Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portraits of Odaenathus/archive1

Portraits of Odaenathus

 * Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

When the article of Odaenathus king of Palmyra appeared on the main page in 19 November, an image of a sculpture reportedly depicting him accompanied. Sadly, the sculpture with a 99% chance does not depict the king. We actually do not know how he looked like, but we do have portraits that are more likely to represent him, some of those sculptures are lost, and we only have photos of them. This article trace every single possible depiction of the king, and clarify what portraits do not represent him despite being promoted more than the ones that might be actual depictions. The article is definitely for lovers of obscure artifacts and antiquities, and was copy-edited by Miniapolis to guarantee its reading quality.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Given the length of the article the lead should be considerably longer, and could an image be placed there? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto
Art history and ancient history in one: definitely something in my wheelhouse to hopefully get me back into the swing of reviewing articles! I've read through to the end of the section on limestone portraits, so more tomorrow, but some comments now before I go to bed:


 * I am surprised at only a single-paragraph lead for a 3000+ word article.


 * The first sentence to me seems a little awkward in order to coerce the phrase "Portraits of Odaenathus" into being the opening words of the article. Perhaps something like The only clearly-attributed Portraits of Odaenathus, king of Palmyra (260–267) to survive are three a few small clay tokens (tesserae), though several larger stone carvings and one mosaic are thought to depict him.


 * Palmyrene portraits were generally abstract, depicting little individuality. Is abstract the right word here? I wouldn't describe this sculpture as abstract!  Compare this Brancusi sculpture.
 * Abstract does have more than one meaning, but given that in art history it has a specific technical meaning when discussing the style of an artwork, it is probably best to avoid using it with a different meaning when discussing the style of a sculpture. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Abstract does have more than one meaning, but given that in art history it has a specific technical meaning when discussing the style of an artwork, it is probably best to avoid using it with a different meaning when discussing the style of a sculpture. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * he assumed the title of King of Kings in 263 and declared his son Herodianus co-ruler. The title was traditionally held by Near Eastern Seleucid and Parthian rulers and Sassanian monarchs: "the title" presumably being "King of Kings", but this is a little awkward because the two references to the title are separated by Herodianus' co-rulership.


 * the heads were part of a monumental, frontal kline in the exedra of a tomb; an example of such composition is the hypogeum of the Palmyrene noble Shalamallat I realise some articles are unavoidably more technical than others, but here we have three very technical terms (kline, exedra, hypogeum) in quick succession; kline has been previously defined (assuming that a frontal kline is not a different thing from a funeral kline!), but the other two words require me to follow links to work out what they mean.
 * The historian Udo Hartmann also considered Ingholt's arguments unconvincing, and his identification arbitrary. Two sources of potential confusion here. Firstly, the "also" apparently refers to Parlasca's rejection of Ingholt's theory, but the most recent scholar to be discussed, who we naturally assume the "also" points to, is Balty. Balty's judgment of Ingholt's theory is not established in the article.  Secondly, though Parlasca clearly finds Ingholt unconvincing, it is not established that he finds it arbitrary, but the flow of the sentence suggests that "also" applies to both "unconvincing" and "arbitrary".
 * That's precisely my problem.  The structure of the paragraph is: 1. Parlasca disputes Ingholt's argument.  2. Balty has an opinion.  3. "The historian Udo Hartmann also considered Ingholt's arguments unconvincing, and his identification arbitrary".  The obvious reading of this is that Balty's opinion is that Ingholt's opinion is unconvincing.  But that's not Balty's opinion.  So the reader then has to track back through the paragraph to find who the "also" actually refers to.  It's confusingly written. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's precisely my problem.  The structure of the paragraph is: 1. Parlasca disputes Ingholt's argument.  2. Balty has an opinion.  3. "The historian Udo Hartmann also considered Ingholt's arguments unconvincing, and his identification arbitrary".  The obvious reading of this is that Balty's opinion is that Ingholt's opinion is unconvincing.  But that's not Balty's opinion.  So the reader then has to track back through the paragraph to find who the "also" actually refers to.  It's confusingly written. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Three head sculptures were excavated from a hexagonal tomb in Palmyra's northern necropolis when were they excavated?
 * Both portraits are influenced by a model, which (given the massive, square skull) may have been the Gallienic model for the Damascus portrait. Explain what is meant by "model" here – the usual meaning clearly does not apply.
 * As demonstrated by Parlasca, most of the oversized limestone heads with thick necks were connected to funeral practices as sarcophagus lids this has previously been described as something Parlasca "considered" rather than something that he had "demonstrated" – a very different thing!

