Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alexander II Zabinas/archive1

Alexander II Zabinas

 * Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

A BC version of the Wars of the Roses, the Later half of the Seleucid Empire's era was chaotic. In short, two branches of the royal family fought for the throne and the period was full of intrigues and strong queens. Alexander II was the last claimant of the Antiochus IV's line, the infamous king behind Hanukkah. History is written by the victor, and that is why the legitimacy of Alexander II was always questioned, but one need to read this article, which incorporate the most recent scholarship, copy-edited by the editors guild, and is the result of months of work, to decide what is true.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

 * The background section alone made my head spin. You should nominate one of the articles about the queens one day! I'll review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The many coins show are a bit confusing; could it maybe be stated in the captions what their relations to the subject were?


 * There are a bunch of duplinks not so far from each other, you can highlight them with this script:


 * I'm confused by the structure, which is of course also due to the flurry of names and events. But why do you present the subject after the section that covers his coronation as anti-king (if I follow correctly), Choosing Alexander II? I can see why you would want to get a lot of details out of the way first, but why not put the Choosing Alexander II section after the section that first presents him, to help the reader (and put the focus on the subject of the article earlier)? That section actually seems to overlap with some of the text under Ascending the throne already, perhaps merge the two?


 * "Modern historic research preferred the detailed account" Prefers?


 * "elevated to kingshp" Missing i.


 * "bore the epithets Theos Epiphanes (god manifest) and Nikephoros (bearer of victory)" Why does the article title not use one of these names, as Zabinas is apparently not a self-identification, but derisory (maybe, but therefore controversial)?


 * You use both ise and ize endings. Is this US or UK English?
 * Still seeing some izes under the footnotes. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Still seeing some izes under the footnotes. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Still seeing some izes under the footnotes. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "based on triads that include a supreme god" perhaps use past tense, as I doubt anyone believes in this anymore?
 * Hehe, doesn't seem like it kept people from fighting back then, though! FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)½½
 * Hehe, doesn't seem like it kept people from fighting back then, though! FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)½½


 * "The Syro-Phoenician religious complex" Perhaps state this was of the natives, to contrast it with the Greek rulers at the beginning of the section?


 * "that a son of deity" a deity.


 * "then it can be understood that Alexander II might have married a Ptolemaic princess. Ancient literature does not record a marriage between a Ptolemaic princess and Alexander II" I think you could merge these two sentences, as much of it is repetition, and to make it more concise. For example by saying "then it can be understood that Alexander II might have married a Ptolemaic princess, though such a marriage is not recorded by ancient literature".


 * "This led the Jews to send an embassy" Jews or Judeans? I wonder what is more appropriate here?


 * "struck to celebrate of his victory" Is the of needed here?


 * More names and terms could be linked in image captions.


 * "the cornucopiae coins can be used to show" Why suddenly present tense?


 * "dates to 125 BC by many numismatists" According to?


 * "and choose Alexander II" Chose?


 * "a representative of Antiochus IV's line" Supposed representative?


 * Support - looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * Suggest adding alt text


 * In all cases an explicit tag should be included for the original work, not solely for the photograph. Also not a fan of including auction details in the image description


 * Photo tagging for File:Coin_of_Antiochus_VII_Euergetes.jpg doesn't match that of other CNG images - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * No spotchecks carried out
 * All links to sources appear to be working, per the external links checker tool. But why are some links included in the short citations, while others (e.g. Barag & Qedar, Brug, etc) are in the main sources list?


 * Formats
 * Ref 10 requires pp. not p.
 * Likewise 14
 * Likewise 65
 * Likewise 71
 * Ref 73: range requires ndash not hyphen
 * Ref 75 requires p. not pp.
 * Ref 77 requires pp. not p.
 * Likewise 91
 * Ref 95 requires p. not pp.
 * Ref 117 requires pp. not p.
 * Likewise 119
 * Be consistent about the inclusion of publisher locations in the sources list. You generally omit these, but see Bevan 1902

Brianboulton (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Quality/reliability: the article is extensively referenced, including many from foreign language sources. So far as I can judge, all sources appear to meet the required criteria for quality and reliability.

Comments Support by PM
This article is in great shape, although I have no clue about this historical period in Syria. I have a few comments:


 * "most ancient historians and the modern academic consensus"


 * suggest "the Egyptian king instigated revolt in the cities" if that is what is meant?


 * suggest "where Cleopatra Thea resided ruled" if that is right?


 * "He maintained a friendly relations"


 * so, Cleopatra Thea married Alexander I and then Demetrius II? Could she be married to two men at the same time, or is something missing here?


 * link Babylonia


 * "He was able to defeat Diodotus Tryphon" per MOS:SURNAME as he has already been introduced


 * this section is rather hard to follow, who is the sister when it says "he warred against his sister"?


 * suggest "Justin then further stated that Alexander II"


 * link numismatist


 * "using several arguments" two arguments? I'm not a fan of the bulletting, but can't think of any better way of subdividing the arguments.


 * in note 11, "The historian Nicholas L. Wright" but isn't he a numismatist? At this point in the narrative, you should probably just go with "Wright"


 * suggest "were instigated in their rebellion by Cleopatra Thea


 * at one point Diodorus Siculus is just referred to as Diodorus, I suggest introducing him as Diodorus Siculus and thereafter as Diodorus, if that is appropriate


 * the n Nike theft if that is right? I'm unsure about capitalisation here, we should go with what is in the sources, but be consistent


 * is there a issn or similar for Brug?


 * a map showing his conquests or extent of his control would be a great addition to the article

That's all I have, well done on this. I did wonder about the necessity for the extensive and complex Background section, but can see an argument for most of it given the dynastic links etc, and the fact that many of the players come up later. Due to this, if you trimmed the Background section, you would probably have to add a lot of the material in later in dribs and drabs to explain context. It is just hard to follow, but perhaps it must be thus, at least for those not familiar with the period. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The map is a good addition. Supporting, nice work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The map is a good addition. Supporting, nice work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kaiser matias
I'll preface by saying I know nothing about the topic:


 * In the lead I'd consider making the stuff about his parentage a separate paragraph, so just have the opening sentence stand on its own. It just seems like a lot to take in right away.


 * "...the Egyptian king instigated revolt..." Should either be "instigated a revolt" or "instigate revolts."


 * "Based on those arguments, the account of Porphyry regarding Alexander II's claim of descent from Alexander I should be preferred to the account of Justin." The order of the citations here is mixed up (36, 42, 40).
 * All good
 * All good


 * "The coinage of Alexander II was minted in: Antioch, Seleucia Pieria, Tarsus, Apamea, Damascus, Beirut and Ascalon..." Is there any specific reason for the order of cities here? I'd suggest going alphabetical, but if there's a purpose then that's obviously good.
 * Great, thought there was a purpose, just wasn't sure.
 * Great, thought there was a purpose, just wasn't sure.


 * And looking over the bibliography, would it be worth dividing it up a bit? Perhaps primary sources, books, journals, or something? I'm not suggesting this has to be done, or should be done even, but just thinking out loud.
 * Like I said was more thinking out loud, and not concerned about how it looks as is.
 * Like I said was more thinking out loud, and not concerned about how it looks as is.

Overall not a lot I see to clarify, and overall looks good. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * All good from me, so supporting now. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  17:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)