This looks an interesting article. It is stable, although it has been subject to claims of edit wars in the past as it covers some potentially controversial material. 94.4% of the authorship is from one user, Ichthyovenator. It is currently ranked both B and C class.
File:Tissot The Chaldees Destroy the Brazen Sea.jpg and File:Hanging Gardens of Babylon by Ferdinand Knab (1886).png state "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." Please add.
File:The captivity of Judah.jpg and File:Daniel Interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's Dream.jpg state "This image might not be in the public domain outside of the United States; this especially applies in the countries and areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada, Mainland China (not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany, Mexico, and Switzerland." Please address this with relevant tags.
File:B Urgell 209dét.jpg states "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Jamaica has 95 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Côte d'Ivoire has a general copyright term of 99 years and Honduras has 75 years, but they do implement the rule of the shorter term." Please resolve this.
I fixed the issues with the current tag for this one, the tag now also says "This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States". Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consider removing the citation in the lead as per WP:LEADCITE.
In this case I think the citations are necessary; they cite and clear up the controversy surrounding his name and also serve to cite the otherwise potentially challengable statements of him usually being regarded as the greatest king, what he's most known for, and that he was the most powerful ruler in the world at the time of his death. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consider changing or qualifying the areas marked with a (?) in the infobox.
Not sure what you mean that I should do here. Do you mean something like adding explanatory notes? Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I am simply not sure what it means. simongraham (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are meant to indicate uncertainty - Nebuchadnezzar being born in Uruk, his wife being called Amytis and him having a daughter named Nitocris are ideas and details that are well-established in tradition and scholarship, but cannot be fully confirmed with the surviving evidence. Open to suggestions if you think this could be improved. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very reasonable and is clear in the prose. This must be a convention I wasn't aware of. Would a footnote help? simongraham (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there is a convention but I've done the same thing at Sennacherib (FA), Sargon II (GA), Nabonidus (GA), and others. I can add footnotes with explanations at the points marked with (?) in the infobox if you think that would be an improvement. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should be! I suggest it be added to some MOS. However, that is outside the scope of this review, so I will give this a pass. simongraham (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove duplication of Sack 2005 from "presents problems in and of itself, blurring the line between history and tradition, it is the only possible approach to gain insight into Nebuchadnezzar's reign."
Thank you. That looks much better. simongraham (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph which begins "In 597 BC" has three successive sentences that start with an almost identical prepositional phrase. Consider rewording.
Reworded the beginning of the middle sentence. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"According to the Assyriologist Israel Ephʿal". Is there a reason to mention the author, particularly as they do not have a blue link? The other citations in the narrative at this point are not couched with a mention of the author.
It's because the use of "paper tiger" here is a direct quote and Ephʿal's assessment of the situation; open to suggestions if you feel this should be changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That makes sense. I think the direct quote is useful. simongraham (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"like Assyria had been" Reword please.
Removed "had been", think it works better like this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add the comma to "As Herodotus describes Pharaoh Apries as campaigning in the Levant" to become "As Herodotus describes, Pharaoh Apries as campaigning in the Levant"
"Nebuchadnezzar's campaigns in the Levant, most notably those directed towards Jerusalem and Tyre, completed the Neo-Babylonian Empire's transformation from a rump state of the Neo-Assyrian Empire to the new dominant power of the ancient Near East" Consider whether this is the right place for this comment as it seems more reflective and fit for a conclusion.
It is reflective, but I also think it's most appropriate here given that this marks the end point for the discussion on his military campaigns (other than the possible later final Egyptian conflict), and this sentence deals with the effect of those campaigns. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thank you. In which case, I suggest moving this to the end of the section as a conclusion. simongraham (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the passage to the end of the section as its own paragraph. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. I think that improves the flow substantially. simongraham (talk)
The paragraph that begins "The succession to Nebuchadnezzar appears to have been a troublesome one" seems to be the succession after him. I suggest rewording the first sentence.
I don't understand what needs to be changed here: it refers to the rise of Nebuchadnezzar's successor, i.e. the "succession to Nebuchadnezzar". Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph seems to cover Nebuchadnezzar's legitimacy as well as the succession after him and therefore the jump from the first sentence to the second reads disjointedly. Maybe there needs to be a linking sentence. simongraham (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course possible that this can be worded in a better way, but the gist here is that some late inscriptions by Nebuchadnezzar stress his divine legitimacy, which is very unusual given that Nebuchadnezzar was unquestionably the legitimate king (and this was otherwise only commonly done by usurpers), which indicates that it might instead have served to attempt to legitimize his intended successor, whose accession for whatever reason Nebuchadnezzar foresaw as problematic. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Is there anything in the cited sources which could help make this clearer? simongraham (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've rearranged and rephrased this portion, see if you think it flows better now and makes more sense. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That feels a lot better to me. Thank you. simongraham (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"featuring exoting shrubs". I believe this should be exotic, although I am not sure whether this sentence needs more clarification.
