Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Antiochus XII Dionysus/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2018.

Antiochus XII Dionysus

 * Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

History is a witness to countless moments where a leader was so close to victory then lost all due to a miscalculation and perhaps stupid courage which lead him to fight in the front lines, getting killed in the process, leading his army to disband and his enemy to prevail. This is the summary of Antiochus XII's mistake. This king was an energetic ruler who seemed to be on the path of regaining the Seleucid Empire’s long lost prestige. He defeated Judea and came close to defeating the Nabataeans. This article will be interesting for anyone who have a soft spot for the Seleucids. Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

 * Different people take different approaches to lead writing. Checking the history of WP:LEAD will give you a flavor of what the arguments are (although that's impractical for just about everyone). To help you get through FAC, I recommend not listing two very long, nearly identical names before you even get to a verb, so I removed the second one, the transliteration. It would be fine to put it anywhere else ... the start of the first section, some infobox, etc.
 * Consistency is needed in the notation for Seleucid years: "88-87 BC", "85/84", "230", etc.
 * It would be best to create stubs for Alfred Raymond Bellinger and Horvat Uza, rather than linking to the Italian and French Wikipedias.
 * "a certain Philotas": probably just "Philotas", or "a [something] named Philotas", or "Governor Philotas".
 * "Alexander Jannaeus as a retribution for the defeat mentioned by George Syncellus": After the first mention, here and elsewhere, don't use their first names.
 * "6th-century": probably sixth-century. At any rate, consistency is needed (for centuries under 10).
 * "Josephus called Antiochus XII the last Seleucid king, which is echoed by Malalas, according to the translation of Glanville Downey, but Antiochus XIII is generally considered to be the last Seleucid king.": Please clarify.
 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Procedural note
, I must've missed something, when did you obtain leave to open a second solo nomination while Philip I Philadelphus is still running? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well the FAC instructions are pretty clear on that point and I figured you'd been around here enough to recall them... Thing is, when an existing nom seems close to consensus for promotion, and the nominator requests leave to open a new one, the coords generally agree. That was probably the case with Philip at the time you opened this one. Because of that, and the fact that I didn't pick up on the situation until now, when someone had already taken the time to review, I think we may as well leave this open -- but pls keep the instructions in mind for next time! Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was also confused by this, which is why I didn't comment yet, but I will return at a later date to review now that it obtained leave. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

 * Might as well start my section, but it will take a bit before I can review. Some preliminary points below. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * One thing I noticed about this and most other articles about Seleucid rylers of Syria, none of them are tagged as part of Wikiproject Syria. Any reason for this?


 * Josephus is not linked or presented. Other historians mentioned are not presented either, only Bellinger.


 * This Citebot edit was reverted, but it does have some valuable changes, such as adding dois, correct dashes between numbers, and abbreviations of Google Books links, which should be retained.


 * Everything linked in the intro should also be linked in the article body at first mention.


 * Link Hadad in caption.


 * "Nabataeans' oil industry" What kind of oil?


 * "This is possibly related to Philip I's attack on Damascus, but this supposition has little support" Then why was he portrayed as bearded?


 * "stretched 28 km" Convert.


 * "and it would logical for the king" Be?


 * "the last Seleucid king was in fact Antiochus XIII" Give date for when his rule ended here?


 * "plain stretching 4 km" Convert.


 * "his Egyptian wife" Only stated in intro.


 * Is this image of any use?


 * Support - looks fine to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from CPA-5
Greetings the page looks good still (I think) I can see some issues in the page. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

"emphasize" (US English), "honour" (UK English), "kilometres" (UK English), "defenses" (US English), "patronised" (UK English) and posible more. Which English should the page use?
 * First, I can see a mix between American English and Britsh English like the words


 * Second, titles like in this case "the Nabatean king, Aretas III" should be capitalised or in this case "the death of the king" it should be too.


