TheSursock bronze on display in the Louvre

• ... thatJupiter Heliopolitanus, depicted in theSursock bronze(pictured), was a syncretic god rooted in theCanaanite worship ofBaal-Hadad?
  Source: Dupont-Sommer 1949, pp. 109, 113. & Seyrig 1929, pp. 315, 346.
  • ALT1: ... that the armor of theSursock bronze(pictured) features busts of seven celestial Roman deities?Source: Kropp 2010, p. 233. & Cumont 1921, p. 41.
  • ALT2: ... that theSursock bronze's(pictured) hollow base and prominentAdam's apple suggest it was connected with theoracular functions of the Temple of Jupiter Heliopolitanus?Source: Dussaud 1920, pp. 5, 13–15
  • ALT3: ... that theSursock bronze(pictured) was discovered in a damaged state with hacked parts, possibly vandalized by early Christianiconoclasts?Source: Bel 2015, 1:55.
  • ALT4: ... that French archaeologistRené Dussaud chose theSursock bronze(pictured) as the subject of the inaugural article of the journalSyria in 1920?Source: Bel 2012b, p. 14. & Cumont 1921, p. 40.
  • ALT5: ... that theSursock bronze(pictured) illustrates the syncretic nature ofJupiter Heliopolitanus, a deity combining traits of Baal-Hadad, Helios, and Jupiter?Source: Seyrig 1929, pp. 315, 346.& Hajjar 1977b, p. 515. & Cook 1914, pp. 550–551
  • Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Antwerp prison

el.ziade (talkallam) 12:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC).

• Hello@Elias Ziade:. First off, great job on the article! It's really impressive. Before I start the review, though, I'll need a clarification; The article was created on 7 February 2024, but this DYK nomination is from 8 September 2025. According toWP:DYKNEW, an article is considered new enough ifwithin the last seven days, the article has been created in mainspace from a redlink or redirect; expanded at least fivefold in terms of its prose portion; promoted to good article status; moved from userspace or draftspace into mainspace; or translated from another Wikipedia. I'm not sure this article qualifies as new enough under those rules. Am I missing something?Mariamnei (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• HiMariamnei, I appreciate you taking the trouble to review the article. I indeed created this one a while back, and moved to main space on said date. I may have tagged it incorrectly in the nomination though.el.ziade (talkallam) 20:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification! The article is indeed new enough and long enough. All links are in order, and the sources are reliable, written by scholars of the topic. Some are quite old, but since this concerns descriptions of an archaeological artifact, that's entirely acceptable. No copyright issues have been identified. Many sources are in French, but the basics are supported by English sources as well; AGF for the rest. The tone seems neutral, the hooks are short enough, and the QPQ is completed.

I'd recommend ALT3 as the most engaging for general readers, with a bit of drama to make it stand out. Then, ALT2 follows closely behind, as it can also spark curiosity. ALT1 and ALT5 are more museum like but they still offer something of interest for a wider audience. I would avoid ALT4, as it seems too niche for general appeal.Mariamnei (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• Pending DYK nominations