Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Music of Mesopotamia/archive1

Music of Mesopotamia

 * Nominator(s): GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 06:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This is my first time at FAC. I’ll be responsive to making changes during the process, and I'll also ping @Aza24 and @Furius. Thank you! GuineaPigC77 ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 06:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator comments
Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As the nominator is a first time FACer, the article will require a spot check for source to text fidelity.
 * Hi, can I ask if you were/are being mentored per the FAC instructions? "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination."


 * Hi @Gog the Mild, I don't have a formal mentor; it seems I made a mistake. I did read that statement (including the bold part), but took away from this conversation that it was appropriate to proceed without further involvement. I benefited from a lot of mentorship from Aza24 and Furius during the preparation of the article, but it seems my mistake is that the mentorship is supposed to be both formal and also FAC-specific. GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 21:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not obligatory, just strongly advised. Let's see how the nomination goes. Mentoring can definitely be informal, and does not need to be ongoing. Were they aware that you were aiming this article at FAC when they were advising you? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We were discussing a GA goal at that time (summer / fall 2022). Since then, I haven't heard from them except for for this message. I followed Aza24's advice to proceed with the GA nomination and have pinged them a few times, but neither has participated on the talk page since mid-October. GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 22:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Not a problem. FAC can be unexpectedly tough on first timers, and it helps to have a "native guide". But as I said above, let's see how it goes. In the end it's all about the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's on me, I didn't think to check that it was your first FAC (which honestly should have occurred to me based on your questions). Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  20:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It would have been better if I had said so outright. I generally try to be upfront about my inexperience, but this is a case where I definitely should have highlighted it. I will do my best here. GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 21:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to recuse myself as a reviewer here to assist as mentor, and however else I can. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  22:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be wonderful, @Iazyges. I accept! Thanks so much for offering. GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 00:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * A wall of comments but with no declarations of support or opposition - it feels more like a PR than a FAC. There still seems a way to go to achieve any consensus to promote. Unless there are very clear signs of movement towards this over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived, for the good work on the article to be continued off-FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It is with considerable regret that I am going to archive this fascinating article. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Can I urge all involved to continue the good work seen here off-FAC, with a view to bringing it back sooner rather than later. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We have attracted a support and have another review on the way, with a third support contingent on those reviews; does this not constitute "clear signs of movement"? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  00:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not make these decisions lightly, but no, in my opinion it doesn't constitute very clear signs of movement towards a consensus to promote. Having read through this very lengthy page I also believe that it was not ready for FAC when it was nominated and there seems to be some feeling that it still isn't. It has attracted plenty of interest, use that to kick it into shape off-FAC and bring it back stronger. There is no rush, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Driveby comment
Thank you for working so extensively on a top-level article about an ancient culture. I know all too well how difficult that is. This looks like a promising FA candidate, but I think its organization needs adjustment. "Background" is a normal section title in articles about events, but not on broad topics such as this, and well-developed articles shouldn't need "overview" sections, as the lead of the article is supposed to serve as its overview. I think each of the subsections of "overview" ("uses of music", "music education", and "musicians") can be broken out into a top-level section of its own. "Background" is more of a puzzle. The latter two subsections ("surviving works" and "surviving instruments") probably belong in a section titled "evidence", but I don't know what to do with the first section ("context"). Much of it is general information about Mesopotamian civilization that is unnecessary here, while most of the rest seems like it is summarizing information that is found later in the article, in which case it should probably be moved to the lead. A. Parrot (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks A. Parrot for your comments. Airship's mockup makes sense to me and seems to address some of your concerns. Regarding the context section, perhaps we keep the last 4 sentences of the current Context section (beginning with ) and incorporate it into the lead. GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 17:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Phlsph7
I agree with that it looks promising and that something needs to be done about the sections "Background" and "Overview". For "Background", I don't think that we need the subsection "Context" since the reader can look up these details in the corresponding articles. Or keep only the details that are directly relevant to the music. The remaining section could be titled "Historical evidence" or "Surviving artifacts" and should probably be moved somewhere to the bottom of the article. The section "Overview" seems to discuss mostly the role of music in Mesopotamia society. What about renaming it to "Role in society" or something similar?

Would it make sense to have a comparison of the different Mesopotamian civilizations somewhere? For example, concerning the musical differences between Sumerian, Assyrian, Akkadian, and Babylonian civilizations? You are probably more knowledgeable about whether there are important general differences worth discussing.

