatical errors and typos. Your last concern was addressed buddy. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - that's what I could find, looks good to me now. Any chance you'll get Jeita grotto here one day? FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow you don't forget? do you :) Jeita is close but it's too many fronts at once. I need to prepare the ammo :) ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 18:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And thank you ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 18:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * File:Le_temple_sur_les_hauteurs_du_village.jpg should include a tag for the original work


 * File:The_temple_of_Bziza_by_Monfort,_1838.png needs a US PD tag


 * File:Bziza_temple_by_Lemmens_1894.png needs a US PD tag and author date of death


 * File:Reconstitution_of_Baalbek.jpg: what is the source underlying this reconstruction? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi File:Reconstitution_of_Baalbek.jpg the work is by Franck devedjian as noted in the mediawiki file page. The image is part of the Roman Sites templates is not constituent of the article.
 * File:Le_temple_sur_les_hauteurs_du_village.jpg is licenced under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International by the owner. What other tags does it required? Other issues fixed. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand that File:Reconstitution_of_Baalbek.jpg is by Franck devedjian, but my question is with regards to its accuracy - what source was used to ensure that, or what source supports that. If the template's in the article, so is the image.
 * It is based on archaeological survey reports and from a 1921 German expedition reconstruction. The latter is used in literature extensively and is posted in museums. I will replace this reconstruction with the original German sketch. I don't like the original reconstruction image either.
 * The Creative Commons tag on File:Le_temple_sur_les_hauteurs_du_village.jpg is for the photo, whereas there should be an additional tag indicating that the copyright on the pictured structure has expired due to age.
 * It's a 2000 years old temple, can you help with that? I have checked images of old momuments and I did not find such tag. I'll ask someone from the help desk for instructions.
 * In the The Lebanese copyright law: Article 49 states that the term of protection expires 50 years after the author's death. Article 52 says that right of protection for anonymous or pseudonymous works, expires 50 years after the work has been lawfully made available to the public. Tag added accordingly; 'No FOP' applies to modern works whose authors are living or died less than 50 years ago. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 22:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also just a reminder that if you add pings in a separate edit from your signature it will not be sent. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * noted, thanks ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 17:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources review
There's quite a few issues that need addressing:
 * Page ranges: A number of these are very wide, e.g. ref 26, 527–568 (42 pages); ref 38, 5–76 (72 pages); ref 39, 769–820 (52 pages). These are the most egregious – there are other dodgy ones, too. Is it not possible to be more specific in the citations?
 * I had put the ranges of the articles not the actual pages of cited passages; fixed ^


 * Ref 2: you should give the publisher name (Livius) as well as/instead of the web address
 * Didn't know hot to go about this, Thank you, done ^


 * Refs 3, 12: Krencker: dated 1938 in citations, 1838 in the bibliography
 * Sorry, fixed ^


 * Ref 14: Kalayan 1965: why is the page ref given in the bibliography rather than in the citation, as with Kalayan 1971?
 * the 1971 article covers the same topic, replaced ^


 * Ref 15: Lacks publisher details
 * Done ^


 * Ref 18: The link goes to a book called The Tree of Life, by E.O. James. Perhaps "Bentley Layton" is the overall editor of a book series called "Studies in the history of religions"? It needs sorting out, so that what is being cited is clear: author, title, publisher, year of publication, etc. Also it needs a page ref – citation to a whole book is not helpful
 * Fixed ^


 * Ref 20: Lacks publisher details
 * Done ^


 * Ref 22: Same point as in 2 above. publisher here is Localiban
 * Done ^


 * Ref 23: Same point
 * Done ^


 * Ref 24: As with 2 above
 * Done^


 * Ref 28: De Blois et al: 2004 in citation, 2006 in source
 * 2004 conference, report published in 2006; fixed (*)


 * Ref 32: What is the nature of this source?
 * Merged with Kalayan 1971, automatically generated reference issue. (*)


 * Ref 37: "Pomey 200p" should be "Pomey 2009"
 * Sorry (*)


 * Ref 43: requires pp. not p.
 * Done (*)


 * Bibliography sequence: "Annales archéologiques..." is apparently out of alphabetical sequence
 * as above, replaced with Kalayan 1971 (*)


 * ISBNs: stick to one format (see Jordan)
 * Done (*)


