Talk:Diolkos

Diolkos has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 21, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Greece High‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Whatever

Can this article not be flagged for needing cleanup due to the following paragraph? It looks like someone just copied an online translation of the original Greek and pasted it up here.

"For 42 years of the rule this man did quite a bit for a home town, but his reconstruction of portage of Diolkos (Greek for "haul across"), glorified through an Isthmus of Corinth (from Greek ισθμός, isthmos). In place of old rolling portage of Isthmus adorned oneself (Krämer Walter. Geheimnis der Feme. Leipzig — Jena — Berlin, 1979.) a glaring marble ribbon, connecting both exterminating and sharply multiplying a carrying capacity. Marble Diolkos appeared since Periander were first who decided to dig a channel through an Isthmus, but then, when he was argued (prolly by egyptian geometers) that connection of two seas is fraught the submergence of Peloponnesse, gave up this undertaking. River-bed to the floor of the tunnelled channel it was laid out flags, and ports of Corinth (Kehreos and Leheos) are built in both seas, and fleets stood in each of them."

5/5/07: I have long since completely revised and expanded the content of this article. This time, I have removed the ugly and uninformative photos of the Diolkos remains: the best photo is on the City of Loutraki site, which clearly shows the parallel grooves of the trackway, to which a direct link is provided. I have added a general map to show the Isthmus' strategic location in Greece. Daydream Artiste.

Petition

Is it possible to add a section that describes the future of the Diolkos? I would like to link a petition that will save and revitalize this ancient wonder. However, I do understand that this defeats the neutral nature of wikipedia. Here is the petition link: Petition to Save Diolkos Please let me know if it can be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastordonn (talk • contribs) 17:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

I was going to get to this eventually. :-) —Rob (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Units need to have imperial conversions, possibly using {{convert}}. I am not a good peer editor (at all) but the article should be taken to Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors for a good look at it. Starting sentences with "Perhaps" is a bit awkward, there's some passive verbs issues, and some sentences feel unwieldy. References in the "Petition" section should match the format of all the other references.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The references are everywhere. It almost starts to interfere with the flow of reading, but I'm not sure what I can suggest regarding that.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The "Function" section is entirely unreferenced... refs are needed when referring to merchant ships being wrecked. ~~I question the need of the "Ancient sources" section, since those sources are already sourced in the text.~~
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):
Captions with +1 sentence should have periods, otherwise not.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I liked reading about the subject. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the main contributor (except to the unreferenced section 'function'). I included the section on ancient sources because the article relies primarily on secondary sources and I have not quoted all ancient sources directly. I believe the section is a good idea because it gives people who have no access to the secondary material the opportunity to do research on their own (the ancients classics are all freely available in the web). Even more, this is the only compilation of ALL ancient literature on the Diolkos. You do not find a list as complete in the scientific articles nor online, it is unique. Therefore, I strongly recommend keeping it.

I started to implement your suggestions and have called copyeditors for help. As for the imperial conversions, well I wish I could help, but I am a metric man through and through. ;-) I would like hear other people's opinions. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so bad - {{convert|5.3|km|mi|1}} produces 5.3 kilometres (3.3 mi), with no need to worry about non-breaking spaces. I struck out my comment about the ancient sources, but if you could listify it, it would be helpful. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes done:

listified sources
converted km and m to miles and feets. Is there any way to abbreviate the "kilometres" to "km" with that formula?
replaced "perhaps" with "possibly"
followed period practice in captions
format of references in the "Petition" section altered
added references to dangerous trip around the Peloponnes Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the changes in the article merit GA status. If you would like to use {{cite web}} for refs 48 and 49, that would be wonderful. The League of Copyeditors will probably make some few, not-substatial changes as well. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes done:

{{cite web}} for refs 48 and 49

Let's hope, they come. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Is a detailed map of the trackway available anyway? Drutt (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't look too hard yourself, Dude, did you? Check out Lewis 2001, the linked PDF article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments after copyedit

I have finished my copyedit to fill a request made by Gund Powder Ma a few days ago. Now, if you have any questions please let me know, but I have a few of my own:

"The scientist Trolley" - are you absolutely sure that's his name, or did someone along the way perhaps mix up "Tolley" with "trolley"?

Very attentive. His name is actually Tolley.

"Ancient" sources - I know there is some debate about the full span of the word "ancient" but surely at least the last three sources on that list do not qualify as ancient? Honestly, I'd prefer it if someone renamed that section.

I have always been under the impression that "ancient" can mean not only from antiquity but also simply old. So what do you propose instead? "Historical sources"?

names - I notice that the names of some of the modern-day explorers and scientists are, uh, very brief. I think adding their first name, and perhaps a brief description of who they are (like the university they work for, and the department they're in) would make the article more readable.

Valid observation, I added them. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, none of these are terribly related to copyediting, but just a few concerns I have. Pleasant editing, Bobnorwal (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How you know Hesychius of Miletus is meant? Unfortunately, the two secondary sources I quoted are not more precise than that. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/870477005
Triggered by \bthepetitionsite\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diolkos. 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/20110721083013/http://www.sciencenews.gr/docs/diolkos.pdf to http://www.sciencenews.gr/docs/diolkos.pdf

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) 22:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]