Talk:Arda-Mulissu

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arda-Mulissu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 05:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome

Dear @Ichthyovenator: I will be your reviewer for this, the 1st GA nomination of the article Arda-Mulissu. I see you nominated the article on 20 November 2020. I see that you are a very experienced wikipedian with almost 15000 edits, whereas I am almost a novice. It is an honour to help you and I will try my best. I see the article is rated Stub at present. I applied the Rater script to your article, which calls ORES. It rates article "B" with a confidence of 42.0%. That does not sound very positive for a GA nominee. I know nothing about the history of the Assyrian Empire and have the advantages and shortcomings of a fresh look. I start reading now. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is of appropriate length according to MOS:LEADLENGTH. A citation is given after the Akkadian name. Trying to look up the cited page (p. 272) I find that it is excluded from the preview in Google Books. I suppose the nominator had access to the book through other means. Would it be possible to add a quote in addition to the page so that the frustrated reader can have an idea about what the relevant passage in the source says? This Akkadian name and indeed the Akkadian language are not mentioned in the body of the text. Perhaps, these subjects should be elaborated in the body or their treatment should be removed from the lead and transferred to the body. As I understand it, by Arda-Mulissu's time, Aramaic was the predominant language in the Neo-Assyrian Empire.

To qualify a prince as "ancient" sounds funny. Ancient in this context would probably best applied to "Near East". On would expect to see Ancient Near East and the Neo-Assyrian Empire mentioned and linked in the lead. Assyrian as an adjective is used twice in the same sentence. It is perhaps needless to qualify the king, his father, as Assyrian after the prince has already been called so. I would add "demotion" after "Disappointed by this" at the beginning of the second paragraph. Please take my remarks on your English with circumspection, my English is 2nd language. I give my impression, but I may be wrong. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

He is qualified as an "ancient Assyrian", not just "ancient", which I believe is appropriate since there are modern Assyrians as well (almost the same phrasing passed GA in the article on his relative, princess Serua-eterat). I've changed the qualification of his father from "Assyrian" to "Neo-Assyrian", with some rephrasing, to avoid repetition of information. I've also added "demotion" as per your suggestion.

I don't believe the Akkadian name or the Akkadian language have to be mentioned in the body of the text, unless there is some additional commentary on them (see for instance the FA Frederick III, German Emperor, wherein his name in German and the German language are only featured in the lead). As things stand, there isn't any insightful commentary on his name in any of the sources (none of them even give the meaning of his name, though it must relate to the goddess Mullissu in some way). Aramaic was the predominant language at this time, yes, but the official state language was still Akkadian, which is what is used in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions and records. As good as it would be to have it, I am not aware of any source which preserves Arda-Mulissu's name in Aramaic. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, difficulty to access a source does not diminish its use as a reliable source; I don't think adding in a quote to the page can be done in a way that is not awkward and different from articles on other Mesopotamian royalty. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ichthyovenator. I am still wondering why there are so many variations of his name. I suppose the name was written in cuneiform. Many of these variant could be different transliterations of the same cuneiform name. Your mention of the goddess Mullissu is helpful. A remark made in the Wikipedia article about her states that Mullissu is spelled "dNIN.LÍL", which explains why Arda-Mulissu was also called Arad-Ninlil. Arad-Ninlil would then be an old or wrong name using the names of the characters, which was then supplanted as Assyriology made progress. Do I understand this right? There is still another variant: Karen Radner op. cit. calls him Urdu-Mullissi. BIt is a pity we do not have his cuneiform name. The articles about his near family members seem to have these names. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the many variations of his name stem from different readings of the cuneiform rendition (I've tried to track down how it looks but I haven't yet found a source that includes it). I have added Radner's rendition to the article. Many of the more prominent Assyrians have many alternate readings of their name as well but usually one version is the most common (i.e. Sinsharishkun was once often called Sinsharusur); I feel like it is important to have the alternate names included this prominently here since there is still great variation in how he is referred to in modern sources. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ichthyovenator. I surely agree it is important to list the variants. The Wikipedia article List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources states that Adrammelech is identified as Arda-Mulissi in a letter to Esarhaddon available at https://archive.org/details/assyrianandbaby10harpgoog/page/n46/. This cuneiform tablet is preserved at the British Museum under the number 1880,0719.28 and can be seen on the website. One can identify the character sequence DISH-DINGIR-NIN in several places but I cannot find the LIL that should follow. Besides — coming back to adding a quote for the inaccessible citation (assuming you know what there is to cite), I think that such quotes are not so rare and usually take the form of {{Sfn|author|year|p=page|ps=: "quote"}}. See e.g. Kadesh Inscriptions, Battle of Kadesh, and Hittites. Oh what a learning curve these Assyrian things. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean that a citation cannot be made, only that I'm not sure it is necessary. It is worth noting that info like this is rarely cited any way (again for an example, Frederick III, German Emperor does not have a citation for his name in German). A problem with including a quote is also that Baker doesn't explicitly say that Arda-Mulišši is the transliteration; he just uses that rendition of the name (that it is the transliteration is inferred from the text since the letter š is only used in these contexts when it comes to transliterations in the case of the Mesopotamians; see Ashurbanipal for instance) - interestingly the "correct" rendering of that in English, if one goes by the same logic as with Ashurbanipal and such, would be Arda-Mulishshi, which is only used very rarely.

