Talk:Amon of Judah/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 00:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have reviewed articles like this (that is, short biographies of historical figures) before. Initial thoughts to come soon. J Milburn (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We have a number of dablinks which need to be fixed; Judah, Manasseh, House of David. (Judah also seems overlinked slightly)
 * ✅ Fixed all the above and dealt with the over-linking of Judah. Magister Scienta talk 05:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe succession boxes should be placed at the bottom of an article, below the references. Do you know of a guideline saying otherwise?
 * ✅ I checked FA George V and, as you said, the succession box was under the refs. Therefore, I moved this article's succession box. Magister Scienta talk 05:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Stronger sourcing on File:Amon rex.png would be desirable. Where has this been taken from? I'm afraid "Promptuarii Iconum Insigniorum" means nothing to me; if this is a book, could we have a full citation?
 * ✅ I have added a  tag to the image, which is simply a scanned version of a 16th century work. As for finding more about Promptuarii Iconum Insigniorum, which is a redirect to the author, just look at the 3rd paragraph. I know it's not ideal...but I suppose that's a separate project.  Magister Scienta talk 06:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Michelangelo - Sistine Chapel ceiling - Lunette "Hezekiah - Manasseh - Amon".jpg- While the artwork is clearly PD, I see no reason to believe that the photo is; for more information, see Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag.
 * Question: I don't totally understand the issue, per Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag it is OK to use the  tag if the, "image is or appears to be a faithful reproduction of a 2D public domain work of art," which File:Michelangelo - Sistine Chapel ceiling - Lunette "Hezekiah - Manasseh - Amon".jpg is. Maybe I'm missing somethings...thanks.
 * This is not just a scan of a piece of artwork, this is a photograph of part of a church. Equally, regardless of the copyright status of the paintings, this image would belong to the photographer by default. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "succeeded his father Manasseh of Judah on the throne" One cannot "succeed... on", I believe
 * ✅ Reworded sentence. Magister Scienta talk 06:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "idolatatrous" Link?
 * ✅ I have linked idolatrous to Idolatry. Magister Scienta talk 06:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not really seeing the need for citations in the lead. The lead section should summarise the rest of the article, and so, short of highly contentious material, lead cites are rarely going to be needed
 * Question: Should I remove the refs? Magister Scienta talk 06:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Provided the content is cited elsewhere in the article, I do not see the point of keeping the refs there. J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed refs in the lead. Magister Scienta talk 15:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "unknown, Scripture records" Why capitalised?
 * ✅ De-capitalized. Magister Scienta talk 06:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Thiele's dates for Amon are tied to the dates for his son Josiah, who reigned 31 years" Thiele's son?
 * ✅ Reworded sentence. Magister Scienta talk 17:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "By Judean reckoning that began regnal years in the fall month of Tishri," What does this mean, sorry?
 * ✅ Reworded sentence, hopefully you like it. Magister Scienta talk 17:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "of anti-Assyrian national feelings." Link? No mention of the relationship between Amon and the Assyrians has yet been mentioned?
 * ✅ Linked Assyria Neo-Assyrian Empire and added more information to the sentence to inform the reader about Assyria. Magister Scienta talk 18:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It'd be great if we could have some Biblical quotes in the article.
 * ✅ Added a quote from Kings 21:18-26. Magister Scienta talk 20:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The formatting on the references really needs to be cleaned up. Some general pointers-
 * ✅ I've cleaned up the references. Magister Scienta talk 23:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Journal and book titles should be in italics, essay/article/chapter titles should be in speech marks.
 * Give locations for all journals/no journals, and all book/no books
 * Bare urls are not a good thing
 * Retrieval dates are needed for websources (but not convenience links- for instance, if you're citing a webpage, a date is needed. If you're citing a journal article that happens to be online, a date is not needed.)
