Talk:Bar Kokhba Revolt

1.a

• I get the impression that Judea is used in the article for a smaller traditional region (sometimes specified as "Judea proper") and that Judaea is used to refer to the Roman province. If that's right, I only came to that conclusion after quite a bit of searching and parsing. The relationship between the two could be clarified earlier in the article, perhaps specifying which region is larger and if Judea is a subset of Judaea? Samuelshraga (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the suggestion. Currently, the first mention of Judea (proper) outside the lead (where I felt a detailed clarification might interrupt the overview) appears in the sentence: "The central and southern regions of Judaea, namely Judea proper and Idumaea, were designated a military zone, administered by officers of the legion." Later, in the "Extent" section, the article also notes that "Most scholars agree the rebels held all of Judea proper (not the entire province of Judaea)."

  Do you think these explanations are not sufficiently clear? If so, I'd really appreciate any ideas on where it would fit best.

  I considered revising the opening sentence of the Ante bellum to say: "Between 66 and 73 CE, the Roman province of Judaea—which included Judea proper, Idumaea, Samaria, Galilee, and other regions—was the center of the First Jewish Revolt,", but I soon gave this up, I feel it would be a little too much like a geographical aside in the opening of the section. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 14:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think the geographic aside would maybe be a useful explanatory note, I agree with not including it in the main text. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Okay, I'll add it as a note. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 06:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Done: Note the distinction between Judea, the geographic region centered on Jerusalem and encompassing the Judaean Mountains, Judaean Lowlands, and Judaean Desert, and Judaea, the broader Roman administrative unit. The latter included Judea proper alongside other regions of the southern Levant, such as Samaria, Idumaea, Galilee, and Perea. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 06:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

2.a

• One of the more complex layouts of citations that I've seen (with explanatory footnotes, short references, and then a bibliography with full citations subdivided into ancient and modern sources. That's all compliant with the GAC. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

2.b

• In this section's first paragraph there is a quote from Cassius Dio that doesn't seem sourced in the paragraph. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Mariamnei I think this is still unresolved. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Samuelshraga, I've rewritten this passage as a summary of Dio's account, now sourced to Grabbe (2021, p. 82). Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  Great, changing 2.b to a pass. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• In general there are a number of occasions where early sentences in a paragraph don't have a citation. This isn't a problem for GA, as long as the material is cited elsewhere in the paragraph, but it might make it more difficult for readers to identify which citation is supporting the material. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  For instance, in the first paragraph of Bar Kokhba Revolt#Ban on circumcision, the first sentence which carries a quote doesn't have a citation. The second sentence has two citations. It's not clear without going into the sources (I haven't done a spot check yet) whether the quote is cited to one of these, both, or neither. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  I attempted to resolve this issue and added a few clarifications in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bar_Kokhba_Revolt&diff=1359839966&oldid=1359815830. Please take a look and let me know if this resolves the concern. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 15:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Bar Kokhba Revolt#Roman military losses - paragraph 1, sentence 2, the quotations are unsupported. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  Fixed! Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 15:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of Bar Kokhba Revolt#Mop-up operations, I'm not sure that the first two sentences are supported by the sources cited in the paragraph. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Samuelshraga Do you mean the sentences beginning with 'The duration of the Roman campaign after Betar's fall is debated ...' and 'Werner Eck concurs, noting that the revolt likely ended in early 136 ...'? Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 13:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yep: The duration of the Roman campaign after Betar's fall is debated. Some scholars propose that remaining resistance was quickly eliminated, while others argue that pockets of rebels continued hiding with their families into the winter of late 135 and possibly the spring of 136. I haven't done sourcing spot-checks yet, but the other sentences with citations all state that the war ended in 136, not earlier. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for catching that. I've now rewritten that section in this edit, and also added a few details and clarifications from the existing sources and from Grabbe: Please let me know if you think any further changes are needed. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 06:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Much improved. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

2.c

Here I'm going to lay out the source spot check. Using a random number generator, I will pick 15 of the cited sources and check them against the text that they're supporting, and your lucky numbers today are:

1. 264

   The page range for this source is really wide (and it's not in English but I can cope with that). Some specificity would help me check.

