Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zenobia/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) 22:53, 17 February 2017.

Zenobia

 * Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a very interesting woman, Zenobia, the queen of Palmyra. Often, her story is distorted by romanticism and myths, which ignore the fact that she was a historic monarch whose actions were not really based on romantic motives. I re-wrote the article with the aim of giving a clear picture of the historic queen, and gave the romantic accounts their share, but also noted them for what they are: romance. The article was privately peer-reviewed (as in I asked an editor directly to review it) by one of Wikipedia's most productive editors Al Ameer son and was copy-edited by the copy-editing guild. Looking forward for other editors notes and advice.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

 * That's quite alright; real life (allegedly!) comes first, after all. Based on your replies I've done a little bit of copy-editing: feel free to revert anything you think I have made worse or where I have changed the meaning of the text.
 * .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead:
 * "Palmyrene: (Btzby), spelled Bat-Zabbai" – What does this mean? In what way was her name "spelled" Bat-Zabbai?
 * I changed "spelled" to "pronounced": I think this is what you mean?
 * I changed "spelled" to "pronounced": I think this is what you mean?


 * "who exiled her to Rome (where she spent the remainder of her life)." why is "where she spent the remainder of her life" in parentheses?

Name and appearance:
 * "The queen was born c. 240–241": as she wasn't queen when she was born, I would write "Zenobia was born"


 * The section says, apart from the quote from AH at the top, very little about Zenobia's appearance: this is a surprise given the name of the section


 * "Historian Victor Duruy believed that the queen used the Greek name as a translation of her native name in deference to her Greek subjects.[11] No contemporary statues of Zenobia have been found in Palmyra or elsewhere, only inscriptions on statue bases; most known representations of Zenobia are on her coins.": this paragraph covers two ideas; it would probably be better to concatenate the first part (about her use of the name Zenobia) with the preceding paragraph, and expand the second part into a more substantial coverage of representations her (or cut it and make the section one about Zenobia's name)


 * Not really sure what the paragraph on sources is doing at the end of this section
 * "other sources are available" doesn't really tell us anything. discuss what the key sources are, or tell us something about them, but don't just assert that they exist

Early life and family:
 * "The Augustan History contains details of Zenobia's early life, although their credibility is doubtful; according to Augustan, the queen's hobby as a child was hunting." Presumably the connection here is that Zenobia having hunting as a childhood hobby is not credible; if so, you should make this more explicit as it is not obviously incredible to me.  Macedonian nobles and Spartans, to take two examples from the ancient world, both learnt to hunt as children.
 * As it is at the moment, the semi-colon suggests that there is a link between the two parts of this sentence: that AH ' s story that Z's hobby as a child was hunting is a reason to doubt its credibility. This doesn't seem to me to be at all what the relevant source is saying, which is that AH is unreliable, and then, as a seperate thought, that it tells us that she enjoyed hunting.  Therefore, I think that this semi-colon should be a period instead.  (If you intend this sentence to be read as I am reading it, then I would instead quibble with your use of the source, which doesn't as I read it say that.)
 * But Stoneman made the connection:
 * But Stoneman made the connection:


 * What is "an education appropriate for a noble Palmyrene girl"? Were girls – noble or otherwise – in ancient Palmyra educated?
 * Stoneman reference here.
 * Well that's disappointing but unsurprising.


 * How can one be "fluent... (to a lesser extent)"? Is fluency not a binary property?
 * That's fine, but see below.
 * That's fine, but see below.


 * "and nafsha is Aramaic for "soul"." I don't understand the relevance of this. Explain?


 * "Based on Zenobia's Palmyrene name (Bat Zabbai), her father may have been Zabbai or he may have been an ancestral head of Zenobia's family (rather than her actual father).": this is a rather clunky sentence; I would rewrite it something like: "On the basis of Zenobia's Palmyrene name, Bat Zabbai, her father name have been called Zabbai; alternatively, Zabbai may have been the name of a more distant ancestor."


 * "led scholars such as Harald Ingholt to speculate that Antiochus might be a distant ancestor" – should be "might have been", I think


 * I'm not sure I quite understand the point being made about Ammianus in what is at the time of writing note 1
 * Ammianus doesn't equate Zenobia and Cleopatra, though: he says that the Egyptians praise Cleopatra and the Palmyrenes praise Zenobia. I can see what is being got at, here, but this is I think too compressed for the average reader (though irritatingly the source you cite doesn't make the argument any more explicit!  Dammit!)
 * Ammianus doesn't equate Zenobia and Cleopatra, though: he says that the Egyptians praise Cleopatra and the Palmyrenes praise Zenobia. I can see what is being got at, here, but this is I think too compressed for the average reader (though irritatingly the source you cite doesn't make the argument any more explicit!  Dammit!)