I've spotted various minor issues with the prose:
 * remove comma after "theory"
 * remove one "known"
 * use past tense for "help"
 * add hyphen "modern-day"
 * use plural: "lengths"
 * replace "was" with "were"
 * is "singed" supposed to be "signed" or "sung"?
 * remove "and" before "painted pottery". Or maybe reformulate the sentence: there are too many commas and "ands"
 * remove comma before "and"
 * add "a" before "boat"
 * replace "which" with "that"
 * replace "provide" with "provides"
 * add "a" before "similar"
 * The text jumps between English variants. If you want to default to American English, you should change:
 * "stylizations"
 * "catalog"
 * Most of the text uses Oxford commas but they are still missing at several locations (see WP:Oxford comma):

Other observations:
 * WP:EARWIG shows no copyright violations
 * User:Headbomb/unreliable shows no unreliable sources
 * User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js shows no duplicate wikilinks
 * There are no unreferenced paragraphs.
 * Some cases of WP:OVERCITE:


 * Thanks for your comments, Phlsph7. As for the bullet points first, I've implemented your suggested changes. The only difference: I used "singed" from the source. An alternative could be "superficially burned" or "seared". More replies coming. GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 16:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding WP:OVERCITE, I used extra citations here given that it's a hefty claim. But we could scale it back to the first two. GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 17:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fast response. The "singed" makes sense to me now. You can avoid WP:OVERCITE by bundling the citations, for example, using Template:Multiref2. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding a comparison of civilizations. While the source articles sometimes have a narrower scope, many of the sources speak broadly about Mesopotamian music. It could be possible to separate them by piecing together the examples offered, but I would be concerned about OR here? Another concern is that there are so many peoples mentioned here that each section would be sparse. GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 17:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be very hesitant about adding a comparison of civilizations if the sources don't do it. Given how much the different groups overlapped and how limited our evidence is, I'm not sure that it makes sense to separate them off as separate traditions to be compared. Furius (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've bundled the refs; feel free to revert, however. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My main reason for bringing up the idea was that these categories play a role in the general history of Mesopotamia. But there is no point in comparing them in the article if they play no important role in the academic literature on the music. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any further concerns about the article? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  06:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see the contents were reorganized in the meantime. It looks better like this. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Short source review
I made a short source review, see below. At two points, there were minor issues with the page numbers but otherwise it looks fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * supported by Burkholder, Grout & Palisca 2014: "The words are written above the double line, the music below". This is page 8, not page 10.
 * Fixed.
 * supported by Collon 2003, p. 99.: "Musicians, dancers, jugglers and acrobats often accompanied religious festivals. An Old Babylonian terracotta disc..."
 * supported by Burkholder, Grout & Palisca 2014, p. 7.: "The earliest composer known to us by name is Enheduanna (fl. ca. 2300 b.c.e.), an Akkadian high priestess at Ur, who composed hymns (songs to a god) to the moon god Nanna and moon goddess Inanna; their texts, but not her music, survive on cuneiform tablets."
 * supported by Hallo & van Dijk 1968, pp. 51–52.
 * supported by Engel 1864, p. 28.:"MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS OF THE ASSYRIANS...The Assyrian bas-reliefs chiefly represent historical events, religions ceremonies, and royal entertain- ments. It is therefore very probable that the Assy- rians possessed several popular musical instruments which are not represented on these bas-reliefs..."
 * supported by Bowen 2019, pp. 28–32. The reference only mentiones 28-9 but I think the additional pages are needed.
 * Fixed.
 * Engel 1864, p. 30.: "The strings were perhaps made of silk, like those which the Burmese use at the present time on their harps, or they may have been catgut, which was used by the ancient Egyptians, one of whose harps thus strung, as I have already mentioned, has been ex- humed."
 * (and the following quote): supported by Mirelman & Krispijn 2009, p. 43. Should our text mention Krispijn as well since both are the authors of this paper?
 * Although in the source it appears the summation comes from O. R. Gurney; I've attributed it to him and cited it to his work. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  17:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * supported by Aruz & Wallenfels 2003, p. 33.
 * supported by Aruz & Wallenfels 2003, p. 33.
 * Believe I have addressed all issues. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  17:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * These references look good now. There is currently a cite error message displayed at the bottom of the page. It was probably introduced somewhere in the process of fixing the references.
 * Fixed, needed a notelist for an added note. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  10:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I had a look at some of the publishers. The article cites a great variety of sources and many of them are by high-quality publishers, like Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Yale University Press, and Brill Publishers. However, I spotted two publishers associated with self-publishing: Trafford Publishing (Dumbrill, Richard J. (2005). The archaeomusicology of the Ancient Near East) and Vantage Press (Polin, Claire C.J. (1954). Music of the Ancient Near East). Phlsph7 (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Polin, Claire C.J. (1954) was "picked up" by academic presses later (presumably after the author realized Vantage was screwing them over); so I've adjusted the date and publisher; page numbers appear the same between versions. Dumbrill 2005 will need to be extricated from the article, and replaced as possible; they were never carried by a reliable press later on, unfortunately.  Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  10:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. We lost a quote and some minor phrases, but I salvaged the Hurrian hymn composers and scribes names. Thanks for catching this. GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 21:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sourcing should be good to go now. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  05:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The issues pointed out have been solved. I would tend to support the nomination but with two caveats. On the one hand, it needs to pass a more thorough source spot check. This one only had a look at 10 references. On the other hand, I'm not qualified to assess whether the treatment of the topic is comprehensive. So another reviewer would have to check whether this criterion is fulfilled. If someone could ping me when these points are fulfilled then I would take a final look. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by a455bcd9
Hi, two comments: a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the period covered in the article? Should it be renamed "Music of Mesopotamia (period)" or "Music of Ancient Mesopotamia"? Because today's music of Mesopotamia includes modern music of Iraq (also known as the music of Mesopotamia).
 * There's no source (and legend) for File:N-Mesopotamia and Syria english.svg.