   @Samuelshraga: 264 is very specific: Herr 1984, p. 370. Perhaps you misread the footnote, confusing it with the bibliographical item? Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 09:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

   @Mariamnei: you're quite right, I did do that. Is it possible to get me the quote from that page? I looked online but it was paywalled at the כותר site. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

   pp. 369–370: תוצאה נוספת של דיכוי המרד וגזירות השמד היתה הפסקה כמעט גמורה של יכולת העמידה וההתמודדות המדינית והצבאית האקטיבית של היישוב היהודי בארץ. עמדתו הפכה עתה להיות פאסיבית כמעט לחלוטין. ולא רק בתחום המדיני והצבאי, אלא אף בתחום הרוחני-האידיאי... אין תימה אפוא, שמכאן ואילך הפך אף הרעיון המשיחי להיות בעל גוון אפוקליפטי, אסכטולוגי, קטסטרופאלי – חזון לאחרית הימים, מחוץ למסגרת ההיסטוריה המדינית המציאותית. This quote could be roughly translated into Another consequence of the suppression of the revolt and the decrees of persecution was the almost complete loss of the Jewish community's ability to engage in active political and military resistance in the Land of Israel. Its stance now became almost entirely passive. This was true not only in the political and military spheres, but also in the spiritual and ideological realm... It is therefore no surprise that from this point onward, the messianic idea itself assumed an apocalyptic, eschatological, and catastrophic character—a vision of the End of Days, existing outside the framework of actual political history. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 08:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

   Y Thanks. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

2. 148

   Y.

   There is a guideline WP:NOABSTRACT, which I guess doesn't apply as it's specifically about biomedical content. Still I think it would be better to cite where this appears in the body of the article. Not a GA issue though.

3. 218

   Having trouble finding access to this.

   I can look for the original quotations if you'd like. It may take some time, but it should be possible. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

   Thanks, I didn't find it. This whole thing is taking time (mainly because I'm going slowly!) so don't worry about that. There's no deadline but hopefully we can make forward progress. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

   Here are the relevant quotes from Gafni 1997, pp. 65–67:

   p. 65: Numerous traditions in t. 'Abod. Zar. 4, which stress the requirement to live in the Land, the prohibition to emigrate from it, and —

   p. 66: similar pronouncements, are all quoted in the name of R. Akiva's disciples, the most prominent being R. Shimon b. Yohai, or are quoted anonymously. Indeed, it is the latter that, in the light of their particular content, can almost certainly be attributed to the post-Bar-Kokhba years: "A person should always live in the Land of Israel, even in a town in which the majority of inhabitants are Gentiles, and not [live] abroad, even in a town in which all of the inhabitants are Jews. This teaches that living in the Land of Israel weighs as much as all the commandments of the Torah {t. 'Abod. Zar. 4.3)." The first clause in this halakha fits precisely the reality that emerged in the Land of Israel following the Bar-Kokhba war: towns were destroyed, 'uprooted' or transformed from predominantly Jewish ones into towns of mixed populations, with significant numbers of Samaritans or Gentiles finding their way into them for the first time. Correspondingly, the second portion of the statement—which claims that living in the Land may be considered as the equivalent of all the other commandments—is attached in another tannaitic text {Sifre Deut. 80 [ed. Finkelstein, p. 146; Eng. trans., ed. Hammer, pp. 134-35]) to the story of a group of rabbis, all predominantly active in the post-Bar-Kokhba period, "who were going abroad; When they reached Platana and remembered the Land of Israel, they raised their eyes [heavenward] and wept, rent their garments, and recited the verse: 'And ye shall possess it and dwell who were going abroad; When they reached Platana and remembered the Land of Israel, they raised their eyes [heavenward] and wept, rent their garments, and recited the verse: 'And ye shall possess it and dwell —

   p. 67: therein, and ye shall take care to do all the statutes and the ordinances' (Deut. 11.31-32); they said: Dwelling in the Land of Israel is equivalent to all the other commandments of the Torah." All this weeping notwithstanding, of the rabbis mentioned in the story Judah b. Bathyra became a prominent rabbinic authority in Nisibis, Matya b. Heresh assumed an important position in Rome, and Hananiah, nephew of R. Joshua, scandalized the rabbinic community by attempting to intercalate the calendar in Babylonia.[16] [16]: It would thus appear that the author of the midrash gathered the names of those authorities known to have been prominent in the post-Bar-Kokhba diaspora, and telescoped their respective emigrations into one story, a process not unknown in the development of rabbinic aggada. The creators of the Legend of the Ten Martyrs appear to have employed the same system, by gathering the names of known casualties of the Bar-Kokhba uprising into one narrative. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 13:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

   I was very confused, before I realised that your edits changed the numbering of sources. All good, I will now use this 6 July revision to check the numbers.