 * Dates: stick to one format (also see Jordan)
 * Done (*)


 * Note 1: referenced by "(Cf. ʿAbboudi, Dibs, Forrest, Iskandar)". "Forrest" is "Garreau Forrest in refs and bibliography. Also, you need page references; three of these four sources are books. I'd replace "Cf" with proper citations.
 * Done (*)

Give me a ping when you've addressed these. Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll get to you soon. Thanks buddy ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 15:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Second round soon, all entries made today are marked with "^" ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 19:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I have everything covered. Thank you for your feedback. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out mistakes I could never have seen Brian. Thanks to everyone here for your valuable input. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber
Reading now....


 * The History section seems pretty brief - is there anything that can be added about worship in the area?
 * Hi, I expanded the section. I will review my additions later tonight or tomorrow to check if there are wikilink conflicts and such. Let me know if you think anything else needs fixing. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The cella consists of two chambers, the first chamber is roughly square followed by an adyton to the back of the building - this is not grammatical. You can either make it two short sentences joined by a semicolon, or a sentence with a subordinate clause, "The cella consists of two chambers, the first of which is roughly square followed by an adyton to the back of the building"


 * A 4.33 metres (14.2 ft) rectangular masonry pillar --> "A 4.33 metre (14.2 ft) long rectangular masonry pillar"


 * The aedes main function was to house --> "The aedes' main function was to house" (possessive here?)

Otherwise Support looking okay on comprehensiveness and prose....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. I will do the necessary as soon as I have the time. History and background section is in the works. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi I'm drafting my historical background plan. There's too much clutter there so I need a bit of time to make it flow better. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine - take your time Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Mirokado
I have made a couple of copy-edits en passant. In addition:
 * History
 * "AD" is important for the first mention, but redundant thereafter.
 * Modern history
 * +ill for fr:François Lehoux (as for de:Willy Zschietzschmann later on).
 * "only the apses and ...": I suggest wl apses here as the first occurrence, but I would retain the wl later on in §Architecture and Description for clarity there.
 * Architecture and description, para 1
 * wl ashlar
 * "All four of the temple's portico columns": there is nothing actually wrong with this, but it is not clear from the content that pronaos is a bit more than just a posh word for portico. Perhaps you could change the earlier sentence to "... it is fronted by unfluted columns, standing on bases carved in the Attic style, forming the portico."?
 * "supporting an elaborate frieze": in what way is it elaborate?
 * Looking at the photographs, we can see the decoration on the lintel of the main entrance, but it is difficult to see any decoration on the blocks topping the colonnade. That area of the colour photograph is in shadow and there is little to see there on the black and white photo File:Bziza temple by Lemmens 1894.png. Please confirm that you really mean decoration on those blocks. Is it possible to further clarify that sentence? Are the decorations there weathered? --Mirokado (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Tue, I re-checked Aliquot and Sommer, both don't mention an frieze decorations but both mention the lavishly decorated lintel. I'll go with Aliquot's description, he is the most reliable. I'll fix it.~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "The colonnade was added at a later stage of the temple's construction owing to the style of the ionic capitals that adheres to the model found in ...": This is an incorrect use of "owing to", I suggest instead: "... temple's construction as indicated by the style ...".
 * wl pilasters
 * "accessible from a staircase that was dismantled": I think of a staircase as a construction with normally air underneath it and rails or walls either side, rather than a set of steps leading up to a building as in "the steps of the MET". Please rephrase this so it is clear what is meant. As an example, the File:MaisonCarrée.jpeg has what I would describe as "entrance steps" rather than a "staircase", there may well be a suitable technical term.
 * Architecture and description, para 2
 * wl cella here, nobody will remember it also occurred in the lead.
 * Architecture and description, para 3
 * wl architrave, archivolt.
 * Architecture and description, para 5
 * "absidal": unless you mean something else, this a misspelling of "apsidal" (but correct in French etc) which you should wikilink (it redirects to apse but will not be familiar to many readers).
 * "superjacent": this is indeed a real word, but not one I have ever encountered before: either wl to wikt:superjacent or rephrase ("from the semi-dome above" for example).
 * Architecture and description, para 6
 * Please explain briefly who Nordiguian is, in the same style as "Lebanese-Armenian archaeologist Harutune Kalayan" above.
 * "posits" is not exactly wrong, but is unfamiliar and I think "suggests" would be better.
 * "reserved exclusively to women worshipers": I would say "reserved for", is this an difference between American and British English ("worshipers" indicates American English for the article)?
 * Architecture and description, para 7
 * "bifid cross": I can't find any other reference to this by googling the term, so I would not myself use it in an article. Do you mean a cross with two horizontal beams at the top (like the patriarchal cross), or one with the second beam lower down (like File:Russian cross.png))? See Christian cross variants (which is linked in the article and does not use the term "bifid") for illustrations and alternative names.
 * The latest version will I think be OK with the link to East Syriac which I added while correcting a typo, since that cross is the lead image in that article. By all means change further if that is inappropriate for any reason. It also occurs to me to wonder whether you can say which branch of the Church was practising there in the nineteenth century (§Modern history)? --Mirokado (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting the typo, the link is correct. I don't have any sources to support what denomination used the church. Bziza is majoritarily Maronite with some Eastern orthodox residents. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That is OK, it was just a question. --Mirokado (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

