Talk:Esarhaddon/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next day or two. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * General:
 * I went through and removed all the extra "BC"s in the lead, but we do not need to specify that a date is BC every time a date appears. We can assume our readers are smart enough to figure out that he lived in the BC era, so we should limit our usage - perhaps on the first date within each section is a good compromise.
 * Makes sense. I've removed "BC" from dates except from the first time it appears in each section/subsection. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Refs go after punctuation - this is frequently a problem with your introductory bits before quotes - the footnote can either go after the colon or you can use the parameter in the quote template to do a cite or you can place the footnote at the end of the quoted material. But there are other spots throughout the article - especially with commas separating clauses within sentences.
 * I believe that this problem has been addressed now. I also made all the quotes into italic text (not sure how that flies with the MOS) so that they are more easily distinguished from the encyclopedic text itself. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Urf. Quotes do not go in italic - see MOS:ITALQUOTE. This one is pretty much a no leeway thing for the MOS. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, crap. Removed the italics, if there is some way to more clearly distinguish the quotes that might be good but otherwise this'll have to work then. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, blockquotes is pretty much the only way to do this. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Lead:
 * So in the second paragraph we have "It was only with great difficulty that Esarhaddon successfully ascended to the throne" but in the last paragraph "He quickly defeated his brothers in 681" - seems to be a contradiction there?
 * Both "great difficulty" and "quickly" are from the sources used in the article and though they appear somewhat contradictory, I'd argue that just because someone manages to do something quickly that doesn't mean that the task itself was not difficult. It took Esarhaddon six weeks to defeat his brothers; this is a quickly resolved conflict but it is still six weeks kept from the throne which the previous king (who was murdered) had decreed him to inherit, so there is still that period of difficulty and struggle. Though periods of uncertainty and short civil wars happened a lot during times of succession in Assyria, Esarhaddon's case is the only one I know in which the decreed heir of a previous king actually had to seize the capital to be crowned. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe quote directly from the sources then? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that might become a bit wonky in the lead and as I said, "quickly" and "difficult" are not antonyms. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced, but this is GA, not FA, so I've pointed it out. Certainly won't hold up the article over that. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So looking at this again, I can see how this looks contradictory. I've changed the first time the civil war is brought up a bit (putting the emphasis of the "difficulty" at his father's murder and his brother's plot instead of the six week civil war itself, which he appears to have dealt with very well), maybe it works better now? Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Background:
 * "but repeatedly tried to appeal Sennacherib" this is clunky to my reading. Perhaps "repeatedly appealed to Sennacherib"?
 * Sure, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Reconstruction:
 * "Though an Assyrian vassal, the kingdom had been ruled by native Babylonian kings until its conquest and annexation by the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III less than a century prior." is a bit confusing in terms of keeping the chronology straight. Suggest "Babylonia had been ruled by native kings as vassals of the Assyrians until its conquest and annexation by the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III in the previous century." or something similar.
 * Went with something very similar to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * " that he was to rule" is a bit stilted - suggest "that he meant to rule"
 * Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "Babylon was a deeply important city and had been not only the political but also the religious center of southern Mesopotamia for more than a thousand years." The first part is just .. padding. Suggest "Babylon had been the politcal and religious center of southern Mesopotamia for more than a thousand years." But even that needs a bit of explanation as to WHY we're giving this information? This sentence (whether modified by my suggestion or not) doesn't really tie into the preceeding and suceeding sentences well. I get the drift of what's trying to be implied, but suggest we might need a bit more explicit statement of what the past importance of Babylon meant to Esarhaddon's policies.
 * I've changed the sentence to your suggestion and moved it before the sentence describing Sennacherib's destruction of it which I think ties it in better. I think Babylon's past importance and what it meant is already somewhat clear - the preceding paragraph details that Esarhaddon hoped to earn some goodwill from the people who lived in the southern parts of his empire and rebuilding their religious and political center was probably the best way he could accomplish that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "The ambitious project including the removal of large amounts of debris left since Sennacherib's destruction of the city, the actual resettlement (most of the actual people of Babylon were scattered across the empire or enslaved) and reconstruction of most of the buildings in the city, the restoration of the great temple complex dedicated to Bel, known as the Esagila, and the enormous ziggurat complex called Etemenanki as well as the restoration of the two inner walls of the city." This is actually a sentence fragment ... despite the large number of words here. The subject of the independent clause is "project" and then we are into a maze of dependent clauses introduced by "including" but we never find out what the project DOES in this sentence. So what DID the project do?
 * I think it is made pretty clear by the surrounding context that the project rebuilt Babylon. I've rephrased this a bit, does it work better now? Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The important bit here was getting rid of the incorrect grammar of the sentence fragment, but it's much clearer too. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "was manufactured" this one is not required, but "manufactured" has a connotation of modernity and industrial processes to it ...perhaps "constructed"?
 * Fair enough, changed to "constructed". Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Conquest:
 * Link for Ashur-nasir?
 * Ashur-nasir doesn't have an article (and I'm not sure that there is enough information preserved on him to warrant an article outside of him being mentioned in connection to Esarhaddon), but sure I don't see why not. Linked. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Diplomacy with the Arabs:
 * Link for Hazael?
