Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Demetrius III Eucaerus/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2018.

Demetrius III Eucaerus

 * Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a little known late Seleucid king of Syria, whose successes were surprising considering how weak the dynasty was in its last days. His appearance in Judea and defeat of it king, which practically opened the road to Jerusalem for him, left enough impact that he appeared in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Demetrius III is an interesting king and one of the last Seleucids of any military reputation.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Very interesting subject,, many thanks! I made a couple of tweaks of minor things that jumped out at me. Tell me, has this gone through any other review processes? I see it's start-class at the moment, and it's a helluva jump to FA! Although you've also put a helluva lot of work into it! Nice one :)   —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 12:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1
Lead and Background, 1a:
 * "who reigned as King of Syria"—why not simpler? "who was King of Syria"
 * Be aware that most readers will be flummoxed by the quick succession of names in the first para and the start of the second para. For example, "his brother Seleucus VI" is the father's brother or Demetrius III's brother? There are two more brothers mentioned later (the twins). My head is spinning. Perhaps it's hard to avoid, but most of the lead seems to focus not on the subject but his relatives.
 * "With the long civil war, Syria fell to pieces"—are you talking about right now? No, but history is repeated. Now, why "the"? Do we know about it already? Are you likening it to the feuds and foreign interference in the previous sentence? If so, it's unclear. Repetition: "fell to pieces" and "tearing ... apart".


 * "when Antiochus VIII provided a degree of stability which lasted for a decade.[5]" I hope the source has some authority in claiming this. How did he suddenly provide stability, the reader might wonder.


 * You cite (second-hand) Josephus. Who was this person? Is it from private correspondence? Public documents? The surge of names is upon us again at the end of Background. Any chance of a diagrammatic family tree, which you could refer to so we can keep it under control visually, as readers?

A hard read. Tony (talk)  07:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be made easier for readers. Tony (talk)  06:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * @ Well, you might have just done it. How about a summary sentence before you get into the detail saying more or less ^^^that, and then when the barrage of names is upon us, etc., you can just use their first names to distinguish them. That would immediately eliminate any confusion from the repeated names. ——  SerialNumber  54129  07:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley
This is an impressive piece of work, but I have a few comments on the prose. It's rather a pity the article wasn't peer reviewed before being brought to FAC: some of the infelicities could have been weeded out. It will take me more than one go to deal with them; here is the first batch of comments, down to the end of the "Manner of succession" section:


 * Background, family and early life
 * "foreign Egyptian interference" – perhaps tautological: isn't anything Egyptian ipso facto foreign in this context?


 * "destabilize" – the article appears to be in BrE, in which everyone but the Oxford University Press seems to favour "–ise" endings, which, I see, are favoured elsewhere in this article. We have "sympathizers" and "synchronization", true, but "emphasise" (twice), "synchronised" and "synchronisation". Consistency would be desirable.


 * "Antiochus IX killed Tryphaena, while Antiochus VIII was assassinated" – this use of "while" for "and" or "although" or "whereas" or "but" is always perilous, and can take you into the "Miss X sang Bach while Mr Y played Beethoven" territory, not quite avoided here, I think, or in the two later uses of the word in the "Name and royal titulary" section. As Fowler says, "The temporal sense that lurks in 'while' may lead those who use it into the absurdity of seeming to say that two events occurred or will occur simultaneously which cannot possibly do so." When I find myself falling into the trap I often find a semicolon works better than any alternative conjunction.


 * Name and royal titulary
 * Is the absence of italics for "The Jewish War" and "Antiquities of the Jews" deliberate?


 * "neither Eucaerus or Akairos were used" – oughtn't this to be "was used"?


 * Manner of succession
 * "several arguments justify the existence of a collaboration" – the arguments may corroborate the existence, or justify the theory of a collaboration, but they don't justify its existence, surely?