 * Thanks for your comments, a455bcd9.
 * There was a short discussion about naming at Talk:Music_of_Mesopotamia.
 * I'm not sure what one does here. However, if the article is re-organized and the section "Context" is removed, as Phlsph7 suggests, then perhaps we will remove the map as well?
 * GuineaPigC77 ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 16:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you intending to perform a full review, or were these comments all? Thanks! Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Iazyges, I only had these two comments (that I don't consider resolved). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The image has been removed from the article, and any move should, IMO, take place after this wraps up; thank you for your involvement! Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  08:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Iazyges: got it, thanks! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Airship
First impressions look good. Agree with (a.) parrot above on the section organisation; I've mocked up something in my sandbox about how I would go about it. If I were implementing it, I would trim the context section, to try to keep it music-focused; remove the top-level background and overview sections, as they don't really convey anything, and merge the surviving instruments section into the general instruments section, just for simplicity. The rest is fairly self explanatory. Greatly looking forward to your response! AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Airship, for your comments and mockup. It sounds like overall organization is definitely an issue, so if people like your mockup I can go ahead and restructure the article based on it. GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 15:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that we need the section "Context" but the rest of the mock layout looks fine. I assume the content of the subsection "Surviving works" goes into the new section "Works of music". Phlsph7 (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be worth keeping "surviving instruments" as a separate sub-category of "instruments" (probably the final sub-category), because the vast majority of them come from the same cemetery. I also think that "surviving works" and "music theory" should be separate sections at the same level, since neither is obviously a sub-type of the other (but it makes sense for both of them to go after "instruments"). I agree about moving the final sentences of the "context" section, which deal specifically with music to the lead, and getting rid of the rest of the context section (actually, I think that material should be added to the lead of the History of Mesopotamia article, which is extraordinarily short). Furius (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I tweaked @AirshipJungleman29's outline based on these comments. I also moved the last 4 sentences from the Context section into the lead, and then removed Background and Context altogether. It is in my sandbox. GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 10:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your sandbox looks good. I'll leave you to deal with the current maelstrom, and come back with more comments later. Good luck. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is a better way to organize the contents and to focus on the essential information. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay great, I will make this change. I will address some of the other concerns first, in case others want to adjust the outline before I implement it. GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 18:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I did the big picture shuffling of sections. I think this is more what people have in mind? Feel free to revert. Note that this edit removed the map, as it appeared in the background and context sections. If we still want to include the map, perhaps it could go in the influence section? GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 09:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * , does this article still need a source spot-check? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It does, but as the nomination has so far not attracted a single general support, I was holding off to see how htat went before seeing who might be prepared to do one. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, ping me if the need is there. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Is there anything further before you are prepared to pronounce an opinion on the article? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll do a full review shortly. Thanks for the ping. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Furius
I commented a little bit on this article at an earlier stage, but it's come a very long way since then and I think it is a really good piece of work now. I do have some comments, however, which I'll arrange by section. Mostly, they are very minor matters.
 * Surviving works:
 * We're missing an explicit statement about musical notation (aside from a brief comment in the caption up at the top of the article), which would build on the quotation from Dumbrill. How, broadly speaking does the system work? (this overlaps with the "musical theory" section, so would be a reason for the "surviving works" section to appear immediately before the "musical theory" section.
 * "an Akkadian language tablet" - does it have a name/number? If so it would be useful to include this (in main text or in the note).
 * This is only a suggestion: I think it would be better for the image of the Hurrian songs' tablet to appear in this section. That would open up the issue of what image should go at the top of the article, but I think either an artistic depiction of musicians or another angle of one of the Lyres of Ur could fill that gap.


