Talk:Ashurbanipal/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 18:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ichthyovenator: I will review this article over the following days. Constantine ✍ 18:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review list[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Despite the very dense information and complex politics described, it is easy to read and understand.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Sources cited are reliable, AGF on representing an adequate cross-section of scholarship. Minor details on source formatting TBD (see comments below).
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Not very familiar with this period except in very broad outlines, but the article appears to be comprehensive.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Is neutral towards the subject, reports different scholarly opinions where these are present. Minor attribution issues (see comments below).
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Looks very good, a well-written and informative article on an important but neglected subject. Minor issues remain (see below), but otherwise this was a joy to read and review.

Comments[edit]

I've removed the bold and italic markings on the footnotes, I don't know why you put them there, they are not visible and serve no purpose.

Yeah, these were unintentional. I believe they have something to do with the visual editor and the sfn-template but I'm unsure how and why; it has happened in other articles I've written too. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

which would probably have had problematic consequences if Shamash-shum-ukin was to ascend to the Assyrian throne. such as?

I've changed this part since the source specifies that the appointment of Shamash-shum-ukin as Assyrian heir would be what would have had "serious consequences", not his ascending to the throne. The source does not specify what does consequences would be (revolts probably?). Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ashurbanipal, Esarhaddon had favored him... In which context was this statement made/where does it come from? It might be a good place to introduce the fact that we get (If I understand this correctly) most of our information from Ashurbanipal's own decrees etc.

Yeah, it comes from Ashurbanipal's own later accounts (I buffed this sentence up a bit, unsure if it's good enough yet). Ashurbanipal's annals are the major sources for his reign but they're obviously biased (since they were written by Ashurbanipal) - notably the king is often described as destroying Assyria's enemies himself (with his army only being mentioned marginally). All the things the Assyrian army is described as doing in the article is probably stuff Ashurbanipal claims to have done himself. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

such as Nippur, Uruk and Ur, and the rulers in the Sea Land, link the cities and wither give an appropriate link or briefly explain what/where the sea land was

Linked the cities and explained what the Sea Land is. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as far south as Thebes note that Thebes was the capital of Egypt

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "one of Egypt's ancient capitals" since it appears that Thebes wasn't the capital at the time (though it had been several times previously). Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cimmerians, a nomadic Indo-European people, add something like "living in the southern Caucasus north of Assyria" or something to that effect

Added your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some scholars, Other scholars, etc. in all cases where this occurs, can you name a couple of them? For example, while others believe that the king should not be judged for what happened to his empire after his death is cited to Britannica. is this opinion shared by others, or is it just the Britannica author's? If the latter, it should be clearly marked as such and possibly even quoted, e.g., "while Donald John Wiseman, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on the king, holds that "It is no indictment of his rule that his empire fell within two decades after his death; this was due to external pressures rather than to internal strife".

I've gone through every time "some/other scholars" and "some historians" appeared and hopefully fixed this issue. In cases where the person(s) behind said opinion are obvious I've mentioned their names and sometimes quoted, Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standardize ISBN formats, add missing locations to books, and oclc id's for older books that do not have an ISBN.

Should be done with this now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig's tool shows violations, but these are due the extensive quotes, so no worries there. A spotcheck in three other references failed to bring up any copyvio problems.

@Ichthyovenator: I've finished my review. Please ping me when you've addressed/answered the comments above. I will then do a second read-through in case I missed anything, and pass the article then. Well done. Constantine ✍ 17:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: I've addressed and/or answered all the comments above. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ichthyovenator: Looks very good. Just a couple of minor points upon re-reading:

returned the statue of Bêl any link and or brief explanation of who Bel was (and why he was an important deity)?

Linked and explained. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assur, Sin, Shamash, Adad, Bêl, Nabû, Ishtar of Nineveh, the queen of Kidmuri, Ishtar of Arbela, Urta, Nergal and Nusku, can you link the deities and localities to relevant articles?

Linked all except the gods Assur and Bêl and the city Nineveh which are already linked earlier in the article. Also didn't link "Kidmuri" since it doesn't have an article - "Kidmuri" refers to the "Kidmuri temple" in Nineveh. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

despite its continuing overexpansion "overexpansion" is a tricky term, as it hints at imperial overstretch. If you mean that, then it is an assessment and requires attribution to a scholar (and, ideally, a quote). I this a slip, then simply rephrase, e.g. "despite its continuing expansion".

Yeah, removed the "over". Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The latest version...had personally been victorious One very long sentence, please split up.

Split into three sentences. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nineveh, was the largest city on the planet any numbers? "Largest city" means different things in different periods, after all...

I've added in a source with an estimate of about 120,000 people in Nineveh in 650 BC. Small by modern standards, huge by ancient Mesopotamian standards. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. Once these are addressed I will be happy to pass it. Constantine ✍ 13:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: I've addressed the new points. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, then we are good to go. Once again, a great piece of work, well done!

Thank you! Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]