 * Third, I also see alot of historians who're not capitalised before their names like
 * "Byzantine monk and historian John Malalas", "historian Glanville Downey", "eighth-century historian George Syncellus",
 * "numismatist Oliver D. Hoover" and more. Which is weird because other historians or other scientist titles are capitalised like,
 * "Archaeologist Nicholas L. Wright", "Historian Uranius of Apamea", "Historian Aryeh Kasher" and more, is there a reason why they are not
 * capitalised?
 * policy


 * Fourth, the date Seleucid era (SE for short) is not used in alot of years why not?
 * Some examples 125 BC, 111 BC, 113 BC, 98 BC and more of those dates were used in the years 88/87 BC as 225 SE, 85/84 BC as 228 SE. Is there
 * a good reason why they shouldn't be used on those years?

Coordinator comment:, do you have more to add here? This FAC has been open a long time now and I think we need to see something happening soon or we will have to consider archiving, even with two supports. In the meantime, I think we still need a source and image review. Sarastro (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It looks good in my view. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Sarastro. What is the minimum number of support votes for an FA ? Now that CPA-5 supported, the article have three.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Three comprehensive supports (meaning not supporting simply on prose, or on sources, but across the FAC criteria) has been the historical minimum but consensus for promotion is not supposed to be about the number per se. In any case, as Sarastro mentions, we need image and source reviews before considering promotion -- you can request them at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Antiochus XII bust.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
 * File:Antiochus XII Houghton 864v.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
 * File:Syria under the Seleucids 87 BC.png: AGFing on some sources, but the image seems fine copyright and use wise. A source reviewer might want to look at these sources if they are so inclined; I don't have the expertise to judge its accuracy.
 * File:Antiochos XII Dionysos & Zeus Aëtophoros.jpg: Use and license seem fine for me.
 * No ALT text in most images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Constantine
The usual thorough work I've come to expect from Attar-Aram syria. I made some copyedits going along, as well as introducing the and  templates. I have a few parts that are not entirely clear: Once these are taken care of, I'll be happy to support. Constantine  ✍  14:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "targeted at the south but not towards expansion within Syria" what exactly was the southern target then?
 * "maintaining a good relationship with the Semitic population of Damascus, who comprised the majority of the inhabitants, in order to avoid tension with Greek settlers." This also leads to some questions: Was there pre-existing tension between the Semitic populace and Greek settlers? Were the Greek settlers the mainstay of Antiochus, and he wanted to appease the Semitic inhabitants? Did Antiochus try broaden his base of support or shift it entirely?
 * "that he alone had a higher command" what exactly does the "he alone" here mean? That Phanias was the sole high official of the kingdom?
 * Currently the first paragraph of the "First Nabataean campaign and the incursions of Philip I" section is a bit unintegrated into the narrative. I strongly recommend moving the "Antiochus' first Nabataean campaign ... writings of Stephanus of Byzantium." part first, then explaining where Stephanus got his info from (the current 1st paragraph), and then modern scholarly views on this account, from Roschinski to Józef Milik.
 * "who betrayed Antiochus XII and opened the gates for Philip I" can be shortened to "who opened the gates to him"; the context is clear.
 * "as evidenced by coins dated to this period" redundant, again, the context of his portrayal on coins is clear.
 * "managed to rally his troops and weathered the attack, although he was killed" is a bit contradictory, I suggest rephrasing to "managed to rally his troops, but was killed..."
 * Hi Constantine, this seems about ready to close, did you want to add anything? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian and Attar-Aram syria, yes, my concerns seem to have been addressed. Good to go. Constantine  ✍  16:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian and Attar-Aram syria, yes, my concerns seem to have been addressed. Good to go. Constantine  ✍  16:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review
The nominator has asked me if I'll do a source review, which I will do over the weekend. More soonest.  Tim riley  talk   18:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Review: The sources are from a wide range of publications, and appear to a non-expert to be authoritative and relevant. They are presented logically and formatted consistently. Two queries: unless I am missing something (a possibility by no means to be discounted) we have two works listed under Sources that are not referred to in the Citations, above: Otherwise I can see no problems with the sources. –  Tim riley  talk   11:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Knauf, Ernst Axel (2009). "The Nabataean Connection of the Benei Ḥezir" etc.
 * Stern, Menaḥem (1987) [1976]. "The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature" etc.
 * --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.