The letter you mention would be quite helpful in order to extract Arda-Mulissu's name but while a portion of the seemingly correct sequence of characters can be identified, as you point out, I think we'd need a translation of the letter as well in order to confidently cite the addition of his name (and to be certain that what is added to the article actually is his name). I've tried to find a translation but have been unable to so far (I will continue to search more, though). The British Museum page for the tablet in question gives yet another rendition of his name; "Arda-Mulisha" (link). That version also crops up here, along with "Arda-Ninlil". Perhaps the lead will look less cluttered if most of the alternate renditions are moved into some sort of note (then more could be added as well), what do you think? Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ichthyovenator. I fully agree. We need a translation. Parpola (1980) "The murderer of Sennacherib" in "Death in Mesopotamia"; XXVIe Rencontre assyriologique internationale (Mesopotamia, Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology) (8) (pp.171-182) is at:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Death_in_Mesopotamia/4DwIAAAAIAAJ

but only searches are allowed, no preview. It does not look as if there is a translation of K.1091 in it. Frances Reynolds's "The Babylonian Correspondence of Aserhaddon ..." is at:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Babylonian_Correspondence_of_Esarhad/__lQzQEACAAJ

but neither preview nor search is enabled. Perhaps the translation is there. I find K.1091 well in Bezold's Catalogue https://archive.org/details/cu31924026800320/page/n258/ but it just says it is some kind of a report. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ichthyovenator. It seems we are at a dead-end here. The information seems to exist but we cannot access it.

Yes, if more accessible sources turn up in the future I'll be sure to amend the article to add this information. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Cambridge Ancient History

Dear Ichthyovenator. When I read what sources you cite, I feel that the main English and American standard works are absent. It is surely laudable to cite modern research, but major well-established facts can be found and cited in older works that can be easily accessed. I found: Cambridge Ancient History Volume 3 "The Assyrian Empire" by Bury, Cook & Adcock, 1925, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.282046 Cambridge Ancient History Volume 1, Part 2, Early History of the Middle East 3rd Edition, Edwards, 1971, https://archive.org/details/cambridgeancient1971edwa/ I hope there is more. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the long wait. It is worth mentioning that the 1925 source is slightly outdated; for instance I noted that it on page 66 says that Ashur-nadin-shumi was not the heir to the Assyrian throne when the modern consensus is that he was Sennacherib's firstborn son and heir. It was written before Arda-Mulissu was identified with Sennacherib's murderer and does not really add anything not already in the article. As far as I can see the second book (the 1971 one) recounts events up until 1750 BC, which means that Sennacherib and Arda-Mulissu are unlikely to be mentioned in a significant capacity. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ichthyovenator. Thanks for your reply. I understand that you were busy elsewhere and so was I. I think you understand what I meant and we agree. There is nothing about this in the GA criteria, which simply state there should be some citations or references. These criteria are astonishingly easy. A Military History B is far more demanding.

Comments on particular passages

Dear Ichthyovenator. Please remember that I told you to take my remarks about your English with circumspection: I might be wrong or you might not find all suggestions helpful. I give you a mixed bag of observations, sometimes on the form but sometimes also the way how content is presented:

1. Lead, 2nd paragraph: "... their ultimate fate is unknown." Not really, we can be quite sure they died. I would rather say something like "their traces seem to have been lost.", but probably you can find better.