 * Surviving instruments:
 * The text and image could match up better - the text emphasises the "Golden Lyre of Ur" & the "Bull Headed Lyre", while the image is of the "Great Golden Lyre / Queen's golden lyre" (can you doublecheck the name? If I'm understanding Lyres of Ur correctly, this image actually is of the Golden Lyre and the Queen's lyre is a separate object in the BM). Commons says that the image is partially a replica - it would be better to have an image of an actual artefact, but if that's not practical (I admit, this photo gives a really good idea of the shape of the thing), then the fact that it is a partial replica should be stated in the caption.
 * I don't think it is necessary to describe the "Bull Headed Lyre" as "well-known".


 * Uses of Music: Religion:
 * "Old Babylonian period" - good to give a date range (yes, user can click through, but they shouldn't have to break their flow like that).
 * "balag and shem" - should these words be italicised?
 * No one is playing Ninigizibara, correct? Might it be possible to state that a little more explicitly, if so?
 * Singed bull: I agree with the earlier comment that this is a bit confusing in context. Is the bull alive for this?
 * The second paragraph somewhat gives the impression that all religious songs were laments. Is that right? Elsewhere in the article "hymns" are mentioned.


 * Uses of Music: Secular
 * The seal in the Louvre needs a citation. Ideally that citation would include its inv. number and a link, if it is included in the Louvre's online catalogue. It is a pity that we don't have an image.
 * Were "festivals" a secular context?
 * "they both use Emesal" is confusing because a number of pairs have been mentioned in preceding sentence. Clarify, e.g. "both laments and love songs use"
 * Elam-Anían should be linked.
 * I wonder whether a bit more could be said on the use of music in the army - what was their role exactly? If the section said a little more on this topic, it would also be possible to use File:Bas_relief_Ninive_musiciens_AO_19908.jpg or File:Exhibition_I_am_Ashurbanipal_king_of_the_world,_king_of_Assyria,_British_Museum_(45973108151).jpg as an image for this section.


 * Music education
 * "Professional musicians were first... and then became eligible..."
 * Unlink "numerous settings" - not helpful.
 * " indicate that choral training occurred by 3000 BCE" -> " indicate that by 3000 BCE choral training was occurring". Perhaps too many "which"s in this sentence
 * "Some religious practices were highly specific in teaching music." - is it possible to be more specific? How does a practice teach?
 * "With Ancient Egypt" --> "Along with".
 * Need to be consistent between "edubas" & "edubbas"
 * Is there a date for the school in Mari?


 * Musicians
 * "Gala" is lower case in this section, but was capitalised in the "uses of Music" section. It is a bit awkward that information on the Gala is split between these two sections and I'd suggest moving the material on the instruments played by Gala, at least, to here.
 * "regarded highly" --> "highly regarded"
 * Repetition of "the king kept" is a little awkward. Add links for "Nineveh" "Gilgamesh" and "Assyrian army" (piped, to Military history of the Neo-Assyrian Empire). "sometimes accompanied the king to his grave" - I'd be more explicit about this. Gabbay ought to have a first name.
 * Link Enheduanna in image caption as well as main text. "Ur III" is perhaps confusing and it might be better to stick with "Third Dynasty of Ur".
 * "gala (or gala-mah)" - this is the same as the gala from the previous section? Should gala-mah be mentioned there? "He and his family-owned" remove hyphen?
 * " nin-me-sar-ra": What is this? Do we have any information on whether Enheduanna wrote the music as well as the lyrics for her hymns? If not, that might be worth stating.