 * Note 2 says that Zenobia claimed descent from Cleopatra; the sentences that follow say that she didn't. Which is true?  (If the latter is true, should we still believe the inference that Callinicus is talking about Zenobia?)
 * Better now you've added "alleged", thanks :)
 * Better now you've added "alleged", thanks :)

Queen of Palmyra:
 * Is Boccaccio a reliable source when it comes to Palmyran history? I am unconvinced that he is.  If not, why are we singling his account out?
 * But you write "according to later accounts, including one by Boccaccio". Why single out Boccaccio, instead of any other later account?  (And WP:WIAFA requires that an FA "neglects no major facts or details"; I would argue that precisely which millenium-late account contains a particular story is not a "major" fact or detail!)
 * But you write "according to later accounts, including one by Boccaccio". Why single out Boccaccio, instead of any other later account?  (And WP:WIAFA requires that an FA "neglects no major facts or details"; I would argue that precisely which millenium-late account contains a particular story is not a "major" fact or detail!)


 * "If the accounts of her accompanying her husband are true, Zenobia would have boosted the morale of the soldiers": I don't really understand how this follows.
 * I think you need to explain or expand upon this, then: as it is, it just confuses me. Why is it that Zenobia's accompanying her husband would necessarily have boosted the soldiers' morale?  It certainly wouldn't have boosted the morale of early-modern British seamen to have their captain's wife accompanying them!  (yes, I know that 2nd-century Palmyrene and 16th century English society were very different: that's not the point.)
 * much explanation
 * much explanation


 * Vaballathus is described in quick succession as "ten-year-old" and then "adolescent" on his accession: I wouldn't consider a ten-year-old an adolescent

Descendants and Title:
 * Having been told much further up the article that Herodianus was Odaenathus' son "not Zenobia's offspring", we now have a long discussion of whether or not he actually was!
 * Possibly you should explain this more in the article, then (and not relegate much of it to a fairly obscurely-written note). Even having read your explanation here, I am struggling to understand the account which is given in the article. (Additionally, a footnote at the point where the article states that Hairan was not Zenobia's son explaining that there may have been two Hairans could be a good idea.)
 * Possibly you should explain this more in the article, then (and not relegate much of it to a fairly obscurely-written note). Even having read your explanation here, I am struggling to understand the account which is given in the article. (Additionally, a footnote at the point where the article states that Hairan was not Zenobia's son explaining that there may have been two Hairans could be a good idea.)

Evaluation and legacy/Myth, romanticism and popular culture:
 * I'm not quite clear on why these are two different sections: they seem to have fairly overlapping scopes


 * I'm not sure how much the random list of "selected cultural depictions" adds. If they are worth discussing, I'd like to see them actually discussed; as it is they just seem like an invitation to listcruft

General:
 * I know false titles are a matter of preference: I don't like them. More than that, though, I don't see the point of describing every writer on Zenobia as "historian Foo Bar".  They're writing about ancient Palmyra: of course they are historians!  I count 14 different examples of this usage for modern authors.
 * an editor was confused about those people.
 * Fine. So long as you know what you are doing.


 * Frequently the article uses semi-colons to divide what seem to me like they should really be separate sentences
 * I changed some of what seemed like the more egregious ones.
 * I changed some of what seemed like the more egregious ones.


 * Almost all of your sources are recent; why are two (Duruy and Mommsen) so conspicuously out-of-date? There's an 89-year gap from Mommsen being first published in 1882 and Millar in 1971, the next-oldest source.Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. Duruy: if his idea hasn't been discussed since he proposed it in 1855(!) is it really WP:DUE to be discussing it in the article?
 * Re. Mommsen: there's nothing technically wrong with using him as a source for this – it's not exactly a fact which is likely to be challenged in new sources! But as it's such common knowledge, I would either a) have cited it to one of the other works you are using to establish other things: one must surely have mentioned it at some point(?!); b) cited it to a recent standard resource (the OCD?) or c) not bothered citing it at all: it's not exactly "likely to be challenged".  Again, there's nothing actually wrong with citing Mommsen; it's just incongruous when you have cited with two exceptions literature written within the past 50 years to have a source from the 1880s...


