Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Odaenathus/archive1

Odaenathus

 * Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Odaenathus, king of Palmyra, king of kings of the East, saviour of Rome (at least in the minds of Roman writers), and the actual reason for Palmyra's rise! His wars against Persia healed the wounded pride of Rome which was shattered by the capture of emperor Valerian, the first Roman emperor to be captured by an enemy! But Odaenathus is overshadowed by his wife, Zenobia, and thats why not a lot of people know his story even though Zenobia contributed nothing to the power of Palmyra; she merely used what her husband built, including his army, generals and resources. Yet, she gets all the glory; the idea of a warrior queen is more attractive for people. I tried to give him the article he deserves, and I hope reviewers will enjoy this read. The article is already GA, and was copy-edited by the very helpful Gog the Mild.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * Suggest adding alt text


 * File:Odenaethus_bust.jpg: source link is dead - I found an available archive link but it gives a different licensing from the current tag
 * Seems it might have originally been non-commercial (which is not allowed). Or do you remember if it was the current licence back when you found it? FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I found the current location of the image, seems to be free, no? The licence and link just have to be changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * File:Bas_relief_nagsh-e-rostam_al.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work


 * File:Hairan_I.jpg: I am not sure why the given tag was applied, please explain
 * (see here ), image


 * File:Antoninian_Vaballathus_Augustus.jpg: source link is dead, should include an explicit tag for the original work


 * File:Dynt2.png: what is the source of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this Nikkimaria. Is it all satisfying now?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

 * I'll have a look soon. In case the second bust image has to be deleted, we're lucky we got that second one from Copenhagen... FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Zenobia is duplinked in pretty close proximity. I think I once linked the duplink tool, but here it is again:
 * The names of various persons and places could be linked in the image captions.
 * Any reason why this image is not used?
 * There seem to be some much more recent European depictions of Odaenathus (and Zenobia) which could maybe be fun to show under legacy?
 * Link Palmyrene Kingdom in the intro, or would that just be a redirect to Palmyrene Empire?
 * I think you told me once the busts are identical, perhaps state if that's the case?
 * it is more probable that the portraits shown in the article now do not represent Odaenathus. this link and this (photo of the upper part of the bust showing the opening for inserting the rest of the tiara).
 * Interesting, You think that info is too much to incorporate into the article? And how about this image? As for non-commercial, I have no idea how it was decided, but I think it's due to the "used for any purpose" statement. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "and 'Ôden in Aramaic" But isn't Palmyrene a form of Aramaic? Which would mean that 'Ôden is in some specific other kind of Aramaic?


 * "the name of his father, Hairan" and "Hairan could also be of Aramaic etymology". I think this could be stated more ambiguously than saying one thing in the text and another in the note. I think the note should be consolidated into the main text, so it doesnø't seem like you are contradicting yourself.


 * "No images of Odaenathus have been discovered" Rather no definite images? If there are several that could be him, we can't say no images?


 * "thus, he cannot be a son of Hairan son of Odaenathus (I).[17][41] Therefore, it is certain that King Odaenathus is the builder of the tomb" Why is this present tense, when the preceding text is oast tense?


 * "and Hairan son of Maliko son of Nasor (left)" I think you could mention in the caption that it may be a relation of Odaenathus, to establish why the image is relevant?


 * Is there any speculation of why Odaenathus was chosen for his ranks?


 * There is no mention of Odaenathus in the Edessa section, could he somehow be placed in context within that section? Or maybe that entire section should just be shortened a lot and merged with the text at the beginning of rise?
 * I think it works much better now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it works much better now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "while Balista was captured and executed by the King in autumn 261" Until this point, it seemed like Balista and Odaenathus were allies? Why was Balista killed? Or does "the king" not refer to Odaenathus?
 * Much clearer now, but "when it became clear that Gallienus will eventually win" should be past tense (would)? FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Much clearer now, but "when it became clear that Gallienus will eventually win" should be past tense (would)? FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding "the King", I think King should only be a capitalised when part of the name? Such as King Odaenathus?


 * "derived from the Aramaic root" duplink since it is already inked in the first section?
 * I think sometimes it doesn't recognise them if the other link is a redirect rather than a direct link. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think sometimes it doesn't recognise them if the other link is a redirect rather than a direct link. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "two inscriptions in Palmyrene dialect" Palmyrene link should be moved to first section instead.