Throughout, I think the article could be a little more explicit about whether terms are in Sumerian or Akkadian (e.g. "Gala" is Sumerian, but the article never actually says this; "Eduba" is Sumerian, etc). Obviously, one can't do this for every list of instruments, but for key terms, it seems worth doing. The night is no longer young, so I will stop here for now and look at the rest of the text later (possibly not for a few days, sorry!) 00:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Furius. As I implement them, I'll leave a few notes. Starting with Uses of Music: Religion. More replies coming. GuineaPigC77 ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 07:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Dates added
 * Instrument names italicized per source
 * Ninigizibara. I'm cautious about making any statement about who played the instrument. Bowen states that the balag "was used by the Gala-priest in the performance of Emesal prayers", but later says "the Gala-priest would recite or sing the prayer, often accompanied by instruments and other singers." The issue is further complicated by their religious belief that it played itself. (Since it is the proper name of an instrument-god, I removed the "the" in front of it, and did the same in the lead.)
 * Singed bull. I changed the sentence to “Various parts of the bull were burned with a torch during the ritual.” The source says “...More offerings were made and perfumes burnt. A torch was lighted and the bull was singed. Twelve linen cloths...” and, at the end of a lengthier description, it says, “The bull was then slain, its heart burnt, and the body skinned, wrapped in a red cloth.”
 * Hymns and laments. I generally see these words used interchangeably in this context. Bowen says "The intercessions of the Gala-priest generally took the shape of sung laments..." He also refers to Emesal prayers as "hymnic liturgies".


 * Surviving works:
 * How the notation works. I think the best answer is we don’t know. West (1994) says “On many important points there is a consensus. But on others, including the interpretation of the notation, widely divergent positions have been taken up.” And goes on to say “At present we have four rival decipherments of the notation, each yielding entirely different results.” The closest our article gets to explaining any notation is under Music theory where it says “a tablet from Ugarit lists musical interval names along with two numbers, presumably referring to the two strings plucked”, sourced to Güterbock 1970.
 * I added the tablet number per Kilmer 1971
 * GuineaPigC77 ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 07:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify on this point, I mean simply: how is it written? Do the Hurrian songs use cuneiform characters, separate symbols, or something else? Did they write these symbols in line with the lyrics or in a separate section? Agreed that this overlaps with music theory and could go there, but that section seems much more, well, theoretical. Furius (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I added some material to the discussion of the Hurrian Hymns that addresses these questions, does that work better? GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 08:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Music education
 * I implemented these changes. I re-phrased a few things in the first paragraph, and removed the awkward sentence in which a practice teaches, which seems unnecessary.
 * Working on a date for Mari.
 * GuineaPigC77 ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 11:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Musicians:
 * Implemented the re-phrases and wiki links
 * I removed "gala-mah". The source seems to imply that the gala-mah was in charge of other galas, but does not say so explicitly; later it says they may be synonyms.
 * nin-me-sar-ra. I added that it is a short poem written by Enheduanna, and also added a topical detail that she may have referred to her own songwriting or lyrics. I have yet to see anyone say that Enheduanna wrote the music, just the text for the hymns. For example, Hallo and van Dijk don't mention any melodies in their chapter on her "Life and Work".
 * GuineaPigC77 ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 08:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Surviving instruments
 * Regarding the lyre names. That appears to be correct. According to Woolley 1934, it is called the “gold lyre”. It is a partial reconstruction and is the subject of the looting quote in the body. I adjusted the text and caption. There is much variation in the literature with respect to the names of these lyres, so to be safe I think it makes sense to use the name Woolley gave to it? I think the Lyres of Ur article is misleading in that it jumps between different names from the various sources. I agree that this image shows the shape of it well, and I’d favor it over an image of the original, which is difficult to make out.
 * removed “well-known”
 * GuineaPigC77 ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 12:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Secular:
 * The festivals Collon refers to are in a religious context; I moved it up
 * I re-worked the ambiguous phrase
 * Military. I added a paragraph. It includes a long quote from Marten 1925, which I think illustrates the main idea nicely, does this fit? The images you suggest look great, especially the first one, which has fine details and shows the musicians “squaring off”. If that image is usable I think it would fit well.
 * GuineaPigC77 ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 03:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They don't write scholarship like that any more! I'm pretty sure that the File:Bas_relief_Ninive_musiciens_AO_19908.jpg is fine to use, but Nikkimaria seems more knowledgeable than I am on this. Furius (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears uploader legitimately took the picture, so their copyright is fine, I've added the copyright for the relief itself. It will be fine for use. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  19:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