   Y.Verified.Samuelshraga (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

4. 211

   Y.

5. 25

   Y

6. 140

   Y. I think the additional pages referenced (373-374) can be removed.

   Done! Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

7. 204

   a - Y

   b - is the Pannonian War in our text the same as the revolt in Illyricum in the source? Samuelshraga (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

   c - The quote to Chronicon Pascale doesn't appear in the source. The source does make the same point without a quote "It was said that there were so many captives that the price of a human fell to that being paid for a measure of horse feed."Samuelshraga (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

   d - The quotes to Jerome and references to Jerome's commentary are not in the source. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

   @Samuelshraga

   b - Pannonia was part of Illyricum, but the link was wrong; I've changed it to "a rebellion in Illyricum" to stay closer to what the source actually says.

   c, d - Right, fixed — now cited to Grabbe (2021, p. 471), which includes the full quotes from both the Chronicon Paschale (Dindorf version) and Jerome (Commentary on Jeremiah, Commentary on Zechariah). Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 14:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

8. 98

   Y. The second usage should be changed to p.176 instead of p.175

   Fixed! Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

9. 7

   Y

10. 78

    The line talks about Bar Kokhba's charisma being "a major catalyst" of the uprising. I think this line understates what he wrote: I attribute the main cause for the revolt to the personality and leadership of Bar Kokhba - since our text directly attributes to Mor and therefore no need to hedge, I think it would make sense to say it was "the major" or "main" to better reflect the source.

    Agree, fixed. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 07:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

    Y Samuelshraga (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

11. 9

    Sorry I'm not finding online access to this one either @Marianmei:. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

    Here are the relevant parts: Gradually, the rebels were pushed back to their last fortress, Betar, which lay at the edge of a range of hills south-west of Jerusalem, just below the present Arab village Bittir. ... In the course of the war, it was fortified, and the Jewish sources sometimes refer to the revolt as the 'War of Betar'. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 07:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

    Y, thanks Samuelshraga (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

12. 117

    I'm having trouble locating the source (p.170 of daSilva).Samuelshraga (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

    daSilva writes: "Did Simeon and his forces ever gain control of Jerusalem itself ? The evidence is mixed. On the one hand, literary references to the destruction or capture of Jerusalem under Hadrian seem to presume that it had been the site of military action—and thus had been in the rebels’ hands for at least some time (Appian, Syr. 50; Justin Martyr, Dial. 108.3; Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica 6.18.10)." Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 09:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

13. 283

    Y. I'm going to slightly update this to point out as the source does that the legend is a modern one. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

14. 273

    Most of the detail here is verified by the citation to Norbury (although that citation says p.26, and it should be p.27). This, citation to Zissu and Gass, although it references the same material contains much less detail and can be removed as redundant. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

    Fixed, thanks! Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 07:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

    Y Samuelshraga (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

15. 4

    Usage a: Infobox text says Legio X Fretensis sustained heavy casualties. Source text says: "the legion suffered losses during the revolt". I don't think the "heavy" in our text is verified.

• You're right. I've removed the word "heavy". Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 08:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

1. Usage b: Roman casualties were significant. Again, I don't consider this verified.

• The correct source for this statement would be Eck, 1999. p. 76: The war which followed the uprising was cruel and heavy in losses for both sides.; p. 80: However, in view of Dio's and Fronto's statements, its annihilation in Judaea in the first stages of the Bar Kokhba revolt is extremely likely. But even if this is not accepted, there is no doubt about Rome's overwhelming losses in this war. Hadrian's letter to the Senate which omits the conventional formula about the well-being of the troops31 is proof enough: even Hadrian who cared less than the majority of his predecessors for military glory would be reluctant to admit in public that his soldiers in Judaea were not victorious, but in fact in great difficulties. Fixing by replacing the references. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 08:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Great, I think that's good. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga Checking in on where the review stands - I think two things may still be open: sources 117 and 204 in the spot check (no comments were left on either), and a final call on 3.b (article length). Is there anything else outstanding? Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 07:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

1. Usage c: While Legio X Fretensis is known to have sustained heavy casualties. Similarly.

   Fixed. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 08:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