I've changed this to "after which nothing more is known of them". Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Section "Son of Sennacherib", 1st paragraph, last sentence: "... was taken back to Elam ...". I think "was taken to Elam" would be sufficient. For the prince it was not "back to Elam" as he had never been there before.

True. Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Section "Son of Sennacherib", 2nd paragraph, the two last sentences: I found them difficult to understand. At first I did not realise that Nergal-Shumi-Ibni is here introduced for the first time. I confused him with other hyphen-hyphen Assyrians. The parenthesis in the second sentence is distracting. The subject might merit to be treated with some more elaboration and detail, possibly in its own paragraph.

I've split this part of and rewritten the entire thing, should be more clear now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Section "Son of Sennacherib", 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: "heir apparent" then just "heir". The reader might wonder whether a difference in meaning is intended. Perhaps say "in this regard" or repeat "heir apparent".

Just removed the second "heir" as this works just as fine without it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Section "Son of Sennacherib", 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: "prominent position". The criteria say the English should be concise. Just "position" would be good enough.

Removed "prominent". Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Section "Son of Sennacherib", 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: "inscription". I wonder whether cuneiform texts on clay tablets should be called "inscriptions" or just "texts". I first understood inscriptions as writing on stone or metal as in epigraphy. Fincke e.g. calls the inscriptions texts (http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/knpp/downloads/fincke_afo50.pdf)

Changed to "texts". Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Section "Attempted coup", 2nd paragraph, "couldn't". MOS:CONTRACTIONS advises against using contractions (please also correct contractions elsewhere if any).

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Section "Attempted coup", 2nd paragraph, "Hanigalbat, a city ...". This name is linked to the article Mitanni where it is explained as an alternative name for the Mitanni state or the region where they lived. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "fought near Malatia", whatever that may be. Is "city" really true?

I've fixed this; this was a mistake. Hanigalbat was a region, the former territory of the Mitanni kingdom. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Section "Attempted coup", 3rd paragraph, "Shortly after having taken the throne, Esarhaddon made sure to execute" is lengthy and repeats parts of the preceding sentence. "He then executed" is concise and probably good enough.

Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Section "Attempted coup", 3rd paragraph, "The eventual fate ...", as mentioned before. "They lived as exiles in Urartu for several years." would probably be good enough.

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ichthyovenator. Thanks for accepting criticism of your English from a 2nd-language speaker so graciously. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Referencing

1. Baker 2016, p272 – The publisher is given as "BRILL" in all-caps. At first I mistook this as an obscure abbreviation, but I then found this is the name of a publisher who presents itself often in this all-caps style but is also known as Brill Publishers. I feel the latter name is more understandable, should be preferred, and linked. The cited page is omitted in the preview. This is the 2nd time I go there and am disappointed. Is there a means to warn the reader that his effort will not be rewarded? Besides, you admit that this citation consists in the simple mention of the name "Arda-Muliššu" with the háčeks on the s's. Can't this be found somewhere else in an accessible source? – I found one: it occurs in R. J. van der Spek "Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods ..." which I could download as part of the "Stolper Festschrift" from https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/cyrus-the-great-exiles-and-foreign-gods-a-comparison-of-assyrian- This source might also serve elsewhere.

I've replaced the source; doesn't appear like much more can be added based on van der Spek's text to Arda-Mulissu's article specifically.

Thanks a lot. Bert van der Spek (also known as Robertus Johannes or R. J.) is well-known and has his own Wikipedia article. I think the surname should be capitalised "Van der Spek". I use Dutch names formed on that pattern with a lower-case "v" when preceded by the first name but with a upper case "v" if not. That is common usage in South Africa and this is why I wrote R. J. van der Spek, but in America people seem to always capitalise the Van at the start of a Dutch surname. See for example the Wikipedia articles on Johannes Diderik van der Waals and Robert J Van de Graaff. Besides, may I ask you why do you place apostrophes around the Sfn templates line in this case : '''''{{Sfn|van der Spek|2014|p=249}}''''' ?

Changed "van der Spek" to "Van der Spek". The apostrophes around the sfn template crops up when I use the visual editor, I've gone through and removed them. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Mark 2014 - As this refers to a website, no page can be given. The "|p=" should be removed from the Sfn template.

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Parpola 1980 - As this refers to a website, no page can be given. The "|p=" should be removed from the Sfn template.