 * "viewed the ascendance of Demetrius III through the context" – does one view things through a context rather than in it?
 * "Josephus' account" and "Josephus' synchronisation" – but elsewhere, with one exception, the possessive form of Josephus is in the usual BrE ess-apostrophe-ess.
 * this guide
 * The guide you quote is not entirely reliable – in the second example, Saint-Saëns, it misspells the name and is wrong about the pronunciation: one does in fact pronounce the s: "Sonsiz" – but is correct in its broad precepts. People speaking the phrase "Josephus's hat" would give it five syllables, i.e. saying "Josephussiz", so ess-apostrophe-ess" is right. I see from Google that there is a book with the title Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible  Tim riley  talk   09:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "of numismatist Arthur Houghton" – you have avoided clunky false titles elsewhere and it would be easy to avoid one here.
 * It's right to introduce your experts at first mention, to put them into context for the reader, but the false title is an inelegant, not to say lumpen, way of doing it, fit only for tabloid newspapers, and is easily avoided. Instead of writing, say, "In 2010 art expert Fred Smith wrote…", just add a definite article: "In 2010 the art expert Fred Smith wrote…", or turn the phrase round: "In 2010 Fred Smith, an art expert, wrote…". The New York Times, which holds out against the widespread use of the false title in American prose, recommends the "Good morning" test: if you can't imagine yourself saying "Good morning, art expert Smith", don't turn his job description into a title.  Tim riley  talk   09:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's right to introduce your experts at first mention, to put them into context for the reader, but the false title is an inelegant, not to say lumpen, way of doing it, fit only for tabloid newspapers, and is easily avoided. Instead of writing, say, "In 2010 art expert Fred Smith wrote…", just add a definite article: "In 2010 the art expert Fred Smith wrote…", or turn the phrase round: "In 2010 Fred Smith, an art expert, wrote…". The New York Times, which holds out against the widespread use of the false title in American prose, recommends the "Good morning" test: if you can't imagine yourself saying "Good morning, art expert Smith", don't turn his job description into a title.  Tim riley  talk   09:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

More shortly.  Tim riley  talk   11:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Concluding batch:
 * The struggle against Antiochus X
 * "Demetrius III and Philip I waged a fierce war against Antiochus X … the latter was…" – "latter" should not be used when there are more than two people or things in question (cf "former").


 * Judaean campaign
 * "convinced Demetrius III to invade Judaea" – if, as it appears, we are in BrE it would be as well to avoid the AmE construction "convince to". Ditto for "convince to defect" later. And I know the AmE use of "due to" as though it were a compound preposition is gradually infecting BrE, but I still think "it would be conquered easily due to the civil war" would be better as "owing to" or "because of".


 * Another incidence – two in fact – of Antiquities of the Jews unitalicised.


 * "6000 Judaean rebels" – elsewhere you use a comma in thousands – "3,000 cavalry" etc.


 * "would have likely conquered Judaea" – unexpected word order. I think the natural BrE form would be "would probably have conquered".


 * Notes
 * Note 6 – is there a word missing towards the end of the second sentence?


 * Note 7 – I'm struggling with "terminus post quem". If I correctly read the text, the defeat was by 93 BC at the latest, which would make that year the terminus ante quem. Or am I misremembering the terms? Whichever terminus you alight at, I think I'd put it in italics. A quick dip in Google books suggests that this is standard in archaeological publications.

That concludes my comments on the prose.  Tim riley  talk   12:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * One more read-through and then I shall be back here to – I hope and expect – add my support.  Tim riley  talk   09:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Now happy to support promotion to FA. Clearly meets the criteria, in my view. It’s a fascinating read, though one has to concentrate: the kaleidoscope of names is slightly dizzying, but plainly unavoidable given the large cast of leading players. The article is balanced and evidently comprehensive, the sourcing is wide and well cited (review below), and the illustrations are judiciously chosen. A fine addition to Wikipedia. –  Tim riley  talk   10:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review
The sources appear to be authoritative, are by a wide range of authors and come from a representative spread of dates, mostly quite recent. No authority is cited disproportionately often, and I see from JSTOR that the most frequently cited authors (Ehling, Leveson et al) are cited regularly there also.