   From looking around at the chapter as a whole, I see other references to heavy losses (e.g. p.290: "A probable explanation for this could be that both legions suffered heavy casualties during the first phases of the fighting."/p.328:"The heavy losses during the first phase of the Revolt constituted a military catastrophe.") But also a much more qualified approach to the evidence for the scale of the losses. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Samuelshraga (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

3.b

• I'm not convinced that the last two paragraphs of Bar Kokhba Revolt#Later Jewish life between Rome and Byzantium are particularly focussed on the topic of the article. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. I've moved most of the content to Rabbinic period and left only a summary here. Could you please take a look? Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 09:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yep that's definitely an improvement to that section. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• On reading WP:SUMMARY, I see that it contains sections on article size and level of detail. generally 50 kilobytes of readable prose (8,000 words) is the starting point at which articles may be considered too long. Articles that go above this have a burden of proof that extra text is needed to efficiently cover their topics and that the extra reading time is justified. This article is already past 12,000 words. I'm open to arguments to the contrary, but I don't think this article should be an exception.

There is duplication or closely related material across different sections at similar level of detail. The level of detail on some things is too high, especially they already have their own articles (e.g. Bar Kokhba revolt coinage) or where perhaps they should have their own but don't yet. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I've made a couple of trims since yesterday, bringing the article down to 11,415 words. I'll do another round of pruning soon and will update once that's finished. There's really a lot of relevant material to work with, so it can be difficult to identify what can be trimmed without losing important context. But, you've already made some very helpful suggestions here, so I'll see what I can do with those. Thanks again for the thoughtful feedback! Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 09:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga The article is now down to 10,722 words, fewer than the 10,834 of the comparable First Jewish–Roman War, a featured article. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 13:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I'm going to read through again. Just in general, the fact that a featured article is longer is not an argument that I'd really accept for why this article needs to be longer. To re-quote the line from WP:SUMMARY: Articles that go above this have a burden of proof that extra text is needed to efficiently cover their topics and that the extra reading time is justified. First Jewish-Roman War might reach that burden of proof, and that doesn't say whether this article does or doesn't. I'd say that getting it down below 11,000 is a great start, and significantly lowers the level of justification needed for the length of the article.

I'll re-read and re-assess this week whether I think the (new) length of the article is compliant with a summary style. I also have some other criteria I haven't written notes on and a sourcing spot-check to do. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Well this re-assessment is very late, but here it is. Reading through, in most areas I'm satisfied that the article and its subject justify the length, and that mostly no individual section is over-long. Some areas for which a more specific article exists and is linked to should contain more of a summary and are currently over-detailed - the section on Bar Kokhba himself (particularly the second paragraph), and the section on coinage. The section on hiding complexes, by contrast, is I think a good example of how it should be done. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this, and no worries at all about the timing, these things take the time they need! I've trimmed the Simeon Bar Kokhba paragraphs: the first two are now merged into one, with the rest of the detail moved into efn notes.

I should also mention that I made a few changes after reading up on some more recent scholarship. I hope that's alright, I tried to keep them as brief as possible, but felt they were important enough to include:

• I revised the introduction to the causes to reflect that the Aelia Capitolina foundation is now generally seen as the main trigger (the circumcision ban is taken much less seriously today than it once was, including in the 2000s).
• I added Benjamin Isaac's influential view on this question.
• I also added Mor's perspective on the Aelia Capitolina establishment, all our existing sources presented it as an anti-Jewish measure, and since Mor challenges that reading, I thought it was worth including to keep the coverage balanced.

Please do take a look and let me know what you think. I'm very happy for you to trim further if anything feels like too much. If there are any other points to raise before we wrap up the review, please let me know! Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 06:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga Have you had the opportunity to review the above? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I have - I think my concerns are sufficiently addressed. @Reconrabbit I started this as part of the June backlog and no experienced reviewer took it, would you mind having a quick look to see if my review is ok? I'd like to close this as a pass but this was probably too ambitious for me to take on as my second review, and I'm a bit torn whether to just go for it or ask for a second opinion. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll give it a once-over when I get some time tomorrow or later this weekend. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga: I've looked over this review and done a once-over of the article's text. There are three things I found that warranted note:

1. Destruction layer was linked on its third use rather than the first. It could have been explained as well though it appears self-explanatory in context. (I made this change already, adding it as the duplicate links aren't unwarranted per the "once per section" guideline.)
2. The image File:Roman_Inscription_found_near_Bettir_in_19th_century.jpg is hard to interpret.
3. The source Sáenz-Badillos 1993 p.171 could be used to supplement the "Linguistic changes" section as an English-language source.

