Talk:Diolkos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
March 21, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Greece      (Rated GA-Class) Greece Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece. If you would like to participate, you can improve Diolkos, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (comments) High This article has been rated as a High priority article WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome     (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. High This article is on a subject of High-importance within classical antiquity. WikiProject Archaeology (Rated GA-Class) Archaeology Portal This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. Please add the code: }}{{LOCE|{{{s}}}|class=articletype|title=Diolkos|date=~~~~~ to the bottom of the requests page, replacing articletype by the classification of this article.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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.

7. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Changes done:

• {{cite web}} for refs 48 and 49

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