Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Antiochus XI Epiphanes/archive1

Antiochus XI Epiphanes

 * Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

When Alexander the Great died, his generals split his empire, and the Hellenistic period started. The Seleucid empire is probably the most intriguing polity that rose out of Macedon, but its weakness was the civil wars between its princes. The last civil war began when two rival half-brothers, Antiochus VIII and Antiochus IX died in 96 and 95 BC respectively. For the next decade, Syria was split between six kings, five sons of Antiochus VIII and the son of the IX. This article is about Antiochus XI, the king who enjoyed the shortest reign, yet, like most members of his dynasty, his story is a pleasure to read, despite having only few coins and couple of short lines in the works of ancient historians mentioning him. I planned on bringing the articles of the six kings to FA, and, after almost a year and a half, this is the last article. It was copy-edited by a guild editor, and I made sure it satisfy the FA criteria. Cheers.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * Don't use fixed px size


 * All of the coins should include an explicit copyright tag for the coin itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

 * I'll read soon, but as usual, some preliminary comments. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You could link the people and terms mentioned in the image captions.
 * There are a bunch of duplinks.
 * No Wikiproject Syria tag? It even has a Greece tag, which seems less relevant...


 * "The name Antiochus is of Greek etymology" Not sure if the term etymology can be used like that? But as I'm not a native English speaker myself, I'll ping, who I suspect has a better grasp...


 * Hi . For some reason I didn't get the ping, but I was browsing this review anyway, looking for what I missed when I copy edited that others had picked up; always trying to improve. IMO, this is a perfectly acceptable usage. (Etymology can be used in two different ways; this is an example of the less common one.) One may prefer a plainer 'The name Antiochus is of Greek origin', but I feel that Attar-Aram Syria is looking to convey a little more subtle. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Maybe you also have a view on the "do not mention much details" sentence mentioned below... FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I missed that. *red face* Well picked up. You were correct, and the current formulation, "many details", is acceptable. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! I was unsure about both, so good to get confirmation... FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Seleucid dynasty should be linked at first mention in the article body.


 * Link Cilicia in body?


 * "On all jugate coins, Antiochus XI was portrayed in front of Philip I" How is it known which is which? They look pretty identical?
 * Maybe this could be clarified in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe this could be clarified in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "where his unattractive features and stoutness are emphasized" This seems incongruenct with "luxury and magnificence"? What underactive features are emphasised?
 * Could perhaps be clarified in the article, but only if the sources do. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Could perhaps be clarified in the article, but only if the sources do. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "but estimating the annual die usage average rate of the King suggests a reign of several months" Since you present a counterclaim to another claim, you should probably state who made the counterclaim too.


 * "However, the historian Glanville Downey, observing Malalas' writing style" In what language?


 * "do not mention much details" I think this should be "many details".


 * Support - that's all from me, nice seeing this long project nearing completion! FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Support from Constantine
Will start my review soon. Constantine  ✍  14:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * at the hands of his minister in 96 BC. Who was that minister? Either mention his name (and link if he has an article) or, if he is not important, simply omit this entirely.
 * (Optional) Before starting the analysis of the coinage, I would perhaps place an introductory statement, something like "Much of the speculation is based on numismatic evidence."
 * highlighting that the vow was fulfilled I would link here to the section below, to make clear just how the vow was fulfilled.
 * I would recommend adding a map, with at least Antioch, Mopsuestia and Tarsus highlighted (either reuse your maps from other articles, or use ).

That's all from me. I did a few minor copyedits here and there, but the article, as usual, reads well. I am afraid that the casual reader will be a bit overwhelmed with numismatic information, but I understand its necessity, and much of the discussion is in the footnotes, so I don't really see a WP:SS problem. Not really my area of expertise, but it certainly appears to be a thoroughly researched article, again as usual. Constantine  ✍  08:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Happy to support, once again well done! Constantine  ✍  13:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Happy to support, once again well done! Constantine  ✍  13:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild

 * I have made some minor copy edits which you will want to check.
 * "a period characterized by the constant civil war". Grammatically you should say either "a period characterized by constant civil war" or "a period characterized by the constant civil wars".
 * "and a quick succession in Antioch, the capital of Syria, of Antiochus IX" You can't use "succession" in that way. It is, by definition, an instantaneous event. A minimum change would be to 'and the succession, in Antioch, the capital of Syria, of Antiochus IX'. (Note the additional comma.) Or do you mean 'the successive successions'? Plus that entire sentence is confused. I remember noticing that when I copy edited; I meant to come back when I had read the rest of the article and actually understood what it was trying to say. I forgot to; sorry. Could we try and come up with something now which is a little more comprehensible? Maybe breaking it into several shorter sentences?
 * "Antiochus XI declared himself king together with his twin brother Philip I." Do you mean 'jointly with'?
 * "but the numismatic evidence proves otherwise, as the earliest coins show both brothers ruling jointly". Can I suggest "proves" -> 'suggests'. I don't see how it can be proven; it is possible, however improbable, that a very early coin of Antiochus XI ruling alone will be discovered tomorrow.
 * "tryphé": I believe that this is a foreign word, and should be in italics at each mention. Could it also be linked at first mention.
 * "when evidence of a coin struck by him in Antioch was published" This seems an odd formulation. Possibly "evidence" -> 'an account'?
 * "Philip I kept the royal title but remained in the city which was his base". Why "but"? Would 'and' fit better? Or 'while remaining'? "but" seems to beg a question.
 * "estimating the annual die usage average rate" I think that you mean 'estimating the average annual die usage rate'?
 * "with Antiochus XI leading the army in the field" Suggestion only, "army" -> 'armies'.
 * I think that it is fine. You have polished out the only real rough spot I could find.
 * I think that it is fine. You have polished out the only real rough spot I could find.


 * Optional: IMO much or all of notes 2, 3, and 5 would be better in the text. However, I realise that tastes on this differ and so this is a suggestion only.
 * Fair enough.
 * Fair enough.

Solid work. Makes comprehensible a very confusing period.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Another fine article on the period. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * Spotchecks: I have carried out a smple of spotchecks for verifiability. Mostly these check out but there are a few minor issues:
 * Ref 2: Downey 2015, p. 68: ARTICLE: "The capital of Syria, Antioch, was named after Antiochus, father of Seleucus I, the founder of the Seleucid dynasty;" SOURCE: The source appears to ascribe the founding of the Seleucid dynasty to the gods Zeus and Apollo.
 * Ref 38: Wright 2011 p. 46: ARTICLE: "Drawing his legitimacy from his father, Antiochus XI appeared on his coinage with an exaggerated hawked nose, in the likeness of Antiochus VIII". SOURCE checks out, but p. refce should probably be pp. 45–46
 * Ref 45: Rigsby 1996 p. 466: ARTICLE: " Eusebius' statement is doubtful because in 86 BC, Rome conferred inviolability upon the cult of Isis and Sarapis in Mopsuestia, which is proven by an inscription from the city." SOURCE does not refer to Eusebius' statement, which is probably contained on the page before the preview and the page refce should reflect this.
 * Ref 45: Rigsby 1996 p. 466: ARTICLE: " Eusebius' statement is doubtful because in 86 BC, Rome conferred inviolability upon the cult of Isis and Sarapis in Mopsuestia, which is proven by an inscription from the city." SOURCE does not refer to Eusebius' statement, which is probably contained on the page before the preview and the page refce should reflect this.
 * Ref 45: Rigsby 1996 p. 466: ARTICLE: " Eusebius' statement is doubtful because in 86 BC, Rome conferred inviolability upon the cult of Isis and Sarapis in Mopsuestia, which is proven by an inscription from the city." SOURCE does not refer to Eusebius' statement, which is probably contained on the page before the preview and the page refce should reflect this.


 * Links to sources are all working, per the external link checker tool
 * Formatting:
 * Josephus 1833 is listed as a source but is not cited
 * Downey 2015 requires "Press" not "Pres".
 * Downey 2015 requires "Press" not "Pres".


 * Quality and reliability: Sources appear to be appropriately scholarly, and to meet the FAC criteria for quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)