 * More comments:
 * Now that I look at Stoneman p.113, it says that Z was fluent in Palmyrene, spoke good Greek, spoke Egyptian, and did not speak Latin. Yet this article has her fluent in all three of Greek, Egyptian and Palmyrene, and speaking Latin though not fluently.  Ball, cited for that claim, does in fact back it up: but is that the scholarly consensus?  The two sources I have just read literally at random disagree. (And neither cite the source that "reported" what they claim, so I can't go back to check that...)Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * . I added a source

Image review
 * Suggest scaling up the maps
 * Since Syria does not have freedom of panorama except for buildings, we should explicitly account for the licensing of the pictured 3D works from that region
 * Even when they depict statues many centuries old that are no doubt in the public domain? FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For File:Poikile_quadriportico_Villa_Adriana.jpg, the situation in Italy is [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Italy more complicated
 * Wouldn't that leave us without photos of any ancient buildings in Italy, such as this featured picture? Certainly there must have been some wider discussion about how to handle this? FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It would not, as copyright can still expire. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * File:Odaenathus_Kingdom.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Same with File:Palmyrene_Empire.png
 * File:OldSyrian500front.png: the uploader is not the copyright holder. What is the copyright status of this work?
 * File:Hosmer.jpg: the US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture
 * Same as above, if the author died more than a hundred years ago, as is the case here, there is no copyright, so FOP is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The US only cares about author's date of death in a few cases, and those don't seem likely to apply here. If these works are out of copyright, it should be relatively quick to add an appropriate tag - but we should still do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * File:Herbert_Schmalz-Zenobia.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you can put them back, I will help you add PD tags. The structures are certainly too old to be copyrighted. FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You there, ? FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey FunkMonk, I was away for some exams and a short vacation. For the pictures deleted, I have no idea how to do what Nikkimaria wants to be honest. That why I deleted them.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I know, so if you put them back, I'll fix it. Then you can see what I've done (for future reference). FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, always helping me :). I will do it now.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, an article like this needs lots of images... So as you can see on the Hosmer sculpture, I added a PD-old tag that should cover the copyright of the sculpture itself. I also added this to the other photos that were removed, but I assume would want this of all photos of ancient architecture, so you can go ahead and add it to those too. As for the banknote, I added a PD-Syria tag, since it obviously wasn't created by the uploader... FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I did it to the other pictures. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

 * Might take a while before I can make a full review, but it will certainly come. In the meantime, maybe more approximate dates can be given in the captions of various sculptures and buildings (and the painting)? Also, describing a banknote as "old" seems unnecessarily vague. No date? Artist names stated in captions could also be linked. FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Any date for the banknote? The description says 1998... FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "in his highly fictionalized account,[7] wrote that the queen's name was Na'ila al-Zabba'" Does this mean that name is probably fictitious too?


 * "in many ancient sources but many are flawed or fabricated" A bit repetitive, reword one?


 * "According to Augustan, the queen's hobby" You seem to switch between the full name, and just the first or second part in different places. What do the sources do?


 * "In the unreliable fourth-century Augustan History, Zenobia is said" Seems a bit repetitive to present this source again and again?


 * "Jadhimah ibn Malik, who killed the queen's father, was killed by al-Zabba'" I'm not sure who is who here. The queen and al-Zabba is the same? Also, I'd add say "who supposedly killed", or some such, since it seems to be dubious?


 * "which she will need in her later career" Why suddenly present tense?


 * "Palmyrene dominance of Arabia is confirmed by many milestones bearing Vaballathus' name." Still named thus today, or how? What are these milestones?


 * "the occupation of Egypt is an opportunistic" Why present tense?


 * " the prevailing emperor (Aurelian)" Is parenthesis really needed here?


 * You sometimes repeat the full name of some authors, such as Patricia Southern, after they have been mentioned first time, which should be unnecessary.


 * "Onomasticon" Could be explained briefly ion parenthesis.


 * "Hosmer's Zenobia in Chains (1859) by Harriet Hosmer" Is the first one a redundancy?
 * Now finished reading, looks good! Last comment is that there is a good deal of overlinking (articles linked more than once in the article body). FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Now finished reading, looks good! Last comment is that there is a good deal of overlinking (articles linked more than once in the article body). FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - looks great to me now! It is of extreme importance that the articles about historical Syrian subjects are improved, considering the insanity that is going on in Syria now. In this way, you spread awareness about it in the world, and hopefully, Syrians will appreciate their past, rather than destroying it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine
Good job in bringing this important article so far, I'll comment below as I go along reading it. Constantine  ✍  16:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "She bore the gentilicium (surname) Septimia". Perhaps a brief explanation is in order here as to why a Syrian queen had a Roman name.


 * "When an Augustan account deals with a known event". Two things: first, use the full name of the source, as is common practice; second, if the AH is the only or main source, how do we know which events are known and which are invented? I assume you mean that "known" is an event corroborated from other sources. If so, write it out, and mention perhaps an example or two of what other sources are used to corroborate the AH.


 * "Manichaean sources". Could you please include them by name? And perhaps briefly explain why Manichaean sources seal with her?


 * "In the unreliable fourth-century Augustan History". You don't have to repeat the fact.


 * " Ptolemaics". This is a bit odd. I'd suggest "Ptolemies".


 * "After the Palmyrene conquest of Egypt,[27] and according to the Souda, a 10th-century Byzantine encyclopedia,[28] ". I get what you mean, but this is awkwardly phrased. I'd suggest switching the two sentences.