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Encyclopaedia Britannica – Instead of or in addition to the website, one could cite EB 11th edition in book form, which is available at Internet Archive. Esarhaddon is volume 9 page 759: https://archive.org/details/encyclopdiabri09chisrich/page/759/

Not sure if this is necessary; the website version is easier to read and not any less reliable than the book version. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Šašková 2010 seems to be another inaccessible source. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS says "do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". Surely but how should a reviewer verify that the inaccessible source well supports the statement in the article nominated? I think the onus is then on the nominator. You use Šašková three times citing pages 151, 152, and 153. The first is after the sentence "There are no known documents..." in Section "Son of Sennacherib", second paragraph. It might well be that Šašková has made research about this and stated such a fact. The second is at the end of that paragraph for "Kwasman and Parpola believe ...". Cannot Kwasman and Parpola be cited directly and without passing through Šašková? Theodore Kwasman and Simo Parpola are eminent assyriologists with their own articles in Wikipedia, Šašková is not. The third place is the end of the third paragraph of the Section "Attempted coup". Parts of this paragraph might be possibly supported by citations from Karen Radner's publication that you already use and that can be downloaded in full.

Generally (in my experience), editors and reviewers employ WP:AGF in cases where they can't access a source used, instead of outright rejecting it. Šašková's work is not inaccessible either, I've added a link to a PDF version that is readable online. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for adding the URL. I downloaded. They asked me to register as they do for borrowing books at Internet Archive. I therefore think there should be a parameter "|url-access=registration" at the end of the "Cite book" template for the source. Be assured that I know that you are an esteemed Wikipedian and there is no question of bad faith. A GA reviewer inspects, verifies, examines, without regard to the person.

You don't have to register on academia.edu to read the sources (the work is posted on the URL in full, or at least it is for me?), just to download it, so I don't think the registration parameter is necessary. Yes; I'm not trying to claim that I'm beyond careful examination, just that you veered close to rejecting the source (against what you cited from WP:SOURCEACCESS). Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Have you seen the article by Andrew Knapp who presents a minority view of the murder of Sennacherib (see https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7817/jameroriesoci.140.1.0165)? Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware of it but I don't have access so I can't read it. The idea that Esarhaddon could be the murderer is interesting, and could be worthwile to be include, but I feel like to include it, one also needs to include Knapp's arguments, which I can't know without accessing the source. Based on everything I've read, the consensus is pretty firmly that Arda-Mulissu was the killer, but Knapp is a recent source and I don't know if he has faced any rebuttals (would be interesting to see how he justifies Esarhaddon as the murderer when Esarhaddon wasn't in Nineveh at the time, though). Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

You should be able to get access. I am not an academic. I formerly believed you needed to be student or staff member of an academic instution which I am not until I was told by Wikipedian VFF0347 that he had a free account and that I should also be able to get one. So I registered for a free account. I can read 100 articles per month for free but I cannot download any.

I have JSTOR access (to unlimited articles) through my institution, that's not the issue. For some reason the access I have does not seem to apply to this article though, perhaps there is some special licensing going on. Can you access it? If you can access it, I'll create a free account in the same way you did but otherwise I'd rather not create an account I'll never re-use. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You are right. I can only read the preview.

Redirect to non-notable brother

The name Nergal-shumu-ibni is linked in the text and points to a redirect page that takes the reader to the section "Family and children" of the article Sennacherib. I feel that readers who click the link might believe that Nergal-shumu-ibni is notable and an article exists (I first thought so, as the link is blue and not red). I felt disappointed (almost cheated) when I discovered that no such article exists and that I am taken to the section "Family and children" of the article Sennacherib where I have then to find Nergal-shumu-ibni (a name I had already forgotten), and than hardly learned anything new. I felt the link is not worthwhile in the circumstance. I wonder whether in the general case that kind of redirecting is best practice in Wikipedia, and especially in biographies to link to non-notable siblings of the subject. It may well be that this so. An alternative might be to include a list of siblings and halfsiblings (copied over from Sennacherib) in the article (that is what I have been doing in the past, e.g. Sir George Hamilton, Comte Hamilton). Not that I want to prescribe my ways to you. The way I do it also has its problems. Perhaps I should change. I am just wondering how this should ideally be handled. It is a frequent problem in biographies that are part of dynasties. I have not seen something about this in MOS or the guidelines. Have you?

