Wikipedia:Peer review/Phaistos Disc/archive1

Phaistos Disc[edit]

After a flurry of controversy and expansion, the article seems rather stable now and not too far from FAC. Please review and improve further. dab (ᛏ) 11:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the glyphs are dead in the image and I'm not sure what the selected bibliography is doing there. A bibliography is usually a list of books by one author. Stephen King's bibliography would be a list of all his books. Calling a list of books on a topic the same is confusing.

Were they used to create the article? --> put them under the references header

Are they just further reading material for interested people? --> Put them in a further reading section.

I don't think there's a need to delete the links, they contain a wealth of useful info for anyone who wants to take a further look into the subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be longer. It's a large article and can't be adequately summarized in such a short space. The lead also needs to include something about what the symbols look like, are believed to represent and what other scripts they've been compared to. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a stab at the lead, I'll try reviewing the whole article starting in about 6 hours. Disclosure: "I've got an interest in old scripts and own at least 2 books on the subject." - Mgm|^(talk) 13:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm delayed. Will give full review tomorrow instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A quite comprehensive article. But perhaps the most prominent decipherment claims should be discussed and not just listed. In addition, I would like to raise two minor points: First, the four pictures giving a detailed view on certain parts of the disc (such as Diskos.von.Phaistos_Detail.1_11-Aug-2004_asb_PICT3372.JPG) are perhaps redundant. There are already two pictures of the disc, two pictures of its replica, and images of all glyphs. Therefore, the value of those four "middle-range" pictures is minimal. Second, it is not necessary to overuse internal links. For example, the term "Luwian hieroglyphs" links to Hieroglyphic Luwian whenever it is mentioned. I think it would be sufficient to make a link only when the new term is introduced. Tankred 21:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't want to overlink and link every mention (against WP:MOS), but a mention per screen so you don't need to scroll to find the link, would perhaps be a good alternative. - 131.211.210.16 11:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like this article alot. I wish more could look like this one, however I would like to see more known history about it, if it is available. Also, make the bottom matter a bit more visually pleasing. However, great work. --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]