 * Added link, but same as above. There is a famous king called Hazael but that's a different king of a different kingdom. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Assyria after: This is a LOT of detail on things after Esarhaddon's death - it should probably be trimmed by about half - we probably do not need the details of the names of various appointments and the like. One of the GA criteria is that the article stays focused on the subject of the article. As an example - the second paragraph might work as "After he and his brother had been inaugurated as monarchs, Ashurbanipal left to finish Esarhaddon's Egyptian campaign in 667. Ashurbanipal marched as far south as Thebes, plundering on his way. To govern Egypt he appointed two joint Pharaohs. In 666–665 BC, Ashurbanipal defeated an attempt by the nephew of Pharaoh Taharqa to retake Egypt."
 * I don't think this section is absurdly long considering it summarizes 60 years in much less detail than the rest of the article covers Esarhaddon's 12-year reign and I do feel that events after his death are good to discuss since things go wrong pretty quickly after he dies. For instance, the details on Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin are directly relevant to Esarhaddon since they represent the fallout of Esarhaddon's succession policy. The Egyptian campaign is also directly relevant since the Egyptian war is ostensibly the same war that Esarhaddon died before completing. Your suggestion is shorter but I don't think leaving out details improves this section - if you say "to govern Egypt he appointed two joint Pharaohs", that feels like leaving out information (who were these Pharaohs? why these two guys in particular?). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This one, though, has some backing in the GA criteria. I do tend to think there is too much detail that doesn't focus on the topic of the article. One of the GA criteria is 3b "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Some of this is unecessary detail for E's life. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see that. I removed the mention of Kandalanu (Shamash-shum-ukin's successor as Babylonian vassal ruler). I do think Ashurbanipal's and Shamash-shum-ukin's relations are directly related to Esarhaddon and I do believe the Egyptian campaign is as well (I tried to connect the paragraph a bit more to Esarhaddon by mentioning that Pharaoh Psamtik II had been raised at Esarhaddon's court). Ultimately I'm not sure what should be removed here to avoid this section feeling incomplete but I'll follow your suggestions if you have more. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I pulled some more details ... see how that works for you? Sometimes it is very difficult to see what needs removing when you've worked hard on the content... new eyes sometimes see clearer. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think this still looks good. The only remaining part I'm thinking could be removed due to not directly being related to Esarhaddon would be the final paragraph (about what happens after Ashurbanipal, 40 years after Esarhaddon died) but I'm thinking that the Fall of Assyria being so quick and happening shortly after Ashurbanipal's reign makes it odd not to include it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Assessment:
 * Links for Assyriologist? Karen Radner?
 * Didn't realize I missed linking her, done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The information starting with "In Assyria, Esarhaddon constructed and restored temples..." and the whole next paragraph really belong in the section on building projects during his reign, rather than in the assessment section.
 * That information is there as a refutation of the historical assessment of Esarhaddon as a "Babylonian king of Assyria", but yes, I agree. I've moved it to the section on Babylon's reconstruction.


 * Mentions in the bible:
 * This just reads like a bit of trivia - unless there is secondary source discussion of HOW the biblical mentions impact on the views of Esarhaddon, this is WP:TRIVIA and can probalby be cut.
 * IIRC the biblical mentions were part of the article before I got to expanding it and yes, I agree. Unlike other Mesopotamian kings mentioned in the Bible, such as Esarhaddon's father or the later Nebuchadnezzar, Esarhaddon doesn't play any role in the Bible. I've removed this section. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, been there, done that... inherited sections/text can sometimes be a bit of a problem. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan of the huge block quotes in the title section. Much of it is, again, trivia, and should be placed in context by secondary discussion of what the titles and such mean.
 * The linked Akkadian royal titulary article goes into detail on what some of the common ancient Mesopotamian titles mean and various ideologies involved in making them. The gist is that most Mesopotamian royal titularies were unique and as such they reveal information on stuff like previous rulers the king might be trying to emulate, policies that they king might mean to enforce and what personal accomplishments the king considered the most important. Personally I think the inclusion of Esarhaddon's titles add to understanding his character (they are incredibly boastful). Though the titles are quite long (especially the final example; which AFAIK is the longest Assyrian titulary known) it isn't that different from "Titles, styles, honours, and arms" sections which appear in many articles on more recent monarchs/pretenders (e.g. Napoleon II or the long example over at Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll note that neither Napoleon II or Charles V are rated as good articles. It's not something I'm going to hold the article up on, but it's really that there is so much quotation without much secondary discussion of what the boasting means. It strikes me as long quotes without much context. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's true that neither of the two are GA or FA but there are FA examples with similar stuff (e.g. Queen Victoria). I agree that it would've been good to have discussion on Esarhaddon's titles specifically (though I don't think his titles are discussed in detail in any of the sources I've used). The context of the most important titles should be apparent from the rest of the article (him being at his most boastful after conquering Egypt, references to the various gods also referenced in his other inscriptions, etc.). I also wanted to include his titles because they really aren't available to read in any other easily accessible place. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation - the one flagged result is for the use of the same quotations.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay - got home Tuesday from being out on the road with hubby and promptly got sick. Am feeling better today should be able to pick this back up tomorrow. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries! Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Doing the paperwork now. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)