Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Murdoch Smith

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. 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 PFHLai (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Robert Murdoch Smith

(

)

~~... that Robert Murdoch Smith smuggled 121 bits of the Apollo statue (shown reassembled) past Libyans fearing they may destroy them further?~~

Created by Victuallers (talk). Self nominated at 22:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC).

Where does it say in the text the word Lybians (crabs)? Are we talking about Libyans or Lybians, both are not in the article, it seems? - AnakngAraw (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops - good catch of my spelling error. The article talks about the locals ..... and its in Libya. I'll check that the article makes this clear. Victuallers (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC) QPQ = Stora Blåsjön Victuallers (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The country wasn't called Libya until 1934 (according to Wikipedia), so there wouldn't have been any Libyans around in 1861. I'm not sure what they would have been called instead; the source just says "the local Arab population", which would probably suffice. (This is just a passing comment, I'm not intending to carry out a review). DoctorKubla (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Victuallers (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

(alt1) ... that Robert Murdoch Smith smuggled 121 bits of the Apollo statue (shown reassembled) past the local Arabs fearing they may destroy them further?

Needs full review. Striking original hook in favor of ALT1 due to earlier comments. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments (not review) - Although the hook has been changed to say Arabs, the article still says Libyans. And while it might be a matter of interpretation of the source that is dependent upon the reader's knowledge of archaeology, I'm not sure that source says they actually "smuggled" this. On the other hand, "smuggle" could be how some interpret how it was transported from the discovery site to where they hid it. However, just for clarification, here are the basics on that from the source:

"The Apollo, standing 2.29 metres, was found broken into 121 pieces...Investigating the site was not to be an easy task, however, as the local Arab population were suspicious about the intentions of Smith and Porcher; one of whose main anxieties was that any sculptural finds would be destroyed as symbols of pre-Islamic pagan times. This they tried to avoid by setting up camp in one of the numerous rock cut tombs close to the city where they were eventually to re@bury the statues they found for their protection... one of the greatest problems facing them lay in transporting the unwieldy fragments from the temple to the safety of their tomb. Despite all the difficulties in procuring trustworthy workmen to help them move the Apollo, it was the ever@obstinate camel which proved to be the most problematic; refusing to drag the sledge up-hill towards the tomb, so that the workmen had to take over and pull the statue slowly up to the camp. Fortunately the labourers, excavators and the Apollo survived this trauma and the latter was subsequently taken to the British Museum, along with many other sculptures found at the site, where it was reassembled, but not restored. " — Maile (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Maile66. I have changed Libyans too in the article. That was an oversight. Given the need to be concise and not to closely paraphrase, I see "Smuggle" as a valid interpretation of the quote. If someone can suggest a different phrase then I'd welcome it. Maybe

(alt2) ... that despite the Apollo statue (shown reassembled) already being in 121 bits Robert Murdoch Smith was concerned that local arabs would destroy them?

... but I'll leave it to the reviewer. Thanks again Victuallers (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Still needs full review, including both ALT hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The following has been checked in this review by Maile

QPQ done by Victuallers on Dec 3, 2013

Eligibility

Article created by Victuallers on December 2, 2013 and has 4,397 characters of readable prose
Has not appeared on DYK previously
Article is stable, no edit wars, no dispute tags, no outstanding talk page issues

Sourcing

Every paragraph sourced inline
No bare URLs, and no external links used as inline sources

Hook

ALT2 Hook is 126 characters, stated in the article and appropriately sourced

Image

Image is in the article and was shot, uploaded and licensed on Commons in 2006 by user Jastrow

Tools

Earwig (Copyvio check) found no violations
Duplication Detector run on individual sources, no copyvio found
Disambig links tool found no issues
External links tool found no issues

This one is good 2 go. I like the ALT2 hook, and the article is informative. The image is of professional quality and should look good on the main page. — Maile (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC) :Thx @Maile66 ! Victuallers (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)