This article appears to meet the GA criteria and I don't see the above as obstacles to you passing it and closing this review. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @Reconrabbit. @Samuelshraga, any news on this? Really hoping we can wrap it up soon. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:20, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't respond quicker, got wrapped up in other discussions. Congratulations @Mariamnei, you've done something really special here, I hope you forgive my slowness and that you didn't view me as putting too many obstacles in the way. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga Not at all! and no worries about the pace, thorough reviews are worth the wait. For a first GA review, you did a great job. Thank you for the care you put into it, and I hope you'll do more! Congratulations again on getting this one closed out. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 13:24, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Other comments

It's undeniable that the article is long. However, WP:TOOBIG is not part of the good article criteria. So without prejudice to the review, I think (further) splitting is warranted. For instance, A separate page on Archaeology of the Bar Kokhba Revolt would allow a significant trimming. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Mariamnei I really like this article. I feel like I have learnt a lot about the subject by reading it closely. However, I think that the 3b issue to do with article size is going to require substantial work to fix, so my intent is to fail this. You're welcome to respond, and in any case I'm going to wait for a more experienced reviewer to look this over before I proceed. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga, Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I understand the concern about length, but I don't think length alone should necessarily be ground for failing a GA review.

In my previous GA nominations, the articles also exceeded the recommended length, and part of the review process involved working collaboratively with the reviewer to identify places where the article could be trimmed.

There are also FA level articles related to classical antiquity, such as Augustus and Cleopatra with similar word counts.

I'd be very happy to work together on improving the article. Please feel free to suggest specific sections or passages that you think could be shortened, and I'll do my best to make reasonable cuts. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 15:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The guideline does state that exceptions are possible, but the burden of proof is to justify that it should be an exception. So I haven't changed my mind, but I'm happy to give my suggestions of what the next steps for the article should be, especially until a more experienced reviewer weighs in on this.

My thought is that there are three types of content that could be trimmed/removed/moved from this article:

1. Things that are less strongly connected to the topic in general. My first 3b comment points to what I think is an example.
2. Things where a sub-article already exists. For instance, Bar Kokhba refuge caves exists, and is linked to with a Main article template - ensuring all the material in the main article is adequately covered there, and removing much of the specific detail (i.e. paragraphs 3-5 of the sub-section) would be more in keeping with a summary style. I'm not saying that should be the exact implementation but you see the point. There are a few other sub-articles already existing to which this could apply.
3. Where a child article could exist but doesn't. I suggested above Archaeology of the Bar Kokhba revolt, but I don't think I'm familiar enough with the sourcing to know the optimal choices here. Alternatively, taking much of the aftermath section to its own article (or alternatively making sure it's adequately covered in the Jewish–Roman wars#Aftermath and linking to there - in a sense that's a more natural home for a fuller treatment of the topic than the page specifically about the Bar Kokhba revolt).

Samuelshraga (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting that I've trimmed the subsection of Bar Kokhba refuge caves NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the trim may have gone a little too far in one pass, removing mentions of several key caves. For a Bar Kokhba Revolt article, it is a must to at least name some of the most significant sites alongside their major finds. You really can't cover the revolt without mentioning the Cave of Horrors or the Cave of Letters.

I've restored those specific mentions since they add useful context, while keeping the rest of the trims as they were fine. Thanks! Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 07:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I do think that the documents are not that relevant to the revolt itself (the war) so I do think they may be trimmed. @Samuelshraga may wish to give his opinion on this as well. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you're asking me in my privileged position as reviewer here NW, and honestly I don't think that position confers much weight for article content, only for whether this passes the GA criteria.

That said, there are now child articles on Archaeology of the Bar Kokhba Revolt and on Bar Kokhba refuge caves specifically. That makes me think the specifics that you restored @Mariamnei are not ideal per the good article criteria under 3b. NorthernWinds did preserve the content that related directly to the revolt, and the refuge caves page is prominently wiki-linked in the section.

Still, it's not a huge chunk of text and I can see the case that my concerns are entirely too nitpicky, so I'm going to kick this can down the road and hopefully the experienced reviewer who comes to oversee this will help. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)