Yeah, it should be "exotic"; fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The section Assessment by historians is unclear. For example, "Nebuchadnezzar is recognised as the greatest and most prestigious king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Because of the scarcity of sources, assessment by historians of Nebuchadnezzar and his reign have differed considerably over time" These sentences seem contradictory. Please revisit this section for flow.
I've reworded and changed things around here to make stuff more clear: the assessment concerning his character was and what the priorities of his reign were (military man / builder king) have varied considerably over time, he seems to pretty much always have been regarded as the greatest king. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. That is very clear now. simongraham (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reference Ephʿal, 2003 is repeated. The one following "restoring his country." Is superfluous.
I suggest adding a Cultural references section under Legacy listing the many ways that he has been depicted.
I'm not sure there is enough discussion in reliable sources concerning popular culture portrayals and depictions to warrant inclusion; virtually every modern depiction of Nebuchadnezzar is based in the biblical character anyway, which the article does detail. I might be misunderstanding you here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case. I was comparing with Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great, and there is sufficient there for a page; those would likely be less on Nebuchadnezzar, but I think it would be still a substantial list and useful to the reader. For example, I think it would be helpful to reference Nabucco. There is a category which is sparse but could be helpful. simongraham (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of creating lists of pop-culture appearances of historical figures as I don't think they tend to be very relevant, but I agree that major cultural depictions are fine to discuss (which is why this article contains an extensive discussion on Nebuchadnezzar's legacy in Judeo-Christian tradition). I don't think the video games and TV series in the category are relevant enough to bring up here, but I agree that Nabucco should probably be mentioned, will get back to you on that one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A list for a list's sake would be unnecessary as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Maybe it is simply a case of adding a subsection to the See also section with a few major mentions like Nabucco. simongraham (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Nabucco and Blake's painting to the "see also" section; I don't think Civilization V or the two TV series are very relevant, so left those out, and the only other major cultural depiction is the biblical one, and derivatives there of, which is discussed at length in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. That looks ideal. simongraham (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an issue with the way the ORACC site is designed. You have to click on "Nebuchadnezzar II" in the list that comes up, and then on the individual texts, there is no separate direct links for Nebuchadnezzar II or his inscriptions, it all falls under http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/ribo/pager for whatever reason. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also consider pages archived in archive.org for the other web references.
Added archive links to all the web sources. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ichthyovenator: You have done great work with this and, although the list is long, I could only find minor things to do. Please see the comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The clause "recognised by scholars as a work of historical fiction" is irrelevant to this article. It has been contentious in the talk page, although I cannot fathom why as a discussion on this seems more relevant to the wikilnked article on the Book of Daniel. I suggest removing it as per WP:DETAIL.
This clause was not added by me and has been in the article for a long time (since at least 2018). I agree that it is disappointing that there is so much fuss over this passage. The Book of Daniel is arguably Nebuchadnezzar's most famous cultural outing, with the Nebuchadnezzar character therein arguably more well-known than the actual king he's based on, so I do feel that there is merit in pointing out that the story is not based in any actual historical events; perhaps it is unnecessary, or unnecessarily confrontational, but if it should be removed I think there should perhaps be wider discussion on it first (the same clause pops up over at Belshazzar as well), considering it's been there so long and there's been so much fighting over it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know, would just feel better with wider input. I added a comment to that place in the text that should dissuade further disruption, but if problems persist I'll launch an RfC into whether the clause is really necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Simongraham: Many thanks! I've addressed the comments above, most have been deal with but for some points I was unsure what to do. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ichthyovenator: You are very welcome. This is an excellent article and worthy of the hard work that you have put in. I think we are at the last hurdle. simongraham (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again, and thank you very much for taking the time to review this! Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I may raise a minor issue: In the lede, the statement "At the time of his death, Nebuchadnezzar was the most powerful ruler in the known world" is made, cited to the World History Encyclopedia. I feel like the "known world" is a problematic qualifier (despite it being also used by the World History Encyclopedia), as the "known world" can either mean known to Nebuchadnezzar's region or "known" in the sense that we have records of it. The latter interpretation would be probably false, however, as Nebuchadnezzar II was a contemporary to the late Spring and Autumn period states of China. Some of these probably rivalled or even surpassed the Babylonian Empire in landmass, population, and military strength (the state of Chu, for example, allegedly fielded armies numbering hundreds of thousands by the late 6th century). Could the sentence be perhaps be adjusted to "At the time of his death, Nebuchadnezzar was the most powerful ruler in the Middle East" or something like it? Applodion (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Applodion: I see what you're saying and I agree that "known world" is not the most appropriate term. Per a contemporary/near-contemporary Babylonian world map, the world known by Nebuchadnezzar and his subjects corresponded more or less to the Middle East, so your suggestion could work, but I believe it's not as effective/impactful as "known world", given that Nebuchadnezzar was more powerful than the majority of the world outside of the Middle East as well. Would perhaps "At the time of his death, Nebuchadnezzar was among the most powerful rulers in the world" work? Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ichthyovenator: Most certainly; I don't think that anyone could dispute that he was among the mightiest rulers of his time. Applodion (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pass