Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Qatna/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2017.

Qatna

 * Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an ancient city in modern Syria named Qatna which, for a period of 400 years, was in control of half of Syria. The city's palace and royal grave presented us with magnificent artifacts that shed light on the extensive human contact in 1600 BC as they included pieces made with materials imported from as far as modern Sweden.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Brief comments: I hope that I can kickstart this review and get other reviewers interested in providing more detailed comments, because it is, in my view, an important and interesting article, well worth the time. These opening, minor points relate to the lead which is the only part of the text I've read in detail:
 * "By the 15th century BC, Qatna lost its hegemony and came under the authority of Mitanni, then changing hands between the former and Egypt until being conquered by the Hittites in the 14th century BC" – this reads rather clumsily and needs rewriting for grammar and clarity, probably as two sentences.
 * "Following its destruction, the city was abandoned." You've said that the Hittites "conquered" it, but not that they "destroyed" it. Did they? I see references to subsequent destructions and re-occupations, which suggests numerous rebuilds, though these are not mentioned. A little clarification would help.
 * "The artifacts of Qatna show high-quality workmanship, while its religion was complex and based on many cults in which ancestor worship played an important role." What follows "while" is a non-sequitur, having nothing to do with the earlier statement, so the serntence needs reconsideration.

I hope to return later – I'm certainly looking forward to reading more of this fascinating history. Brianboulton (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * Suggest scaling up the non-lead maps
 * Region map should still be scaled up. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria,


 * File:Qatna's_landmarks.png: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Same with File:Third_Mari.png
 * File:Qatna_chronology.jpg: why have this as an image rather than a table?
 * File:Sitting_god_Qatna_Louvre_AO3992.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work. Same with File:Louvres-antiquites-moyen-orient-p1020197.jpg, File:Antakya_Arkeoloji_Muzesi_1250344_nevit.jpg, File:Sphinx_dedicated_to_Ita_daugther_of_Amenemhat_II-AO_13075-IMG_1030-white.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria, --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

 * Hi, I'll soon review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * At first glance "Known kings of Qatna are:" could need a citation.
 * You should provide conversions for all measurements.
 * " at least 80 rooms", "at least twenty rooms". Be consistent in whether you write numbers with letters or not.
 * "5 meters" Be consistent in whether you say m or meters.
 * "and remains of both sexes and different ages" I would add "people" or "bodies" somewhere in the sentence.
 * "reaching 18 m tall and 60 to 90 m wide" I would say "in height" and "in width".
 * "Investigations of Qatna's fortifications were not carried hindering the" Carried out?
 * .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "perhaps the center of a king of prince" Or?
 * "that was used for ideological reasons as it was meant to echo Gilgamesh's deeds" Interesting, how is this known?
 * here


 * "son Yasmah-Adad to lead them leadership" Seems something is wrong here.
 * "but Mari sources are silent" Mariote?
 * "for his relations which Mari were never hostile." Since/because/as instead of for?
 * "Mari, who was at war with Eshnunna" Which was at war? "Who" would indicate a person.
 * "participation of Yamhad, who was hegemonic" Which was.
 * , what does she mean ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That you should make the thumbnail image larger. See for example the first image on the left at Mascarene grey parakeet. It is so that small details will be more visible without readers having to click the image. FunkMonk (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "Qatna still controlled the Lebanon Mountains 80 km from" Conversion still needed. Maybe there are others.


 * "Ḏj3wny" is 3 supposed to be there?


 * "In the mid-19th century, a modern village was built within the ancient sit" What is the name of the original and resettled village?
 * I see it mentioned in the article once, but not linked. I also think it could be mentioned again all the way down in the "following periods" sections, I at least forgot the name had been mentioned when I reached that part. FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see it mentioned in the article once, but not linked. I also think it could be mentioned again all the way down in the "following periods" sections, I at least forgot the name had been mentioned when I reached that part. FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No damage during then current war?
 * "and a secondary burial that was intended to transform the deceased into his ultimate form" Their? Or were only men interred this way?
 * "According to Pfälzner, a final burial stage can be noticed, which he calls the quaternary burial; tomb VII, which most probably contained remains taken out of the royal hypogeum,[20] seems to have worked as a storage for the remains of individuals whose Kispu cycle came to an end;[21] very few bowls were found in that tomb.[20]" This sentence is very long and could be broken in two.