As in the first half, the standard is generally very high and most of the comments below are pedantic little issues. I'm sure I'm wrong on some points, too.
 * Further comments
 * Instruments: Divinity
 * "Clear evidence for the divination" -> "Clear evidence for the divinity"
 * "The use of determinatives" --> "Determinatives" & I'd switch the semicolon for a period at the end of the sentence.
 * "intended recipients" feels a little jargonish to me. I think the point of the phrase is that the offerings given were intended for the instrument itself (and not for some god or something), but one might take it to mean "intended but not actualised"...
 * italicise "balag"?
 * Gudea: it is odd that the two sentences on Gudea have become separated and that it is the second of these sentences that explains who/when/where Gudea was.
 * "Several balags are known to have been minor gods to the sun-god Utu" - something a little off here. "associated with" or "connected to"?
 * "suggesting that each instrument was" -> "... these instruments were" (seems strange to assume every instrument had this role, rather than just those with the king's name in them)
 * Add a gloss for "Ninigizibara", e.g. "[i.e. a named musical instrument]"
 * This sub-section sits somewhat awkwardly in the "Instruments" section, which is otherwise about types of instrument. I'm not sure if there is an easy solution to that - and "awkwardness" is subjective, anyway. I had thought about moving it to the "uses of music: religion" section, but it's not exactly about "use", either. Maybe, if this sub-section came at the end of the "instruments" section?
 * Instruments: Voice
 * "will never be known" seems a little too strong. But maybe so.
 * "contemporary" is ambiguous - does it mean contemporary with the ancient Mesopotamians, with van der Merwe, or with the reader?
 * Link for "dynamic changes"? I'm not sure why "shake" is used instead of "trill" and it comes as a bit of a surprise to click on "graces" and be delivered to tempo, which doesn't mention that term. (perhaps a wiktionary link would be better?)
 * muse --> goddess ? (since "muse" has Greek mythological baggage)
 * Instruments: Percussive
 * "to produce the rattling sound when shook" -> "that produced the rattling sound when shaken" (this might be a dialectal difference...)
 * "Cymbals were small and massive" --> "Cymbals could be small or massive"
 * "4 types" --> "four types"
 * "rather than sticks" --> "rather than with sticks"
 * The Santur instrument mentioned in the picture is not discussed in text (is it a percussion instrument or a stringed instrument?)
 * Instruments: Wind
 * Link "Hittites"
 * "although some" --> "and some"; "The silver pipes represent" --> "These silver pipes are"; "500" --> "five hundred"; "flutist" --> "flautist" or "flute-player"
 * The word "flute" - here it would probably be good to include the Sumerian word. The reference to tablet viii perhaps goes into a footnote?
 * Link "cylinder seal" and "Nimrud"
 * Instruments: String
 * Link "catgut" (and "silk"?); perhaps "mother of pearl" (and "lapis lazuli" at first mention in the Surviving instruments section?)
 * "a bull-headed lyre is in the bass register" --> "... would be in..." (and for the rest of the sentence).
 * "Hittites" and "cylinder seal" are linked here for the first time, although they have already been mentioned. It's probably best to wait until the order of sections has been fully arranged and then do a thorough check on terms like these.
 * If any of these depictions of lyre-players are on the museums' online catalogues, it might be nice to link to them.
 * Gloss "sammû" (or mention and define the term somewhere in the preceding discussion).
 * I think most of the discussion of tuning here would go better in the next section. The names of the strings could stay here, but even that fits better with the discussion of cyclic musical theory in the next section.
 * Music theory
 * Is a link possible for "diatonic" and "tritone"?
 * Is a bit more explanation of "cyclic theory of music" possible?
 * "would later be called Pythagorean" - I think it would be good to have a link here and a phrasing that makes clearer who called it that and when. It should be obvious that something called Pythagorean is Greek, but actually readers of this article might be primarily musicians or interested in Near Eastern history, so we shouldn't presume familiarity with Greek history if we can help it.
 * italicise the names of the scales and link the Greek names (e.g. Dorian mode).
 * The statement in paragraph 3 that the Mesopotamians used a Lydian scale (implicitly: and only that) and the statement in paragraph 4 that they had a number of scales fit together awkwardly.
 * Give Duchesne-Guillemin's first name / initial. Perhaps it is unavoidable, since this is a technical subject, but I have no idea what these four rules mean. Anything that can be done to spell them out further, or to provide links to other places in WP where the concepts are discussed more thoroughly, would be good.
 * In the "Influence" section the article refers to numerology mysticism in relation to the Greeks, but there is no reference in the article as it stands to the role of numerology in Mesopotamia itself. I think that probably belongs in this section - this would also help counteract the impression currently given in this section that Mesopotamian musical theory was rational and mathematical in exactly the same way as modern music theory.
 * Influence
 * Bahrain - include a link to Dilmun; I don't think it makes sense to include a link to ancient history at this point.
 * The term sinnitu should appear in the Instruments section, not (at least not just) here.
 * It would be good to double-check whether "nefer" actually is Egyptian for "lute". My understanding was that this was an outdated interpretation of the hieroglyph "nefer" (beautiful), now considered to be a depiction of a trachea, not a musical instrument.
