Template:Did you know nominations/Archaic Greek alphabets
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Orlady (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Archaic Greek alphabets
edit
- ... that in some archaic Greek alphabets (Corinthian inscription pictured), an Ε could look like a Β, a Β like a C, a Γ like an Ι, an Ι like a Σ, or a Σ like a Μ?
Created/expanded by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk). Self nom at 09:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
| Format | Citation | Neutrality | Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| BabelStone (talk) | see comment BabelStone (talk) | BabelStone (talk) | BabelStone (talk) |
| Length | Newness | Adequate citations |
Formatted citations |
Reliable sources |
Neutrality | Plagiarism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BabelStone (talk) | BabelStone (talk) | BabelStone (talk) | BabelStone (talk) | BabelStone (talk) | BabelStone (talk) | BabelStone (talk) |
Great article. There are a few paragraphs missing citations (e.g. "red" and "dark blue", Digamma, and Corinthian), which should be added. The inconsistent use of Latin and Greek letters in the hook confused me a little, so I have changed "an [Latin] E could look like a [Latin] B, a [Latin] B like a [Latin] C, a [Greek] Γ like an [Latin] I, an [Latin] I like an [Greek] Σ, or an [Latin] S like an [Latin] M" to "an [Greek] Ε could look like a [Greek] Β, a [Greek] Β like a [Latin] C, a [Greek] Γ like an [Greek] Ι, an [Greek] Ι like a [Greek] Σ, and a [Greek] Σ like a [Greek] Μ" as in each case it is a Greek letter that looks like a particular Greek or Latin letter. The hook does not accord with the rigid DYK rules ("The hook should include a definite fact that must be mentioned in the article. The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation ... right after it, since the fact is an extraordinary claim"), but with this type of hook it is impossible to adher to these rules. I have satisfied myself that the hook fact, which is implicitly shown in the Summary Table at the end of the article, is based on the cited source (Jeffery 1961), and in the spirit of WP:IAR I think that the hook is acceptable. BabelStone (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick review. I've added footnotes in the places you mentioned (the "Corinthian" section has the usual dedicated chapter in Jeffery, and the paragraphs in the "blue, green, red" section are basically all from the same place in Woodard.) As for the hook, I'd recommend going back from the final "and" to "or", because not all of these replacements occur together in the same alphabets, and not all of them are shown in the sample image (although quite a few of them are; Corinthian alone would supply a few more similar statements, but then they wouldn't arrange themselves in this neat funny series.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Image suitably licensed on Commons, AGF'd one offline source I don't have access to -- good to go now. (I've put "or" back in the hook). BabelStone (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick review. I've added footnotes in the places you mentioned (the "Corinthian" section has the usual dedicated chapter in Jeffery, and the paragraphs in the "blue, green, red" section are basically all from the same place in Woodard.) As for the hook, I'd recommend going back from the final "and" to "or", because not all of these replacements occur together in the same alphabets, and not all of them are shown in the sample image (although quite a few of them are; Corinthian alone would supply a few more similar statements, but then they wouldn't arrange themselves in this neat funny series.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is a great article, and I hate to nitpick, but there are still some passages that a reader could perceive as being unreferenced. For example: penultimate paragraph of "Green", "red" and "blue" alphabets, first paragraph of Digamma (Wau), and 2nd and 4th paragraphs of Omega, Eta, and /h/. There are a couple of others. As a general rule, DYK asks for at least one footnote in each paragraph. If the citation is the same as for an adjacent passage, you can use the <ref name= > format to duplicate the footnote -- I provided an example with the note for page 23 of Jeffery. --Orlady (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