The citation style is consistently applied. One small point: I notice that some references to contiguous pages have the page numbers separated by an en-dash and others by a comma. I'm guessing that the former refer to sentences that start on one page and end on the next, and the latter to two unconnected sentences on successive pages, which is fine. Just checking that it's deliberate. I have no other comments on the sourcing. –  Tim riley  talk   10:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

 * I'll review this soon, first off, there are some duplinks, you cna highlight them by installing this script (it's pretty easy to do): FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "before assuming the thrones" Why plural?
 * "Alfred Bellinger rejected" You present all other writers mentioned.


 * "Coin of Antiochus VIII" You should state his relation to the subject in the caption.
 * "the Syrian king cast aside the epithet Philometor" As you do with Philopator after, I think you can repeat what this word means here (the reader may not remember, and therefore not connect the dots).
 * Since it appears to have importance according to the text, list the various gods depicted on coins in their captions?
 * You now only link Nabataeans at second mention instead of first. Judeans could also be linked.


 * Link Semitic to something? Otherwise, everything looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - another nice article to the Seleucid collection. How many to go? FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Gog the Mild
A fine article, although I agree with Tim Riley's introductory comment above. If you didn't want to have it peer reviewed then submitting a GOCE Request would not have delayed it long and would hopefully have picked up most of the fiddly bits which we are now flagging up.

A general comment. The text contains a high incidence of semi colons. IMO it would read better, and more easily, with fewer. In most cases of their use I would suggest replacing them with a full stop. I have only flagged this up below in the more obvious cases.


 * "He tried to appease the public by giving importance to local Semitic gods" The language here seems clunky. Perhaps something like 'He attempted to appease the public by promoting the importance of the local Semitic gods'?
 * "The Seleucid Empire, based in Syria, disintegrated in the second century BC as a result of dynastic feuds and Egyptian interference; a long civil war led Syria to fragmentation as pretenders from the royal family fought for the throne." Optional, make this two sentences; I see no need for the semi-colon. Non-optional: replace "led Syria to fragmentation". I suggest 'caused Syria to fragment' or similar.
 * "However, almost nothing is known about the early life of Demetrius III, who might have been the eldest son himself, being born anytime between 125 BC and 111 BC" Tense: 'having been born'.
 * "All his Damascene coins have the aforementioned epithets inscribed" It is not clear whether they a) all have all of the (three) epithets inscribed b) all have one, two or three of them inscribed, or c) each have one and only one of the three inscribed. Similarly with Philometor and Euergetes.
 * Looks fine to me.
 * Looks fine to me.


 * Does the epithet Callinicus only appear on coins from Pieria?


 * "Demetrius III probably sought to emphasise his Ptolemaic descent" Optional: '(Egyptian)' or '(royal Egyptian)' after "Ptolemaic".
 * "Eucaerus appeared as a later development" Do you mean to use the word "development" here? If so, what do you mean by it? (I assume, possibly incorrectly, that Eucaerus arose from a mis-transcription and/or a misreading of a text?)
 * "but are handed down through ancient literature only" Optional: 'but are handed down only through ancient literature'.
 * "This war ended in 101 BC and took place in Coele-Syria" Put in chronological order; ie 'This war took place in Coele-Syria and ended in 101 BC'


 * "noting that it was not rare for a king to double his production in a single year during military campaigns, which was the case for Seleucus VI, who was preparing for war against his uncle Antiochus IX" "which was the case..." will be taken by a reader to mean that Seleucus VI "double[d] his production in a single year", which I assume is not your intention.


 * "The academic consensus prefers the year 96 BC for the death of Antiochus VIII." Delete "the year". (It is broadly accepted that 96 BC was a year, you don't need to state it.)
 * "Demetrius III landed in Seleucia in Pieria". "in" twice in three words; perhaps 'Demetrius III landed in Seleucia at Pieria'?
 * Never mind, let it lie.
 * Never mind, let it lie.


