# Talk:Royal Stoa (Jerusalem)

I have come across several references to columns from the stoa having been reused elsewhere. This includes references to them being used as supports in Al-Aqsa. Since Wikimedia has some pictures and drawings of reused Corinthian-style columns, I'm wondering if any of those would be appropriate for an illustration, even though some may have come from other areas and/or have been modified when they were repurposed?  • Astynax talk 18:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess the references are fine, but I don't think we should use the photos unless we're able to pinpoint the Stoa (or at least Herodian construction) as the origin of a specific capital. Looking at the photos, some of those capitals seem to be in excellent condition, we really can't tell when or where they are from. Poliocretes (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't the standard translation here be capitals?--Wetman (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I took the quote as is from the reference, it wouldn't be right to alter it. I will, however, use the wikilink to make the meaning clear. Poliocretes (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Royal Stoa (Jerusalem)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Needs a bit of fleshing out in the lead and a few spots with prose concerns where things are not totally clear
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
one picture has me concerned about it's lisence
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

General:
In general, I'd expect a bit more in the lead. Mention might be made of the fact that it had three halls, that the location was raised up, that there were difficulties in construction, and that excavations have taken place around hte area but that it can't be excavated because of the mosque. Done
There are entirely too many quotations in the article that don't do much to explicate things. The two LONG quotes as well as the shorter quote from Matthew give the feeling that the article is just a string of quotes. Reducing the amount of quotation would help with making the article feel like an integrated whole. Done
Lead:
You mention information in the lead which is not given in the body. Per WP:LEAD, everything in the lead should be in the body also. This is mainly the detail of when the construction took place. Done
Construction:
Is there a way to cut down the long lengthy quote from Josephus here? You basically repeat much of this information in the following paragraphs, so losing it would help with removing the feel of the article which is that it has too many quotations. Done (reduced)
Purpose:
We really don't need to quotation from Matthew here. The article already has a few too many lenghty quotes, and a better solution would be to add on the location of the information to the previous sentence, like "It is therefore a likely location for Jesus' confrontation with the dove sellers and money changers related in chapter 21 of the Gospel of Matthew." Done
I realize that Shabbat is the "correct" term for Sabbath, but many of your readers are not going to recognize the word, suggest either pipelinking "Sabbath" or going "Shabbat, or Sabbath, ..." to make it clearer. Done
"..and the recovery of the inscription confirms that this is the location where this took place." The "this" is unclear - I assume you mean the "trumpeting" but clarity would be better here. Done
Destruction:
"... at the hand of the Roman Empire." Very stilted wording here. Also, mention who it was that sacked Jerusalem - it's not the "Empire" it's a specific general and his troops. Done
The quote from Josephus here is just decoration. Suggest cutting it, as it doesn't mention the Stoa by name. At the least, the information not relating to the actual building's destruction needs cutting, but really, it would be better to not have it at all.
"Chemical analysis of these remains have shown that some have undergone transformations requiring a minimum temperature of 800 K ..." this is clumsy, but I can't think of a better way to word this.
Pictures:
File:To the trumpeting place.jpg. I have issues believing that this is copyright free - especially as no source information is provided for the picture. Without more information on who took the picture its impossible to judge whether or not it's actually public domain. Done
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment:Thanks for taking on the review. I've implemented several of your suggestions and, together with Poliocretes, intend to look at the others. In the "Destruction" section comments, the "portico" mentioned by Josephus is thought to refer to the stoa (likely the only porch-like building big enough in which 6,000 people cold be confined). I've also made an attempt to reword the clumsy sentence regarding the temperatures indicated by the burned materials. Since I had inserted the File:To the trumpeting place.jpg image, I've removed it. I wish there were a public domain photo, as this is an image used in several articles and this artifact would have been situated directly above the stoa, but I agree that the license justification on the current image doesn't seem likely.  • Astynax talk 16:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
What's the status on the last two bits here? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
As to the unchecked items: the first is the quote from Josephus which involves the destruction of the stoa (the "cloister" on the south which was at first spared and in which some 6000 took refuge). References used in the article directly quote the account from Josephus for the destruction, so I personally have no problem with it. The problem is that, while archaeology has confirmed details in Josephus, the ban on excavation on and under the Temple Mount platform has limited the ability either to expand upon the Josephus account or to provide new information. Since Poliocretes provided the quotation and I don't see which portions of the quote do not directly involve the stoa's destruction, I was waiting for his input. The second unchecked item (the awkward sentence) has been reworded, but was waiting to see whether anyone else considered the change to be an improvement or if someone had better wording.  • Astynax talk 17:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Neither of these are enough to hold it back, I'm passing it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Ealdgyth for your review and valuable suggestions!  • Astynax talk 17:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a note for future editor reference: the upcoming book, The Jewish Revolt against Rome, edited by Mladen Popović, is scheduled for publication in December 2011 (Brill, isbn 9789004216686) and is to contain a full account of Ariel's thesis regarding the locations of mints during the Great Revolt.  • Astynax talk 22:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Josephus wrote of feet... article should use actual units he used (cubits ?) with current unit equivalent clearly distinguished... as it stands this is a corruption of his actual text. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Josephus wrote in Greek under Roman patronage, and both Greeks and Romans used a foot which approximated the modern foot, although not exactly (and indeed Greek and Roman foot units varied a bit between places and time). If you check the text, you will see the foot unit is used.  • Astynax talk 17:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow, we live and learn ! My mistake then. Thank you for your patience. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)