 * Is it right to say that the sinnitu has parallels with the Sumerian pan-tur? Shouldn't they be the same thing? "Pandoura" is probably the same thing, also: and is a Roman-period term that appears first in Near Eastern sources, so saying "the Greek pandoura" is a bit like saying "the English gamelan". I guess what these comments are getting at is that this sentence compresses a very wide range of influences over a very broad swathe of time.
 * Why is the image of the lute-player here?
 * Reference to Pythagoras perhaps belongs in the Greek sub-section (and I feel nervous about attributing interest specifically to Pythagoras rather than the Pythagoreans, given how heavily what we are told about him is shaped by later periods).
 * Greek sub-section: I'm not sure the reference to sacrifices to instruments is germane here; it's not a typical feature of Greek religion. In general, I'm nervous about how heavily this rests on Franklin but this seems to be a feature of the current scholarly landscape - there is an article on the Mesopotamian influence on Greek music in the new A Companion to Ancient Greek and Roman Music (2020), edited by Tosca A. C. Lynch & Eleonora Rocconi... also by Franklin (Nevertheless, worth a look and a citation, since things may have changed in 5 years).
 * Persia sub-section: I'd cut the first sentence, which isn't really relevant. "they're" --> "Mesopotamia and Persia were."
 * I'd switch the order of the Persia and Greece sub-sections (since the connection with Persia is closer and starts earlier) and add and.
 * Three bigger thoughts: (1) It surprises me a bit that there's not enough scholarship for a sub-section on the relationship with Egyptian music, as the other major neighbour; (2) This section is very focussed on the influence of Mesopotamian music on other cultures - is there really no evidence for the influence of these (and other cultures) on Mesopotamian music? (3) Is it possible to say anything about the influence of Mesopotamian music on Arab music? In asking this question, I am thinking both of any direct influence (e.g., instruments that are still played today) and of attempts by modern Arabs/Iraqis to draw on Mesopotamian musical traditions (i.e. the sort of thing that classicists call reception studies). With these issues, it may be that these reflect real gaps in scholarship, in which case nothing can be done, of course.
 * End Matter: This looks fine. Maybe add a "see also" section with links to e.g. Parthian music, History of Mesopotamia, Ancient Mesopotamian religion. Furius (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you Furius for your additional comments.
 * I agree that the discussion of tuning is better suited in the Music theory section. I moved it there and also adjusting the surrounding text a bit.
 * GuineaPigC77 ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 05:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Most re-phrases and additional wiki links are done. I plan to do a thorough review of the links.
 * Location of the Divinity of instruments section. I think moving it lower in the Instruments section would work, either immediately before or after the Surviving instruments section? No strong opinion.
 * Heptatonic, diatonic, Lydian scale. I think we could lose the Lydian - it was only mentioned because it points to the example in the accompanying image. In the caption, we can say that Lydian is an example of a heptatonic scale. We can also improve the image by including audio, as is done in the Lydian scale depicted in Heptatonic scale.
 * Pythagorean tuning. I added a wiki link perhaps that works? I'm hesitant to state that Duchesne-Guillemin 1984 "called it" that because it doesn't seem to be that author's original idea, but I could be wrong.
 * GuineaPigC77 ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 22:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well done. I really like the idea of including audio - I always forget that that's a possibility.
 * Pythagorean: I meant something like "this is the tuning procedure known to the Greeks as Pythagorean" or whatever. My point is that the current phrasing ("this tuning procedure would later be called Pythagorean, although the Babylonians had worked out the heptatonic system many centuries before Greece") expects the reader to make the link between "later" and "before Greece". It's not the hardest logical leap in the world, but the music theory section is the most technically complicated in the article, so wherever it is possible to clearly spell things out, it would be good to do so. Furius (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * All of my (many) comments have been addressed and I am now prepared to declare support of this article. I consider it to be well-written, comprehensive, without going into unnecessary detail, extremely well-researched, neutral, stable, and free of plagiarism/paraphrasing. The structure is appropriate (and indeed should provide a model for other ancient culture music articles), with a clear lead and consistent citations. I believe that all media issues have been resolved. Furius (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest scaling up the sheet music and trade routes
 * Suggest adding alt text
 * Captions need editing for style
 * File:Hurrian_Hymn.jpg: what's the copyright status of the photo?
