Template:Did you know nominations/Tenta, Cyprus

The following 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 Evrik (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Tenta, Cyprus

(

)

View of Tenta

~~... that Tenta (pictured) is an archaeological settlement in Cyprus? Source: Todd, Ian (1978). "Excavations at Kalavasos-Tenta, Cyprus". Archaeology. 31(4): 58–59 – via JSTOR~~

Created by Cstylus (talk). Self-nominated at 00:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC).

@Cstylus: The hook isn’t interesting I think. What about...
- ALT1: ... that Tenta's architectural remains, artefacts, human burials, flora and fauna have been "virtually unchanged for two millennia"?
- ALT2: ... that Tenta's excavations suggests that there was considerable continuity in social organisation as well as technological and economic practices for two millennia?

Check these two hook and let me know if one of two works. Mehedi Abedin 16:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Mehediabedin:, I really appreciate your suggestions! I prefer ALT1. Cstylus (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the article and there are a few issues. Firstly, the article was created way back in 2008, so it is not eligible as a new article. On the other hand, the article did receive a 5x expansion starting on May 9th. The article was nominated on May 17th, which is just a day late; however, as the nominator is a new student editor, that one-day lateness may be forgiven. Finally, the article has a "citation needed" tag that needs fixing. I didn't find any close paraphrasing, and most of the sources (including those for the hooks) are cited to sources I can't access so AGF. I think ALT1 is the best option here. This article is somewhat outside my expertise so I'd like a second opinion from a subject expert as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't have access to the sources. Can anyone investigate the article for DYK? Mehedi Abedin 08:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

We may need some help from a subject expert. Maybe Buidhe can help? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I would not call myself an expert on Cyprus or archaeology (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The nominator hasn't edited in a month and the article hasn't been edited at all since June 15th. If another editor can adopt this nomination that would be great, but as it is the nomination is orphaned. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that would be a shame! I'd like to try to rescue this nom, but no guarantees (I need to check if I can access the sources, I might). @Narutolovehinata5: If I can't get it right, you can still fail it; but give me a week or two :) --LordPeterII (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I have started work on the article (can't access all sources but some), and have already solved the "citation needed" issue by just striking that sentence (was originally sourced to a predatory journal, and not important). --LordPeterII (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking over. Please let me know if you're finished improving the article. I've added you as a co-author. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Alright, I have gone through the article and checked things as best I could. The biggest issue was a complete lack of dating of the site (only the epoch was given); this is now in the lead section and infobox. Some other things were off (e.g. picture that showed Chinese pottery, probably ceramic even), but most info was solid. Btw, I have edited the nom picture, which I cropped in the article to not include an artificial frame. Although much could be done still to improve the article, nothing strikes me as particularly important or problematic for a DYK appearance – it would rather go towards a Good Article improvement maybe, which I don't have time for atm. So, in my opinion, this is ready for a review and should pass, with minor adjustments maybe.

--LordPeterII (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot I meant to offer some alternate hooks for this:

ALT3: ... that Tenta is protected by a large "tent"?
ALT4: ... that the Neolithic people at Tenta built houses, but did their cooking mostly outside?
ALT5: ... that people at Tenta built "first in stone and mudbrick, then entirely in mudbrick and finally entirely in stone"?
ALT6: ... that the settlement of Tenta likely predates nearby Khirokitia by almost a millennium?
ALT7: ... that people at Tenta likely imported cats and foxes for pest control?
ALT8: ... that up to 150 people lived at Tenta, a settlement founded around 8000 BC?

ALT3 is maybe a bit tricky, because the structure is only described as "like a tent", and not actually a tent. It's also the least interesting in regards to actual article content, but an obvious hook idea. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Anyone? This still needs a review before it dies of old age :) --LordPeterII (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Assume good faith with the mostly print and paywalled sources cited. Well-cited and -researched, and I can't detect any non-neutrality or uncited paragraphs in this instance. I gave it a light copyedit for syntax and typography. Not quite 5× expanded within seven days of creation, but per the earlier discussion and because the user is a new student editor it's more than okay. I think this should be good for the Main Page (finally). Approve ALT3 as the most witty. DigitalIceAge (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks you, DigitalIceAge :) --LordPeterII (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)