 * "invented by Zenobia's enemies to discredit her". For the average reader, it is unclear why an association with Cleopatra would be discrediting. Add a note explaining the Romans' view of Cleopatra (and women leaders in general, which might be appropriate here in general)


 * "Zenobia's alleged claim of a connection to Cleopatra seems to have been politically motivated". This should follow eight after "invented by Zenobia's enemies to discredit her", as an alternative hypothesis. Then conclude with the assessment by the modern scholars that "A relationship between Zenobia and the Ptolemaic dynasty is unlikely"...


 * "Arab traditions" and "Arab historians". Given that by this you mean chiefly al-Tabari, I recommend changing to "Arabic", because al-Tabari was not an Arab, but an Arabic-writing Persian.


 * "immersed with legends". Immersed in.

That's it for now, I'll tackle the remaining sections later. A very thorough job so far. Constantine  ✍  16:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I was busy in RL. Comments on the remaining sections:
 * "During the early centuries AD, Palmyra was an autonomous city subordinate to Rome and part of the province of Syria Phoenice.[45] ". The reference does not say anything about the autonomy, but as I can see, this is dealt with somewhat more in the same source further on (e.g., p. 40). Please include this, and note that the exact relationship is difficult to define based on the sources.


 * "Odaenathus, formally loyal to Rome and its emperor Gallienus (Valerian's son),[47] was declared king of Palmyra.[48]". What exactly is the connection to the Battle of Edessa? Or is there none?
 * This might be helpful


 * " Odaenathus received many Roman titles and ruled from the Black Sea to Palestine.[51]". ruled the Roman territories from the Black Sea to Palestine. Perhaps it would be better to add the titles explicitly, since you do so either way further on, especially since it was the title corrector totius Orientis which made him viceroy of the East and allowed him to rule "from the Black Sea to Palestine".


 * "was unmentioned in the historical record". I think this usage is incorrect: was not mentioned, or was left unmentioned.


 * " According to later accounts, including one by Giovanni Boccaccio, she accompanied her husband on his campaigns". Why is Boccaccio relevant here? Surely he is not a historian? Rather, mention a couple of the other "later accounts".


 * "In 267, when Zenobia was in her late twenties or early thirties, Odaenathus and his eldest son were assassinated while returning from a campaign.[50]". I'd suggest moving this up to conclude the section about Odaenathus' career, which would then connect with "dated two or three years after Odaenathus' death", where the date is currently unknown.


 * "In Augustan History, Odaenathus son". In the AH, Odaenathus' son.


 * "The history does not suggest". Which history? If AH, name it explicitly.


 * "At the time of Odaenathus' assassination, Zenobia might have been with her husband; according to chronicler George Syncellus, he was killed near Heraclea Pontica in Bithynia.[61]". This also belongs to one of the sections above, either on the assassination or on her role as consort.


 * "Zenobia held the reins of power in the kingdom,[63] although she never claimed to rule in her own right and acted as a regent for her son.[64] Vaballathus was kept in his mother's shadow, never exercising real power.[65]". I think a slight re-arrangement would make this flow better: Although she never claimed to rule in her own right and acted as a regent for her son,[64] Zenobia held the reins of power in the kingdom,[63] and Vaballathus was kept in his mother's shadow, never exercising real power.[65]". Just a suggestion, though.


 * "antagonized the empire towards Palmyra". Strike "towards Palmyra." as unnecessary.


 * "the queen's timing seemed intentional". Did it seem so at the time, or does it seem so to modern historians? If so, then present tense.


 * "unrest in the province, whose society was fractured;" a sentence or two on how exactly it was fractured would be needed here to explain why this is relevant.
 * Watson


 * "The Roman stance was worsened". I think you mean position, rather than stance.


 * "during the reign of Emperor Valens." Give regnal dates.


 * Descendants and titles section. I'd recommend either splitting off the titles section (and moving it up), or incorporating it, as appropriate, in the "Regent" and "Empress" sections (in part this is already done).

Overall I found the article well written, excellently referenced and comprehensive, with an exhaustive bibliography. Once my remarks are addressed, I will be happy to support. Constantine  ✍  15:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, I am glad to Support this excellent article. Well done Attar-Aram syria! Constantine  ✍  13:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks good on comprehensiveness...and I can't see any prose clangers outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review

 * Earwig's copyvio clear Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * References all formatted consistently.
 * FN 18, used 6 times - material true to source.
 * FN 146, used once - material true to source.
 * FN 199, used once - material true to source.
 * FN 207, used once - material true to source.

Ok I am happy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Just checking as it got a bit lost in all the text. There were a few changes to the image rationales after your image review. How does it look from your end now? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd still suggest scaling up the maps, and File:Herbert_Schmalz-Zenobia.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added the tag. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.