Talk:Herod Agrippa/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 21:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I am going to have a look at this one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This article seems to be largely based on a translation from the French version (see Criterion 5 below).

Criterion 1: Well-written

This is by far the area of biggest concern, for me. While I appreciate that English is probably not the primary editor's first language, and that there is no prejudice against a national or slightly stilted variety of English, the text is nevertheless awkward, ambiguous and confusing in many places.

General observations

• Tense is a major problem throughout - much of the article is written in the present tense, incorrectly rendering the use of the passé simple in the French version. There are even points where the future tense is used — e.g. He is supported there by his mother's friend, Antonia Minor, sister-in-law of Tiberius - who will become emperor in 14 ('Imperial court') — in a manner wholly inappropriate in English.

• There are some points where translation from French has left artefacts, some easily-fixed, others less so. An example from early in the text: His reign is marked by numerous family intrigues - he had ten wives - and bloody. Thus, in 29 BC. J.-C., the king executes his wife Mariamne by jealousy, grandmother of Agrippa and, the following year, the mother of this one.

• There are a few errors of punctuation throughout, which often read as typos to me. Towards the end of 'Regional ambitions and unexpected death', Agrippa's name is misspelt.

Representative examples of unclear/ambiguous English

• According to Movses Khorenatsi, as well as several sources in Syriac and Armenian, the king of Edessa, Abgar V "provides auxiliaries" to the Nabataean king, Aretas IV, to wage war against Herod (Antipas) ». ·

• The gathering had a messianic connotation whose leader—whom Flavius Josephus avoids naming—sought to appear as the eschatological prophet similar to Moses, one of the three messianic figures found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. A figure that has also been attributed to John the Baptist and Jesus the Nazorean.

• He is thus the first Herodo-Hasmonean to participate in a Temple office since the dismissal of the Hasmonean Antigonus II Mattathias, even if he does not sacrifice himself.

• The legate of Syria interrupts, on the orders of Claudius alerted, the fortification of Jerusalem and tempers the regional diplomatic ambitions of the latter. Indeed, Agrippa invites to Tiberias the kings Herod of Chalcis — his brother —, the king of Emesa Sampsigeramos — father-in-law of his brother Aristobulus — as well as three princes who had been his companions in Rome.''

Criterion 2: Verifiable with no original research

The article is heavily referenced, generally to published, secondary, academic sources. While much of the scholarship is Francophone, the references do a good job of name-checking major English- and French-speaking scholars on the subject, at least as far as my non-specialist research can tell.

There is some inconsistency in the referencing style, with most following the {{harvsp}} and referring down to the bibliography, but others defined in full in the reference (e.g. current refs 27, 29, 75 and 130), often in a slightly different style.

Some primary sources are referenced inline in the text, sometimes in a way that confuses exactly which source is being discussed exactly when (e.g. the end of the 'Judaism in the Empire' section').

Some lengthy factual sections rely heavily or entirely on primary sources, particularly Josephus: this should be avoided per WP:RSPRIMARY, and those sections should at least be re-couched as the perspective of a (partial, limited, partisan) primary source, rather than presented as factual in the article's voice.

The first part of the 'Statue of Caligula' section seems to refer to primary sources, but these are not directly cited - there is a quote about Philo's 'horror' and an unattributed citation to Josephus. This could be interpreted as WP:NOR.

In 'First comer to his kingdom', the statement While the second accusation is probably true, the first is doubtful. is unsourced, but strongly needs citation.

There are some points where · is used to separate multiple references - this is a little confusing, particularly in longer chains of references.

Some of the comments in the references are written in French (see criterion 1 above).

I ran several parts of the article through plagiarism check: they appear to be sound.

Criterion 3: Broad in its coverage

It is certainly large in its coverage: the 'Biography' section is massive, and certainly heavily detailed.

It might be wise to pull out some of the more diachronic/thematic elements (such as Herod's religious policy, the expansion of his kingdom, his relations with Rome...) away from the chronological narrative, perhaps into their own second-order section(s). This would make it easier for a non-expert or casual reader to form an impression of the subject, without having to parse the whole lengthy biographical mini-article to do so.

Criterion 4: Neutral

The article generally does a good job here - both the ancient sources and many modern views of the characters and events here can easily lapse into hagiography or demonisation. I worry that the article is a little too trusting of Josephus, however - it would be good to see some source-criticism here, especially as he is a major source for much of the narrative.

Criterion 5: Stable

The article has been fairly massively re-worked by User:Michel Abada since mid-November, which seems to be the point at which the material from the French version was introduced. Its content has been largely stable since then.

Unfortunately, to fix the issues raised under criteria 1 and 2, I think it would be necessary to substantially destabilise the article, at least for a while.

Criterion 6: Illustrated

The illustrations are generally a strength, particularly the maps, and the use of portraiture to illustrate the key characters. The family tree is a nice touch.

Some sections are particularly heavy on geography and people, and could do with more of that sort of illustration - the 'Return to Judea'/'Back to Rome' section stands out in particular.

Some of the picture captions (see especially the map in 'First comer to his kingdom') need to be rewritten for clarity.

Overall judgement

A lot of work has clearly gone into this article, both on the French Wikipedia and on this one. Unfortunately, its transition between the two has not been smooth. It currently fails substantially under Criterion 1, and less severely on Criterion 2. The most urgent actions for the near term would seem to be:

• The article needs a thorough copy-edit by someone highly proficient in English. In most cases, the areas of linguistic awkwardness and ambiguity could probably be untangled by a non-specialist, but there are sufficiently many of them that they markedly detract from the quality of the article, as it currently stands. Unfortunately, the sheer length of the article makes this a sizeable task.
• Sections currently relying on primary sources need to be re-worked, to ensure that factual claims made in the article's voice are substantiated by reliable, secondary sources, or else that the nature of the sources is made clear in the article. Where sections rely on uncited sources, these sources need to be added in.

In terms of improving the overall quality of the article, the points under Criterion 3 may be useful, and I think the article would benefit from a run-through to put the referencing into a consistent style.

I hope that editors will go back into this article and bring it up to scratch - the 'original' version on the French Wikipedia is Featured, so there are clearly the bones of an excellent article in here.