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Part the second:


 * reminiscent of similar crowns worn by many contemporary Eastern monarchs from Commagene, Hatra, Osroene, several Parthian kings, and seen in some portraits of Ardashir I This starts out as a list of place names, but then we get "Parthian kings" and "portraits of Ardashir I".
 * My objection is that "many contemporary Eastern monarchs from [...] several Parthian kings" is ungrammatical. One list ("many contemporary Eastern monarchs from Commagene, Hatra, [and] Osroene") is embedded in another ("similar crowns worn by many contemporary eastern monarchs, several Parthian kings, and seen in some portraits of Ardashir I") in a confusing way. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My objection is that "many contemporary Eastern monarchs from [...] several Parthian kings" is ungrammatical. One list ("many contemporary Eastern monarchs from Commagene, Hatra, [and] Osroene") is embedded in another ("similar crowns worn by many contemporary eastern monarchs, several Parthian kings, and seen in some portraits of Ardashir I") in a confusing way. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * In Balty's view, the Damascus token confirms that the missing part of the tiara portrait's headdress is a royal tiara, and the sculpture depicts Odaenathus; it cannot be Herodianus, since the subject has a beard. from the point of view of a non-specialist, it seems as though a crucial part of the logic here is missing: why can the portrait not be of (a) Herodianus later in his reign (I guess from the article on him that he was still young when he died) or (b) some other Palmyrene ruler?
 * I'm not suggesting that you should argue with Balty's conclusions; merely explain them! That Herodianus and Vaballathus died young and therefore would not have been depicted with beards is a perfectly cromulent explanation, and the conclusion I in fact came to, but I had to read the articles on Herodianus, and on the Kingdom of Palmyra, to work it out. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that you should argue with Balty's conclusions; merely explain them! That Herodianus and Vaballathus died young and therefore would not have been depicted with beards is a perfectly cromulent explanation, and the conclusion I in fact came to, but I had to read the articles on Herodianus, and on the Kingdom of Palmyra, to work it out. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The piece is poorly preserved and fragmentary; its hair begins on the centre top of the head with long sparse strands, which are carved flat and held by a diadem. it's not clear to me why these two clauses are joined by a semicolon.
 * This tessera, also in Damascus, depicts a king in a tiara on one side; a ball of hair in chignon style is attached to the back of the head. Weird phrasing. What's wrong with "This tessera, also in Damascus, depicts a king in a tiara on one side; he wears his hair in a chignon"?
 * Nonetheless, describing someone's hairstyle as "a ball of hair attached to the back of the head" is very odd. It's so odd, in fact, that it makes me wonder if what is being described is not Odaenathus' hairstyle, but some kind of decorative wig? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, describing someone's hairstyle as "a ball of hair attached to the back of the head" is very odd. It's so odd, in fact, that it makes me wonder if what is being described is not Odaenathus' hairstyle, but some kind of decorative wig? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * the portrait of Herodianus on the lead token: as the portrait of Herodianus has only so far been mentioned once, briefly, in a separate section, it might be worth re-establishing what it is – I had to search up through the article to work out what was being talked about here.
 * Le tableau de Bellérophon (The Table of Bellerophon). Whose translation?  "tableau" can mean table, but I would imagine that the sense here is closer to "The Picture of Bellerophon".
 * divided into two tables of equal dimensions; The table depicts a galloping rider attacking a rearing tiger; The composition of the table; Two eagles fly at the top of the table: initially I thought that these parts of the mosaic might be physically raised from the rest, but in the context of "The Table of Bellerophon", I strongly suspect that they are actually just bad translations from French.
 * pants, tunic, and a kandys per MOS:COMMONALITY, I would be inclined to write "trousers" rather than "pants".