 * "Demetrius then... Demetrius III then". Replace one "then" with 'next'.
 * "then it is logical to assume". I think that you should state that it is Ehling who believes that his own reasoning is logical (he would, wouldn't he?) or cite a non-Ehling source supporting the statement.
 * "are evidence that Demetrius III might have refounded Damascus and gave it the dynastic name Demetrias" Tense: 'given', not "gave".
 * ""who possibly also conferred the right of asylum for his capital" Clunky. A minimal change would be to replace "for" with 'on'. (Rights are conferred on someone or something.)
 * "but Demetrius ruled a contracted realm, where the local cults were very important" Is the contracted state of the realm relevant to the level of importance of the local cults? If so please exlain how. If not, delete "contracted" and the comma.
 * " Marrying the supreme goddess indicated that the king considered himself the manifestation of Syria's supreme god and Atargatis' partner, Hadad; the practise was started at an unknown date by Antiochus IV (died 164 BC), who was the first to employ the radiate crown, and who ritually married the goddess Diana, considered a manifestation of Atargatis in Syria, in the deity's most important sanctuary in Hierapolis-Bambyce." [irony] A little on the long side for a sentence. [/irony] Optional: break into two, or, better, three sentences.


 * Link Alexander Jannaeus.
 * Oops. Just checking that you are alert.
 * Oops. Just checking that you are alert.

That's about half way and it's dinner time. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "the king regained Damascus in 221 SE (92/91 BC)" Upper case K.
 * "and none of his Antiochene coins contain a date" 'bear', not "contain".
 * "the Syrian king had 3,000 cavalry and 40,000 infantry. In the Jewish War, Demetrius III commanded 14,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry" Could you put infantry and cavalry in the same order in both examples.
 * "The date of the campaign is unclear in Josephus's account; the year 88 BC is traditionally considered the date of Demetrius III's Judaean campaign, but numismatic evidence shows that coin production increased massively in Damascus in 222 SE (91/90 BC) and 223 SE (90/89 BC); this indicates that Demetrius was securing the necessary funds for his campaign, making the year 89 BC more likely as the date of the invasion." Another overlong sentence.
 * Link Pesher Nahum
 * I was clearly having a bad day.
 * I was clearly having a bad day.


 * "The motive leading Demetrius to attack Judaea might not have had anything to do with the call of the Pharisees; if Alexander Jannaeus took advantage of Demetrius's absence in 93 BC to wrest control of Damascus, then the invasion was probably in retribution against Judaea." Lose the semi colon.
 * "Following the failed attempts" - what failed attempts? If you mean the failed call on the mercenaries to defect then attempts should be singular. (Or you should specify more than one attempt earlier in the text.) Can I suggest 'Following this failed attempt...'?
 * "The Judaean king fled to the nearby mountains; according to Josephus, when the 6,000 Judaean rebels in Demetrius III's ranks saw this, they felt pity for their king and deserted Demetrius to join Alexander Jannaeus." Lose the semi colon.
 * "It is more likely that events in Syria forced Demetrius III to conclude his invasion of Judaea; probably in 88 BC, Antiochus X died while fighting the Parthians, and this must have forced Demetrius III to rush north and fill the power vacuum before Philip I." Lose the semi colon.
 * "According to Josephus, following the conclusion of his Judaean campaign, Demetrius III turned on Philip;[81] during this conflict, which is datable to 225 SE (88/87 BC), soldiers from Antioch were mentioned for the first time in the ranks of Demetrius III, indicating that he took control of the Syrian capital in this year" And again.
 * " According to Josephus, Demetrius III was captured and sent to Parthia; he was treated by the Parthian king with "great honour" until he died of illness. And again.

Solidly and densely referenced to very reliable sources. However:


 * There are several p. or pp. inaccuracies. Eg cites 58, 59, 61 and others.
 * Cite 77 is to Hoover 2011. There are five works by Hoover in the sources, none dated 2011.

That's it for now. Broadly it is looking good. See what you think of my comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There was no need to hurry. You should have pinged me. You have satisfactorily addressed all of my comments. I want to give it a final read through before supporting, but I don't anticipate problems. You have produced an impressive article. Congratulations. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  16:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.