 * "destroyed the Jewish city of Nehardea" Link Jewish?


 * "Jews of Mesopotamia" Perhaps link to History of the Jews in Iraq or Babylonian captivity instead of just Jews? I see it is linked all the way under Legacy and reception.


 * "and freeing Edessa and Carrhae" Is it perhaps biased to say they were "freed"?


 * "rowned his son Herodianus (Hairan I)" He should be linked at first mention in the article body.
 * I see, was searching for "Herodianus". FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, was searching for "Herodianus". FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Since King of Kings is discussed here, I might note it is currently nominated for GA... May benefit from the look of an expert.
 * There seems to be little to no mention of Zenobia from during Odaenathus' lifetime? Had she no significance until he died?
 * Seems it could warrant at least a footnote here then? FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems it could warrant at least a footnote here then? FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "to face an influx of Germanic riders attacking Anatolia" Anything to link?


 * "the story is neglected by most scholars" Or ignored?


 * I don't understand why you have two different bulleted lists repeating much of the same information before and after "Instigators and motives theories". Why not consolidate the two?


 * "meaning that Odaenathus' eldest son and co-king was Hairan Herodianus" What is meant by this? Now it reads like that was his entire name, though the preceding text implies it is the same name in two languages?


 * A lot of terms in the burial section could be linked, such as Mummification, inhumation, sepulchral, architrave.


 * "that Maeonius was proclaimed emperor for a brief period" Emperor of what? And if Palmyra, how come a different title than Odaenathus had?


 * "two Persian tigers" reading this, I would think it refers to a population of tigers from Persia, but the image caption says "he Persians who are depicted as tigers". Could this be consolidated? And how is it known they represent Persians?
 * Interesting, by the way, that tiger population is now extinct, so perhaps say "once common". FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting, by the way, that tiger population is now extinct, so perhaps say "once common". FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Shoudn't the tiger image be listed in the paragraph that discusses his depictions?
 * I meant more just a mention, but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant more just a mention, but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "hence, Odaenathus merely retook abandoned city" Cities?


 * "Septimius Odainat, romanized as Odaenathus" Shouldn't the title of the article be shown first?
 * Yes. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "largely at the mercy of the Persians" Links to the modern country of Iran, is that appropriate?


 * "Odaenathus attacked the remaining usurper and quelled the rebellion. He was rewarded with many exceptional titles by the Emperor" Not sure if I missed something, but I didn't understand this from reading the article body itself? It could probably be made clearer.


 * Support - another important Syria history article down, looking forward to what you'll present next. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack
Looks good!
 * (see here)


 * "Odaenathus" is the Greek transcription of the King's name – the intro says its latinized?


 * his name, 'Dynt, the name of his father, Hairan, and that of his grandfather, Wahb-Allat, are Arabic, – above it was stated that it was Palmyrene


 * SE (Seleucid year)) – is it possible to get rid of the double bracket?


 * Image caption: Odenaethus' bust from the museum of Palmyra – It was stated in the text that the attribution of any busts to Odaenaethus is far from sure. Maybe indicate this ambiguity in the caption.


 * In two image captions you use the spelling Odenaethus, is that a typo?


 * Bilingual inscriptions from Palmyra record the title of the Palmyrene ruler as ras in Palmyrene – This confuses a bit as it seems to be in contradiction with the preceding sentence. Only in the next sentence it becomes clear – a bit to late, it disrupts reading flow.
 * Section "Ras of Palmyra" – shouldn't most of the content under "Rise" also fall under this heading, as it is about the Ras?
 * the Palmyrenes might have elected Odaenathus to defend the city. – Shouldn't this be discussed together with and its incursions which affected Palmyrene trade,combined with the weakness of the Roman Empire, were probably the reasons behind the Palmyrene council's decision to elect a lord for the city in order for him to lead a strengthened army? These very similar sentences are completely separated.


 * after Philip the Arab – I would add "Emperor Philip the Arab", to help readers like me that are unfamiliar with the less famous Roman emperors.


 * to occupy the area; while – I would not use ";" together with "while" here. Either the one or the other.


 * Odaenathuss – Should it be with apostrophe?