-- Mirokado (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Notes
 * I suggest encapsulating the French quotations with . You could use square brackets to indicate the translation, thus: ... [...]. If you retain the current phrasing, you need to tidy up the double quotes around both English versions, and capitalise "English".
 * References
 * I like the archive links for web page references. Please add one for the Localiban too (there is already a recent archive).
 * I've learned a lot from your input; thank you. I'm not a native English speaker, I tread carefully when translating text, but there's still much to learn about word nuances. I applied most of your recommendations; I have some questions / reservations about the following:
 * Pronaos vs portico: I prefer Pronaos in the context of classical architecture. Readers who are unfamiliar with the word can navigate to the Portico page. Sorry :|
 * Better now, I will read it all again later to check the changes for clarity etc. --Mirokado (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Bifid cross: none of the cross variants in the article you referred to accurately depicts the Bziza crosses. The variant that resembles it the most is the East Syria C cross. However the Bziza cross' branches have equal lengths.
 * Still some improvement needed here. Of course pictures of the actual cross styles would be ideal. Let us think for a day or so... --Mirokado (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The nuance between Staircase, Stairwell, Staiway, Stairs, Star, Steps, flight is new to me :S. thank you for pointing this out. I went with stairway after consulting google *facepalm*; please tell me if this is accurate.
 * Much better now, thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I could not archive localiban. It's impossible
 * I was able to access the archive from here in Germany, so I have updated the citation and made a few other related changes, see the recent edit to the article. --Mirokado (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the notes section okay now? ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 23:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked it a bit further, using the 2= param instead of nowiki for equals signs in the text and putting some punctuation in the quote language. Not sure whether nested invocations of lang work (Hebrew inside French in this case), that will be fun to investigate. (Sometimes the highlighting I have defined for lang in my css file is not working, something else to investigate but nothing to do with this article itself.) (I discover the documentation for lang mentions the 1= param instead of 2=, I will correct that.) --Mirokado (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Please make the date formats in the article consistent. It looks as if you are writing in American English, so I would suggest mdf format (July 25, 2015). (If you want me to do that for you, just ask.) --Mirokado (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all the above. I reviewed the dates I hope i didn't miss anything. PS: still working on expanding the historical background section. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 18:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There were a few more, see the edit summary for the script I used to fix them. --Mirokado (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I made some addition, I'm pretty confident that there's a ton of typos and wikilink issues. I will review the edits tonight or ASAP. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Latest updates look good (please check two remaining points above):
 * Construction
 * wl suzerain, this is not a familiar term in the modern world (see the article). --Mirokado (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for your input, I'll work on it. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Support. Thank you for your latest updates. The article looks fine now from my point of view. --Mirokado (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes
It looks like it's been quite a few years since you've been at FAC (welcome back!). As sourcing and citation requirements have gotten more stringent over the years, I would like to see a source spot-check for any close paraphrasing and verification issues. I've requested on at WT:FAC. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, let me know if you need anything ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 05:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We need to see some movement here or the nomination will have to be archived soon. Comments below are a week+ old. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have addressed all the issues raised by Jens and those of the other reviewers (| my last edit on November 11). ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can do the spot-checks in the next couple of days. A. Parrot (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've spot-checked 20 of the 119 citations (counting separate citations to the same page such as 3a and 3b). I saw no signs of plagiarism, but there are some problems with verification.


