Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amon of Judah/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 23:30, 2 February 2012.

Amon of Judah

 * Nominator(s): Magister Scienta talk 23:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, while it's certainly on the smaller side, it's a high quality article that fully covers the life of the subject. Magister Scienta talk 23:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyscape search: No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments:
 * There's a typo in the second sentence. The past tense of "lead" is "led".
 * I cite-checked the bible verses, and they are accurate.
 * I'm not sure what to say about the length. I'd like to think that any article can be featured if it's comprehensive, well-sourced, and well-written, which this seems to be, but there's really not much historical information on this guy, is there?  Criterion #4, on length, says "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail."  That seems satisfied, at least.  And there are FAs nearly as short -- Tropical Depression Ten (2005), for one.  --Coemgenus (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment (Note that I was the GA reviewer of this article): I am certainly not opposed to short articles become featured, however, I am not convinced that this covers the topic completely comprehensively. As I said in the review, before this is ready for featured status, you'd really need to cover everything that there is to cover, and look into every source. "The historical background of the assassination of Amon, king of Judah" by Malamat is not referenced, and I assume that you have not read it. There also seems to be some textual debate of interest concerning Amon, which is discussed at length by Begg; this is not addressed in the article, and some of the primary sources mentioned by Begg are also not mentioned. Also, that image needs to go. The deletion debate on Commons was a fucking joke. J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi J, I'm pretty busy right now IRL so I'll respond to the Begg stuff later. In regards to the image, you're probably right, truthfully I don't even really understand what the closing admin meant. Yet, I'm also of the feeling that if the consensus of the XfD was keep, than regardless of our opinions it can be kept. Magister Scienta talk 04:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Policy is policy (and law is law) regardless of what a "discussion" containing three voices somewhere on another project "decided". For what it's worth, I've contacted the closing admin. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The image has been replaced with the Kings of Judah template. Magister Scienta talk 14:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * J, I found it!. Magister Scienta talk 14:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - There is not enough historical or theological context, and there are stubs longer than this. Does this represent our best work? It is little more than a DYK. I know that length is not a criterion for promotion (although I disagree with this) but the article is too short to be engaging (Criterion 1A). Graham Colm (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify why the article didn't engage you. Thanks, Magister Scienta talk 04:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Sorry, but this doesn't seem comprehensive. A cursory search on Google Books and academic databases reveals any number of potential sources that haven't been used here. Many of them appear to contain substantive information about the subject. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments:-
 * Bearing in mind the extremely meagre nature of the text I think it important that you investigate fully the additional sources that J Milburn has identified above. I don't know these sources, but what they contain needs to be established.
 * The statement that Flavius Josephus describes Amon as among the worst of the Kings of Judah bothers me, because Josephus says no such thing. The following is the entire Josephus text that relates to Amon: "The kingdom came to [Manasseh's] son Amon, whose mother's name was Meshulemeth [sic] of the city of Jotbath. This Amon imitated the works of his father which he so insolently did when he was young: so he had a conspiracy made against him by his own servants, and was slain in his own house, where he had lived twenty-four years, and of them had reigned two; but the multitude punished those that slew Amon, and buried him with his father, and gave the kingdom to his son Josiah". That's it, there's no more. I see your text is cited to Begg; are you sure you are quoting him correctly?
 * In his conclusion, Begg writes "In Josephus' version Jotham and Amon remain basically as they are in the Bible, two minor kings, one markedly good, the other among Judah's worst rulers." Magister Scienta talk 20:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there you are, a "reliable source" (Begg) misquoting what his source says. Nowhere does Josephus say Amon was "among the worst", he merely says he imitated the "insolent" behaviour of his father's youth. I recommend you correct this. Brianboulton (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sold that it should be removed. Isn't Begg just making a scholarly interpretation of Josephus' writings. Begg isn't claiming to having quoted Josephus verbatim, he's just making an observation on how Josephus chose to portray Amon. Thoughts? Magister Scienta talk 03:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that Begg is misinterpreting his source. The content does not support his judgement – not enough information is given, either in the bible or Josephus. And you are compounding the problem, by ascribing Begg's unsupported view to Flavius himself! You say: "Like other textual sources, Flavius Josephus too criticizes the reign of Amon, describing him as among the worst of the Kings of Judah". He doesn't. And what are these "other textual sources" that do? Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed that sentence. the other textual sources are namely scripture. Magister Scienta talk 23:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Per your template headed "Kings of Judah", please note that Athaliah was not a "king" of Judah.
 * I have fixed the heading of the template. Magister Scienta talk 20:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the lead says his idolatrous practices while king led to a revolt against him. There is no information in the article about a "revolt" (a servants' conspiracy is a quite different thing), and what is the basis for saying that this "revolt", if there was one, was caused  by his idolatory? Since the people rose up against the people who killed him, it seems he may have been quite a popular figure. Brianboulton (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This and other elements of the article will be revised after I have the time to go through the Malamat article, which had eluded me for some time. Is there anyway to postpone this discussion? Thanks, Magister Scienta talk 03:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to wait, if FAC will grant you this leeway. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.