That's it for the line-by-line comments: general thoughts and a look at the sources to follow. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

A couple more thoughts having read through the whole article and thought it over for a while:


 * I am surprised that there is no further discussion of the "small clay tesserae" which "were found in Palmyra with impressions of the king and his name" given that these are apparently the only surviving images certainly of Odaenathus!


 * Information given about different possible portraits is erratic. It's especially noticeable in the discussion of the Istanbul and Copenhagen heads, where we learn in a note that the Istanbul head was acquired by the museum after 1895, but no corresponding information about the Copenhagen one.  Similarly, the section on the Damascus and Palmyra heads gives the date of discovery of the Palmyra head to the day, but nothing on the discovery of the Damascus head.  In general I would like to see more information on the provenance of all of these objects.
 * I nowhere suggested that you delete information. I am just surprised that there isn't any more detail on the provenance of the Copenhagen head – works in major European museums generally have reasonably well documented provenances, or failing that documented lacks of provenance.  If the information isn't available, it isn't available. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I nowhere suggested that you delete information. I am just surprised that there isn't any more detail on the provenance of the Copenhagen head – works in major European museums generally have reasonably well documented provenances, or failing that documented lacks of provenance.  If the information isn't available, it isn't available. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, inventory numbers of artworks, while useful information, are a distraction to most readers in running text – I would demote all of them to notes.


 * The heads are full replicas, intended to represent the same person; their similarities are not the result of a workshop's standards is presented as fact rather than opinion, but Fortin identifies one (and presumably not the others?) as being of Odaenathus, and only a few sentences later we hear that Gawlikowski shared Balty's view, suggesting that the heads depicted three men from the same family [my emphasis]. Which is it?  (And while we are at it, Galiwowski presumably agrees with Balty's view that these are funerary portraits, but he clearly disagrees with his identification of the three heads as representing the same man)...
 * Yes, but when they clearly disagree on something (one saying that all three heads depict the same man, another saying that they all depict different men), we shouldn't say that they "shared" a view. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but when they clearly disagree on something (one saying that all three heads depict the same man, another saying that they all depict different men), we shouldn't say that they "shared" a view. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I've looked over the sources, and they all seem reliable, but I haven't spotchecked them thoroughly. But even without commenting on that, I have concerns with prose, with comprehensiveness, and with the lead, which will need addressing before this should be promoted to FA status.
 * Wow. I spent quite a lot of time reading, thinking about, and writing a review for your article, including giving dozens of examples, with quotes, of things I would change, and mentioning the specific Featured Article criteria which I felt the article fell short of.  That's the opposite of "I don't like it".  You are perfectly free to argue that my concerns don't apply, but please don't dismiss them as unsupported dislike: they clearly aren't.
 * I have responded to many of your specific queries in line. If you want me to clarify something I have said, or you think you have addressed all of my concerns, let me know on my talkpage – it's not currently looking like there's any value to me further engaging with the article if this is your response to a good faith review.
 * However, I believe that the article currently fails to meet at least criterion 1a ("engaging" prose of a "professional standard"). I am also concerned about the neutrality of the article: in my earlier review I gave an example of one scholarly opinion being presented as fact with no clear justification and despite a more recent reliable source coming to a different conclusion.  Finally, I have given an example of the article apparently misrepresenting the source it is based on.  Given these concerns, I have to oppose. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * However, I believe that the article currently fails to meet at least criterion 1a ("engaging" prose of a "professional standard"). I am also concerned about the neutrality of the article: in my earlier review I gave an example of one scholarly opinion being presented as fact with no clear justification and despite a more recent reliable source coming to a different conclusion.  Finally, I have given an example of the article apparently misrepresenting the source it is based on.  Given these concerns, I have to oppose. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)



Coordinator comment - This has been open for a solid month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC) -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)