Talk:King of Sumer and Akkad/GA1

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 11:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

 * 1) Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
 * 2) Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
 * 3) Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
 * 4) Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
 * 5) Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
 * 6) Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction. Not applicable.
 * 7) Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation.
 * 8) Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
 * 9) All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
 * 10) All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
 * 11) Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
 * 12) No original research.
 * 13) No copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 14) Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
 * 15) Neutral.
 * 16) Stable.
 * 17) Illustrated, if possible.
 * 18) Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

Review under way. I'll use the above as a checklist. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I've yet to make an in-depth review of the article but I already have two issues that will need to be addressed. Most if not all dates need to be expressed as circa because they are not definite. I have sources I can use to verify the dating and I will specify any I find that may be considered definite. The second issue is around ensuring consistency in the presentation of regnal titles and I would use "King of" throughout rather than "king of", although it is correct to use "king" when it is a standalone noun and not part of a title. For example, the third sentence in the opening paragraph should be changed to:

"Despite both of the titles "King of Sumer" and "King of Akkad" having been used by the Akkadian kings, the title was not introduced in its combined form until the reign of the Neo-Sumerian king Ur-Nammu..."

Please look at these points while I complete the rest of the review. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've decided to place the review on hold because I have concerns about the article's presentation of information in such definite terms. This is not just the dates, as mentioned above, but also statements like: "Sargon of Akkad had during his reign explicitly been against linking Sumer and Akkad in such a fashion". Whatever the secondary source, Hallo, might have written to verify such a statement, there is no way that we can assert that Sargon held such an explicit opinion. Primary sources for Sargon are thin on the ground and much that has been written about him is based on legend or supposition. Another example is: "In the 24th century BC, Sargon of Akkad established the first great Mesopotamian empire..." The century is uncertain as some scholars prefer the 23rd and his empire is the earliest known one – again, it is not definite. The article needs to be clear about this and to differentiate between established fact and theory.
 * The article also needs to be proofread and copyedited to ensure that grammar and spelling are correct. There are errors including "prior presedence", which is both a grammatical and spelling mistake (precedence is by definition prior); and "the southern parts lower Mesopotamia".
 * I've ticked the boxes above for criteria which are met and will consider the remainder after the issues have been addressed. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to pop in to inform you that I'm away on vacation abroad currently, I should be be back editing at some point early next week and can then look over the issues if that's okay? Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have now addressed all the specific points you brought up here; adding consistency with "King of", adding in a circa for uncertain dates and changing the wording in some places. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's looking okay now so I've decided to pass it as good article. It's an interesting read. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)