As far as I know, linking a non-notable person whose name is a redirect is not a problem in of itself, it could be problematic here since the name links to Sennacherib, who is already linked to earlier in the article (could be construed as violating MOS:DUPLINK, but I think it is fine since it is a redirect). The issue with dynastic figures such as Nergal-shumu-ibni is that further historical finds could easily establish them as more relevant figures (such as Arda-Mulissu's niece Serua-eterat, virtually unknown until modern research), and some people would likely argue that Nergal-shumu-ibni, by virtue of being a prince of the Sargonid dynasty, is already a notable figure. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

If I understand you right, you say the link is there, whether it is a redirect to a section or to an article or whether this article is a stub or a FA is beyond your responsibility. You created the redirect. If it were not there, there would not be a link.

I'm saying that there is no policy explicitly against this. The redirect in of itself makes sense as it redirects to a section in an article where we do have concrete information on Nergal-shumu-ibni, someone looking for information on this figure will find it there; with more sources found in the future he might be able to get an article of his own. I think linking to it in this article also makes sense, as it goes to a spot in another article where some information on Nergal-shumu-ibni can be found. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Mother

You do not mention Arda-Mulissu's mother. I see that in the article about Sennacherib you give a list of children and say that except for Esarhaddon, the mothers are not known but that Tashmetu-sharrat is likely a mother of some. Overlap between the articles is probably unavoidable. I feel you should say something about his mother, at least she was one of the official wives of his father, I suppose. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no source that establishes who was the mother of Arda-Mulissu or any other child of Sennacherib, with the exception of Esarhaddon (as you say). While we can probably assume that she was a prominent wife of Sennacherib on account of Arda-Mulissu's crown prince status, the arrangement of wives in ancient Assyria is not entirely understood IIRC (there appears to have been one queen at a time, but multiple wives) and there is nothing to suggest that Sennacherib did not have more wives in addition to Tashmetu-sharrat and Naqi'a (and in fact no concrete proof that Arda-Mulissu's mother was formally married to Sennacherib). Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I just read in Šašková "What we even know for sure is that Naqi'a was the mother of Esarhaddon but not of the other princes, especially Aššur-nadir-šumi and Arda-Mulissi." (p154). I feel there should be a mention saying something about his mother. Esarhaddon was his half-brother, not strictly his brother.

I've added what can be added about this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Glassner

Have you seen the source Jean-Jacques Glassner "Mesopotamian Chronicles" cited in Šašková. It is available at [1] I have just seen on page 81 "Today, thanks to the evidence of a letter from the time of Esarhaddon, we know that Sennacheribs assassin was his eldest son, Arda-Mulišši".—I hope you understand why I continue like this: I feel that to pass GA the articles needs more and better sources and additions to the content. The article is short for a biography, but I think we are getting there.

Article length does not determine if an article can become GA (or even FA). This article is longer than How Brown Saw the Baseball Game, which is a featured article. I'm not sure how adding that Foster also agrees that Arda-Mulissu was the killer is an improvement; that Arda-Mulissu killed Sennacherib is already in the article and does not make it any more comprehensive. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Bertman

The citation of Bertman, p79, should probably be changed from Google Books to Internet Archive, as the page is inaccessible in Google Books, but the entire book can be read in Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/handbooktolifein00bert/page/79/).

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ichthyovenator. We do not seem to make much progress any more. I am going to pass this. I may have been wrong to insist so much. I felt unsure about whether this was GA. Thank for having been so patient. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: Thank you for passing and for taking your time to look through this. I am sorry if I came off as difficult here; I appreciate the concerns and I know that we both had the same goals in mind (making the article as good as it can be) - many of your suggestions were great and it is clear that you take the role of reviewer seriously and that you diligently make sure that the articles you review are up to the standard. I think the issue with Arda-Mulissu is that while he clearly is a notable figure and is mentioned in a lot of works on the Ancient Near East, very little is known about him as a person. Many more sources could be added here by virtue of mentioning him, but the additional information they would add would be minimal. The article is quite short, but I believe that it comprehensively covers what we know of Arda-Mulissu and "does not omit any major facets of the topic" (the primary requirement for GA status). The only thing I feel is really missing here is discussion on the possibility of Arda-Mulissu not actually being the killer. I think it's clear that the majority view is that he did kill his father, but the possibility that he was innocent should be mentioned and as soon as I can either access the source you mentioned above, or another more accessible source turns up, I will add this to the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)