Talk:Akkadian Empire/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I submit this article for review because:

I suspect it has never been reviewed for GA in the first place (the GA template was added here; I can't find a review report).
The article pays undue attention to texts (especially the Sumerian King List). There is very little mentioning of archaeology.
Many texts seem to be treated as if they are historical, even though mainstream science dismisses that idea.
The text needs some major re-editing to correct and remove redundant wikilinks, and to improve coherence of argument and style.
The article completely fails to mention important events like the Great Revolt against Naram-Sin.
The collapse of the Akkadian Empire is linked with climate change as if that is an established fact. It is not.
Large parts of the article are completely uncited.
The lead does not concisely summarize the article contents.

In short, I think the article fails on 1A, 1B, 2B, 3A and 3B of the Good Article criteria and should therefore be demoted. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: already did some major clean up work; still don't think it can make GA. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if this is a GA or not, but once again your cavalier approach to Ancient history show up clearly in your choice of words, and seems way overly simplistic. No cautious historian in the field ever tosses off comments like "mainstream science dismisses that idea". (Whatever "that idea" happens to be.) We haven't exactly reduced this to an exact science yet, and we try to keep our minds open, because truth is, there are many competing hypotheses, schools of thought, dating schemes, and overall views of history about any given aspect, and there is not a central, monolithic politburo or a vatican that issues forth officially approved "mainstream science" and separates it from "heresy". And our neutral role is to carefully describe and source all the significant competing camps exactly where they currently lay, not push for one POV or the other, or give it the "seal of approval". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get offensive and rude; please stay civil. We have different approaches to ANE; that's acceptable (even though you again seem to misunderstand and misrepresent my position). If you are interested in this debate, please state whether you support or oppose delisting, and give your arguments. If you have specific problems with my style of editing or reasoning, you can discuss that on my talkpage. This discussion is about the Akkadian Empire GAR. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article delisted; no attempt whatsoever made to address the issues raised here. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]