 * After this year, a governor, Septimius Worod, was appointed for the city of Palmyra – was this a roman governor?


 * The evidence for the second campaign is meager; Zosimus is the only one to mention it specifically. A passage in the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle is interpreted by Hartmann as an indication of a second offensive. – So this Sibylline was written by Zosimus? Not entirely clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

LouisAragon
A great article Attar. This is my second or third review, so go easy on me ;-))


 * "Mlk Mlk DY MDNH" (Western Aramaic)" -- Did any other rulers of Palmyra/Syria hold this title?
 * If its only attested for two rulers, it might be valuable to explain/mention this full title in the body of the article. For example "Mlk Mlk" is already mentioned separately, but "DY MDNH" is not as far as I can see. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
 * If its only attested for two rulers, it might be valuable to explain/mention this full title in the body of the article. For example "Mlk Mlk" is already mentioned separately, but "DY MDNH" is not as far as I can see. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.


 * "By 263, Odaenathus was in effective control of the Levant, Mesopotamia and Anatolia's eastern region." -- When I click on Mesopotamia, it shows "Upper Mesopotamia". Did Odenaethus take all of Mesopotamia (including Sasanian-ruled Mesopotamia) or just the Roman-held parts?


 * In the first alinea of the body, you mention several foreign names/words (including Palmyrene, Arabic and Aramaic) without using italics. In the rest of the article, you do use italics however for all foreign languages.


 * "Byzantine historians of the sixth century, such as Procopius, referred to him as "king of the Saracens", meaning of the Arabs." -- Suggestion: add a link to "Byzantine".

More later. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "The tribes attacking Anatolia were probably the Heruli who built ships to cross the Black Sea in 267 and ravaged the coasts of Bithynia and Pontus, besieging Heraclea Pontica." -- Suggest adding a link to "Pontus"; either Pontus (region) or Bithynia and Pontus. If you're going to choose the latter, please remove the link to Bithynia (Captain Obvious, I know).


 * Support - Read the article two more times but couldn't really find anything. This article is extremely well referenced and written in full compliance with the FA criteria. A superb piece of work. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Coord note
Don't think I could see a source review for reliability and formatting -- you can request at the top of WT:FAC if necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Source review - pass
I'll have a look at it. Give me a little time. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Citations 4, 14, 25, 27 have their harv links to their sources broken.


 * Altheim et al (1965) is incorrectly labelled as Altheim & Stiehl.


 * Matyszak (2004) is listed under sources, but not referred to.


 * Eight cites use "p." (not pp.) when referring to multiple pages.


 * Brown (1939) should give the page number range; as should Cataudella (2003), De Blois (2014), Drinkwater (2005), Gawlikowski (2005a), Hartmann (2008) and (2016), Kaizer (2009), Klijn (1999), Kropp & Raja (2016), Potter (2010), Powers (2010), Sartre (2005a), Teixidor (2005), Wadeson (2014), Wintermute (2011).


 * Butcher (1996): has something gone wrong with the formatting? (Several faults, hopefully self evident.)
 * link)


 * Damascus and Palmyra: a journey to the East: needs an upper case J


 * Maximinus to Diocletian and the 'crisis': needs an upper case C


 * Kaizer (2008): could we turn the upper case into title case please.
 * link)


 * Vervaet (2007): title case please.


 * Cooke (1903): ISBNs did not exist in 1903. Are you referring to a later edition?


 * I consider Gibbon a seriously unreliable source. Could you not find other sources for the two occasions on which you cite him?

With the exception of Gibbon the sources used appear reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No problem. A pleasure to work on this excellent quality article again.


 * Cite 228 has a broken harv link.
 * Page number range missing for Kuhn.
 * Kaizer: It doesn't matter what the title etc is in the original, the MoS requires it to be given in title case. (It's a bizarre title IMO, but that's not our problem.)
 * Butcher: See above. But I see what you mean about the rest. A little odd, but it is what it is.
 * Gibbon: it the limited way you use I suppose that it is acceptable.
 * Butcher: See above. But I see what you mean about the rest. A little odd, but it is what it is.
 * Gibbon: it the limited way you use I suppose that it is acceptable.
 * Gibbon: it the limited way you use I suppose that it is acceptable.
 * Gibbon: it the limited way you use I suppose that it is acceptable.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)