Talk:Attarsiya/GA1

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

Reviewer: D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 11:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment - This would appear to be a rather straight-forward and simple article. Hopefully it's capable of being Good Article material!

Lede

 * Change any mentions of "BC" to "BCE". This doesn't only apply to this portion.
 * Done


 * While giving descriptors, use parentheses, not apostrophes.
 * Done


 * You're good with the writing quality for the most part. Now, I need to know, is there more information available for this individual? Simply put, the lede is scant for information about his significance. Yes, he led the first Mycenaean Greek military campaigns, but little else can be seen.

Background

 * "All we know..."? There should be an alternative that clarifies the scientific perspective of historians, rather than providing an elementary approach suitable for children.
 * I've rephrased this part.


 * The article then describes this individual as a "man of Ahhiya" and makes the assumption based on tradition that he was a king. This is then followed up with a statement that basically sounds like, "Yeah, he was. Maybe. Probably. Kind of". Keep in streamlined with facts, rather than speculation. The content's there, but it doesn't read correctly.
 * I've adjusted this part, in order to be clear that he was probably a local ruler (still a king) of a smaller region rather than a high king of a greater one.


 * The first paragraph then ends with an even greater degree of confusion that states that Attarsiya may have been a local leader. Could there be more clarification from the sources?
 * The sources claim that he appears to be a local ruler, but can't entirely reject the alternative option of the supreme leader.


 * The second paragraph only compounds the confusion further by saying the timeframe could be incorrect. This is speculation and should constitute a more expanded section of its own. Judging by the authors of the references, this should be doable.

Military campaigns

 * The first two sentences of the first paragraph say "probably" far too many times for comfort. Either use a more encyclopedic term, such as "likely", or else keep the information to what is confirmed and not completely speculative.
 * Done


 * It would be helpful to understand the degree of success of the campaigns described in the first paragraph of Anatolia. We don't have any context for how they conclude.
 * Remember my pointer for "BCE", rather than "BC".
 * Done


 * Overall, the first subsection about Anatolia has less speculative information, but it still is ambiguous.
 * Should the subsection about Cyprus be called "Alashiya"?
 * Done


 * While there's not much wrong with the content in the Cyprus subsection, it's still rather scant for materials. Is there more to be said about the invasion of Alashiya?
 * I've made a small addition about the allied forces and the outcome of this campaign


 * There are too many loose terms like "big impression" and "seems like" in the legacy subsection. There is surely better alternative wording.
 * Done, changed the wording.


 * Is the legacy in the lieu of culture confirmed to be correlated to Attarsiya? Do the references strictly say there's a correlation? Is it original research?
 * Both references mention that there must be a correlation with Attarsiya's presence in the region (warrior depiction and sword dedication).


 * Overall, the first subsection is the most firm in placement. The two others appear to be scant and rather speculative. I hope this can be changed.

Possibility of a Mycenaean empire

 * This section appears to be in good order and suitable for GA criteria.

Link with mythical Atreus

 * This should be a subsection of the Legacy section.
 * Done


 * Other than that, it appears to be in good order.

Verdict
I've gone through the page again and I've seen structural improvements, as well as a heightened degree of clarification. While there may be room for improvement, I now believe the page suffices, so far as GA requirements are concerned. I hope to see this page improve even further in the future. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 23:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)