 * 3a: The page cited here doesn't seem to really be talking about Phoenician gods under Hellenized names. Other pages in Aliquot 2019 easily support the assertion that Phoenician gods were known by Greek names, but if I'm reading Aliquot correctly, Philo was actually detecting the underlying Phoenicianness of the local gods. It seems unnecessary to mention Philo here at all.
 * 4b: Aliquot actually challenges the assumption—apparently a widespread one in the study of Roman Syria—that the high-altitude sanctuaries were a remnant of the era before Hellenization.
 * 6: I don't see where in the text it says that inhabitants of coloniae were granted Roman citizenship.
 * 19b: The Livius page doesn't specify that the statues are of deities.
 * 35: A couple of problems here. Drijvers' name should be in the citation, not Layton's, and the name of Drijvers' study should be given in the bibliography entry (matching the format you use for other studies within larger volumes, such as Aliquot 2019). More importantly, Drijvers argues against the assumption by other scholars that Arsu/Monimos was the evening star, so we have here a difference of opinion between him and Teixidor. Drijvers does say that Azizos can play the role of the morning star, but it seems that this paragraph needs to be adjusted.
 * 43b: This citation is oddly placed, because it doesn't support the sentence that immediately precedes it (about Ozza) but does support the one before that. Citation 45, which does support the sentence about Ozza, points to page 296 instead of 302, which is where that fact is stated. A. Parrot (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there, thank you for your very thorough review. I will address your concerns one bullet at a time:
 * 3a: The bottom of the first paragraph on the cited page reads: "Philo discovered that the divinities honored in Phoenicia were not Greek, but, rather Hellenized Phoenician gods and goddesses." Hellenized in this context not only covers attributes but also theonyms. I could change the article text to "By then, Phoenicia was heavily Hellenized and so were the local theonym divinities."
 * Sounds good.
 * 4b: Aliquot is bold to challenge other scholars' "pre-suppositions" AND the descriptive texts of "ancient ethnographers" as he calls Philo and Lucian. He also boldly presupposes that the Phoenicians under the Roman rule reproduced the ancient Phoenician "stereotype" that the mountains were the dwellings of the gods. I referred to Aliquot's text because it showcases the writings of the ancient travelers but personally I don't agree with what I also consider an orphan presupposition contradicting with the conclusions of numerous other scholars. I still believe the reference here is valid. What do you propose I do about it? Add a reference by another scholar?
 * Yes, adding another reference would be good.
 * 6: Ius Italicum is Roman citizenship. The Antonine Constitution gave all free men living in the Roman Empire and its colonies full Roman citizenship.
 * Ah, I see. It might be worth mentioning and linking ius Italicum in this passage.
 * 19b: Fixed.
 * 35: I made it clear that Teixidor made the connection.
 * OK. A. Parrot (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 43b and 45: fixed ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello I believe I got everything covered now, please let me know if there's anything else I should look at. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * please also note That, concerning bullet 4b, Aliquot either contradicts himself (between pages 120 and 121) or his text was not translated faithfully. I have provided other sources anyway. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I can't actually read the French-language Salles source, but looking at the page in question, I can tell that it's about mountain sanctuaries. I don't know that there are many more citations I can check, given my language limitations and the inaccessibility of many of the sources, but I think I've largely covered the most difficult areas of the article—most of the rest is uncontentious historical background or architectural details. If this spot-check is sufficient, the article has my OK. A. Parrot (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. If there's anything else you want me to revisit please let me know. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack
Only a few additional minor points:
 * I would link "Pompey"
 * In the Semitic language, the root ʿzyz means mighty or powerful, the female counterpart of ʿAziz is the goddess ʿOzzā. – I don't see a connection between the two parts of the sentence? Would it be better to use a full stop rather than comma to indicate that a new information is coming?
 * All four of the temple's pronaos columns still stand – in the photo and the old drawing, only three of them stand as far as I can see. Was the fourth resurrected? If so, than "all four columns still stand" is misleading.
 * stereotomy – this links to a rock album, I guess this was not intended. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your remarks. I was not checking for updates for the past two weeks due to the ongoing uprising here, I'm sorry for the delay.~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – looking good now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)