 * "used the sexagesimal system" I would say "numeral system" for clarity.
 * "Elephants, which lived in western Syria" Perhaps link Syrian elephant?
 * Photos of wall paintings might be in the public domain because they are two dimensional, perhaps worth looking if some can be found (then we can evaluate whether they are PD).


 * "were 9 m wide" Needs conversion.
 * "value was 470 g" Of what?


 * "which reduced it to a small village that eventually disappeared in the 6th century BC." No village is specifically mentioned in the article body (apart from the modern one), perhaps add the word to the relevant place? Which would be near "The site continued to be inhabited during the Iron Age III following the Assyrian destruction".
 * "the Syrian Desert towards the fertile Homs Basin." Only stated in the intro, which should not have unique info.
 * "This area was 5.5 x 3 meters in size" Needs conversion.


 * Support - everything nicely addressed, another great article that may help the world see Syria in a different light. --FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, ancestor (singular) worship was correct! FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber
Taking a look...comments below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * and its impressive remains suggest... - I'd say "extensive" remains as neutral.


 * suggesting an abandonment of three centuries --> "suggesting it was uninhabited for three centuries"


 * .. which was hegemonic over both Mari and Carchemish - why not just say, "which ruled over both Mari and Carchemish"?


 * Research done after 1999 excluded du Mesnil du Buisson's hypothesis  - we'd more likely say, "Research done after 1999 ruled out (or disproved) du Mesnil du Buisson's hypothesis "


 * I'd link hypogeum - is it the correct target?

NB: I made these changes to help the prose flow more naturally. I hope they are satisfactory.

All in all, a nice read, and comprehensive. Just a few minor issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point. If no simpler word can convey the exact meaning then it cannot be substituted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose from Dank
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

 * Cordani 2011 has a bad isbn number.
 * I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows some serious issues that need to be addressed.
 * Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

See here. there is 85% chance of a violation for this source See here.

--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the ISBN, it's logged wrong in WorldCat, that's all I know. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Its not just sentences that need to be paraphrased. Phrases are a concern too. We have to avoid too close paraphrasing, and while, yes, we can ignore names and titles of works, we need to be concerned with phrasing such as "the scarcity of written sources" "is based on the assumption that" "amber was imported from the Baltic region, while carnelian and lapis-lazuli" "to participate in rituals for". It's not a big crisis, but it does need some work to alleviate the highlighted phrases so they aren't so close. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Coord note
,, do you have anything you'd like to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd really rather someone more versed in copyright problems look at the issues Earwig's tool brought up, honestly. I'm never sure how much things are "common phrases you can't avoid" and how much is getting too close to too-close-paraphrasing. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I walked through the first three source comparisons in Earwig and, following the tweaks to phrases you mentioned and a couple I made myself, I feel pretty confident that most of the similarities are standard phrases along the lines the nominator mentioned. Tks for your diligence as always, Ealdgyth, the article is better for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My review was rather limited – the few points I raised were acted on promptly. I've not had time to return to the article, but I'm happy to go by other reviewers' supportive comments. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay Brian. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine
I was informed by Ian Rose of this FAC. I've gone through it making mostly stylistic edits and some minor fixes, link and regnal dates additions, etc. Overall an excellent article, I cannot really think of anything missing, very informative, comprehensive, and balanced in portraying the differing views and theories of modern researchers. Very well done Attar-Aram syria! Unreservedly Support. Constantine  ✍  11:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: Like Ian, I've gone through the first three comparisons in Earwig and have not found any issues. The phrases that have been found would not, I don't think, cause any problems at all in terms of copyright as they are very generic and I think the high scores are just an unfortunate coincidence (and I notice that the same phrases come up in a few of the results, which further proves the point that these are just generic phrases). Therefore, I don't think we need be too worried in this case. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.