 * ✅ Removed access-dates from the refs of online journals. Magister Scienta talk 20:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Author name formatting needs to be consistent- "John Smith" "Smith, John" "J Smith" "J. Smith"- it's fine however you want it, as long as it's consistent
 * ✅ All author names are now in the format "John Smith." Magister Scienta talk 19:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if there is more information out there. A quick search, for instance, throws up this, which isn't even hidden away- have you read that one? A quick JSTOR search throws up several which may have something of use, and there's an article called "The historical background of the assassination of Amon, king of Judah" by A Malamat which seems to have been published elsewhere. I have no objection to short articles per se, but, obviously, I couldn't promote a short article if there was a lot more to be said. Hope these initial thoughts are helpful- I'm watching the page. J Milburn (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi J, so after reviewing the paper you posted (thanks, I hadn't read it) I added a little to the article, but truthfully the subject of the paper mainly had to do with something else. About the Malamat paper, I think the only way I can get my hands on that is to purchase a $130 book, so that probably won'y happen. I suppose though that Malamat's theories on Amon's assassination isn't vital to the article. As for the JSTOR stuff, to be honest, aside from Theile I have found very little pertaining to Amon. Yes there are many results when I search Amon, Amon of Judah, King Amon, etc. but nearly every paper has to do with something else (btw, the term Judah turns up a lot of useless stuff). That said, at this point it seems to me that this article contains virtually all the scholarly knowledge on this topic (which admittedly isn't that much). Thoughts? Magister Scienta talk 05:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the chapel image for deletion- it's a slow process, so it shouldn't steal it out from under your feet if you have a different solution. However, I am not willing to promote the article until that issue is resolved. You seem confident that the article contains all knowledge of Amon, but I'm not completely confident that it does, and I am not comfortable promoting such a short article if material has been missed. I'll hopefully find some time for another search through the literature in the coming days. J Milburn (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello J, so after your reviewing your previous comment and the image's contents and copyright status, I have removed the photograph from the article. To reecho what I said earlier about the Malamat paper, 1) Malamat's theories on Amon's assassination are in fact mentioned in the article and 2) I truly don't think that not including this source (one historians theories that likely pertain more to the sociopolitical situation than Amon himself) should hinder this article from reaching GA status. As for the other sources, I will continue my hunt for information regarding Amon, but truthfully, I'm a little skeptical I will find anything new. Thanks, Magister Scienta talk 04:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It would obviously be unfair for me to retain GA status because of a vague belief that there might be more out there. As I say, I will have a look soonish. J Milburn (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So...? Just making sure everything is OK. Magister Scienta talk 20:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm willing to accept that this article covers the topic moderately comprehensively. A couple more thoughts-
 * In the infobox, the reign dates are given with more certainty than in the prose, and don't actually match the dates given in the prose.
 * ✅ Made dates consistent wit the body of the article. Magister Scienta talk 22:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "642-640 BCE, while E. R. Thiele offers the dates 643/642 – 641/640 BCE." Dash type seems inconsistent.
 * ✅ Made all instances uniform dash. Magister Scienta talk 22:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Tractate Sanhedrin" Shouldn't this be italicised?
 * ✅ Italicized it. Magister Scienta talk 22:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Locations for all or none of the book sources, and for all or none of the journals
 * ✅ Removed the publication locations from the refs. Magister Scienta talk 22:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, ideally, book titles should be in title case, article titles in sentence case
 * I didn't understand what you were saying, could you please clarify. Magister Scienta talk 22:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a massive deal. A nice way to cite articles would be- "John Smith (2012). "An account of capitalisation in article titles, following the lead of Wikipedia". Journal of Capitalisation 1:1. 1-7." While books may be "John Smith (2012). Capitalisation of Titles in Books and Articles. Language Publications. ISBN xxxxxxxxx". Note the capitalisation of respective titles. I'm happy to leave this be; change if you like, but don't feel you have to. J Milburn (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to promote if these issues are resolved. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, promoting. Nice work, sorry about the delay. J Milburn (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi J, I just wanted to thank you for your thoroughness and fairness throughout the review process. As this was my first GA article, the fact that such a tenured user such as yourself was the reviewer was a especially helpful. Forgive me but I have to ask, do you think this article has a chance of reaching FA status? I know I'd have to put quite a bit more work into it, but I was wondering if FA status is even plausible. Again thanks and happy new year, Magister Scienta talk 01:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly- if you want to try to get it there, I'd love to help, but there is a long way to go. Articles on comparable subjects appear at FAC reasonably often, so there is some good precedent; take a look at the work of, for instance, who writes a lot of articles on medieval English figures. Basically, we'd really need to see more; more details included (the Begg source, for instance, seems to talk about some textual debates- they may be worth including) and more sources cited (again, there's the Malamat source out there- it'd just be a question of getting hold of it). There is no lower size limit at FAC, as long as key questions were answered, and, in this case, they do seem to be; but with shorter articles, you will have to include just about everything there is to include. This is especially true with regards to tracking down obscure sources- my nomination of Gymnopilus maritimus was held up while I tracked down the Italian language source- eventually I managed to get a copy of the journal posted to me from Italy, which was lucky! Peer review is also a helpful process, if you can find people who will be willing to take a look for you. J Milburn (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)