 * Unfortunately I don't think this one is actually PD for the image itself; the credit is to "RS15.30. Photographs by Françoise Ernst-Pradal, French Archaeological Mission to Ras Shamra-Ugarit"; which appears to be published (for the first time?) in 2017. There is a website that claims courtesy was extended, so I'll see if I can't reach out to her and ask for permission to use it on Wikipedia via OTRS. If not, I think we would struggle to justify a non-free image being used, as although it's a good example, there are free equivalents. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've tracked down an email and attempted to contact her, hopefully, she will grant permission. If not, we will have to remove it (and indeed delete it from Commons), I believe. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, @Iazyges. It would be too bad, but Furius prefers a different lead image, and I do think others could work well there. Thanks for reaching out to her. GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 04:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The author has refused to grant permission, so I will go ahead and nominate it for deletion on WikiCommons; we'll have to find something to replace it, if desired. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking on the permission. That's a shame, it's the crown jewel of the images IMHO. I'm open to moving one of the other images up but don't have a strong opinion on which. GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 20:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Iazyges, is this image usable?  GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 17:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've tracked down the file to the British museum, replaced it with a better quality image, and tagged it appropriately, so it is now usable. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  20:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The former lede image was deleted due to the no-permission tag; so I've gone ahead and added the lyre image as the lede image. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * File:N-Mesopotamia_and_Syria_english.svg is tagged as lacking datasource
 * Can perhaps be replaced by a map from SVG near east map series by dates, based on whichever date is most preferable. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * for the map replacement, we have options from 2600 BC to 100 BC (interval of 100 years between), do you have a particular preference? Most of the older maps are sourceless or otherwise poor quality, and about an hour of digging didn't find better options unless we want to try our luck getting one commissioned. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  13:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Iazyges Thank you. Some of our best examples come from the Ur III period and the OB period. What about 2100 BCE. GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 18:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done; are there any prose issues that I should be involved in? It appears you have them well in hand. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  19:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Iazyges Thank you. So far so good. The trickiest concern to address from Furius has been regarding the names and images of the lyres. The Lyres of Ur article is problematic and probably misleading. I'll comment more above, but I see this as the thorniest item at the moment. But overall yes, all the concerns appear doable, so I'm just chugging through. GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 22:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Once the context section is cut back as advised by other editors above, I'm not convinced that a map of Mesopotamia will be required. File:Ancient_Near_East_2100BC.svg is well-cited, but isn't really focussed on Mesopotamia and (in my subjective opinion) is not terribly attractive. Furius (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * File:Hurrian_Hymn_6_interpreted_by_Raoul_Vitale.png needs a tag for the original work, and what is the basis of this interpretation?
 * Done.
 * File:The_Queen's_gold_lyre_from_the_Royal_Cemetery_at_Ur._C._2500_BCE._Iraq_Museum.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:God_Ea,_also_Enki,_holding_a_cup_with_overflowing_water._From_Iraq._Pergamon_Museum.jpg, File:Plaque_with_male_musician_playing_a_harp,_Ischali,_baked_clay_-_Oriental_Institute_Museum,_University_of_Chicago_-_DSC07334.JPG, File:Ishtar_goddess.jpg
 * Done.
 * File:LIstofMusicIms2340.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Santur_babylon2.jpg
 * Done.
 * File:Bull's_head_ornament_for_a_lyre_MET_DP260070_(cropped).jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Plaque_with_musician_playing_a_lute,_Ischali,_Isin-Larsa_period,_2000-1600_BC,_baked_clay_-_Oriental_Institute_Museum,_University_of_Chicago_-_DSC07344.JPG, File:Ishtar_Gate.gif, File:Chaldean_flag.svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * Believe all should be good to go now. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Caption grammar is still pending. For File:Hurrian_Hymn_6_interpreted_by_Raoul_Vitale.png, what is the intended meaning of "interpretation" in this case? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is his attempt to reconstruct the music pattern from what sources remain, interpretations of the work differ between authors; I'll work on image grammar. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there particular sources supporting this interpretation? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's drawn from La tablette musical H-6. Archeologiques Arabe Syriennes 29 – 30; would you recommend citing that in the article? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Has been added; apologies if I'm missing something, what about the caption grammar needs fixing? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Noticed a few issues - captions that aren't complete sentences ending in periods and hyphens where dashes should be used are the most prevalent. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nikkimaria Thank you so much for your comments. I believe I've fixed your first three points, and Iazyges seems to have addressed the rest? GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 23:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)