Talk:Imbrex and tegula

GA Thoughts

This article could use another copy edit: it has sentence fragments ("Consequently, when they were employed in the construction of the greatest temples, such as that of Jupiter at Olympia[3], the Parthenon at Athens, and the Serapeium at Puteoli.") , and a large number of very difficult to understand passages, such as "Tiles were originally made perfectly flat, or with nothing more than the hook or nozzle underneath the upper border, which fulfilled the purpose of fixing them upon the rafters. They were afterwards formed with a raised border on each side. In order that the lower edge of any tile might overlap the upper edge of that which came next below it, its two sides were made to converge downwards." - this is extremely hard to follow, and it's hard to quite see what the "raised border" section is used for - is it to hold the imbrex in place?

In short, I'm afraid the article is too poorly organised and not well-written enough to be of GA quality yet. Still, it's clearly well-researched, so it's probably not too far off. HAve another go at it then resubmit! Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions about the uses of these roofing tiles

I was reviewing the article since it's listed on the good article review list, and I'm wondering about a few things. The answers to these questions might give a little more depth to the article:

1. Were the imbrices and tegulae used on ordinary people's homes, or just on the homes of the well-to-do, or just on public buildings?
2. Was any sort of waterproofing used in the joints, so water couldn't seep in? I know they didn't have silicone sealer back in those days, but maybe they put pitch, tar, or mortar in the joints.
3. Some kind of labeling in the image would be useful to point out the parts.

I wouldn't fail the article on its GA nomination just on these criteria, but I think it would be useful to add a little more background on their use. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestions! — Catherine\^talk 07:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

GA promotion

Nicely done! I have one suggestion. Although the article is short so that it does not really need a lead section, it would be better to have one anyway (perhaps one paragraph length). This is to keep with the style of the rest of Wikipedia. RelHistBuff 13:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Concerns with GA status

After stumbling across this article, I've notice a few things that would typically keep the article from GA status. 2 of the 7 paragraphs are unreferenced. The article seems awfully short - perhaps a Examples of use section might be good with some images of buildings that use the technique, or maybe a Evolution section (hopefully better named) detailing the changes in Imbrex/Tegula roofing throughout history. In fact, the article could use some sections in the first place. Also the references should be more consistent in style. I'd recommend using citation templates for that. Lastly, the images are really big, and take up much to much space in comparison to the text. Hopefully someone can take care of these, otherwise I'll ask for a GA Review soon. Drewcifer3000 18:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review

Since noone seems to be coming to the rescue of the article, I've nominated this article for Good Article review, which could result in a delisting of the article from GA status. Anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer 04:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

After some improvements were made, the result of the review was Keep. An archive of the discussion can be found here. Drewcifer 21:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Chinese tiles

There are Chinese tiles similar to these that should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.171.149.155 (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Imbrex and tegula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050213035835/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ to http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050213035835/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ to http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Imbrex and tegula

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist Relevant issues have been brought up and are unaddressed AIRcorn (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment

This article gained Good Article status in 2006. It was briefly reassessed in 2007. I think it should be reassessed again now. I do want to note that the criteria in 2007 are pretty much the same as the current six criteria criteria. However, I believe that the thoroughness by which it was applied in 2007, and it is applied now, is different. Besides the history of assessments, I believe that at present this article needs to be re-assessed:

1. Well written: in my view the prose is clear and concise, and well structured

2. Verifiable with no original research:

no original research

Some inline citations are missing. It is an issue that could be easily solved.

So far this article's lead presents no inline citations. While it is optional to have inline citations in the lead section, usually most of the information summarized in the lead section needs to be presented in the main body of the article, and have there cited sources. However, there are some parts this lead section that are only mentioned in the lead. That presents with one or two shortcomings: first, there is definitely a lack of inline citations. Second, I also wonder if the information presented in the lead should be presented and expanded in the main body of the article, per manual of style.(examples: "The roofing area was generally surrounded by antefixae which were often decorated, and had several decorative anthemia to cover each end row imbrex.", " is still in use today as an international feature of style and design")

3. Broad in its coverage

that I think is they key question here. A short length of an article is not per se a disqualifier from being a good article, but this article nevertheless does not seem to cover the topic well. Some potential gaps in coverage are:

• The lead section states that Imbrex and tegula are "still in use today", but the History and development section stops its coverage more than 2000 years from the present day.
  • Also possibly a new section on the use in modern architecture could be included
• As mentioned above, there are several pieces of information in the lead that are not mentioned in the rest of the article. That seems to indicate a lack of breadth in the body of the article.

4. Neutral: yes, it is neutrally written.

5. Stable: yes, seems stable.

6. Illustrated: yes, well illustrated with six well-selected images.

Don't get me wrong, what is written, is well written, and is very informative-- great job so far by those who have contributed! I just think that the classification as Good Article is maybe not the most suitable at this time (unless the article is expanded and citations added). This is my first time initiating the reassessment of an article's quality, so I very much would like to see what the community thinks.

I would like to invite @CatherineMunro: who was the largest contributor to this article, as well as any other interested editors, to respond. Thank you (talk) user:Al83tito 5:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)