Talk:Medo-Babylonian conquest of the Assyrian Empire/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 09:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA Criteria

GA Criteria:

1
1.a Y

1.b Y
2
2.a Y

2.b Y

2.c Y

2.d Y
3
3.a Y

3.b Y
4
4.a Y
5
5.a Y
6
6.a Y

6.b Y

No DAB links Y
No dead links Y
No missing citations Y

Discussion

@Wikaviani:
Suggest archiving links with Wayback Machine. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article uses a mixture of reference types, including near-bare refs, and Harvard refs. References need to be standardized; and any of the Harv reference style must have an associated cite-book template in a Bibliography section to give details. I would suggest changing all the references to Harv style (as used for the Ahmed reference) and adding a Bibliography section for the books and websites. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should add images of some kind, perhaps maps of the empires at the time. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: Hi, i tried to change one source's format into Harvard, but the layout is not good, is it possible to use Harvard type ref with a bluelink that makes verifiability easier ? For exemple the Ahmad source has a blue link, but it's not possible to access it.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently fixing the refs, but what about refs like Encyclopedia Iranica ? Does the Harv style fit with that kind of source (that is not a book and has no page number) ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani: Maybe I'm missing something, but the references for Ahmed 2018, Na’aman 1991, Beaulieu 1997, Yildirim 2017, Rowton 1951, Radner 2019, Reade 1998 and Bassir 2018 appear to be missing. Please have a look and either add them to the Bibliography section or here if you wish. M.Bitton (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton: Yeah, you're right, it's because i took those refs along with some contents from other related articles like Ashur-uballit II or Sinsharishkun which are already GA, so i presume that the sources have been checked. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: Done---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani: The following refs need a Bibliography: "Ahmed 2018, Na’aman 1991, Beaulieu 1997, Yildirim 2017, Radner 2019, Reade 1998, Rowton 1951, and Bassir 2018." Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ok, gonna do that, however, i don't have links pointing to these sources, would it be ok anyway ?~~---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges:

Done---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani: Apologies for the long hiatus, hoping to finish this off in the coming days. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: No worries for the hiatus. Thanks very much for your work. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani: the link for Yildirim, Kemal seems to point to https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328918175_Anxiety_disorder_in_turkey_after_the_failed_military_coup, rather than the intended target. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also some of the citerefs have italics and some don't; standardize these. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done - LouisAragon (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose Suggestions

Please note that almost all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion. Any changes I deem necessary for the article to pass GA standards I will bold.

Lede

Expand lede to include more information about the wars.

Done. But please let me know if you think that the lede is still too short.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede looks good now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

may be what made it possible for another general, suggest may have made it possible

Done---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

the Neo-Assyrian Empire was at the height of its power, the entire Fertile Crescent was under its control and the Assyrians had established an allied dynasty in Egypt. suggest the Neo-Assyrian Empire was at the height of its power, controlling the entire Fertile Crescent, and allied with Egypt.
However, when Assurbanipal died of natural causes in 631 BC, his son Ashur-etil-ilani became king. As often in Assyrian history, Ashur-etil-ilani's rise to the Assyrian throne was initially met with opposition and unrest suggest However when Assyrian king Assurbanipal died of natural causes in 631 BC, his son and successor Ashur-etil-ilani was met with opposition and unrest, a common occurrence in Assyrian history.
Suggest not using in-line citations with sentences, except after punctuation marks like commas or semicolons.
with the probable help of Sin-shumu-lishir, stopped Nabu-rihtu-usur and Sin-shar-ibni[4] and the conspiracy appears to have been crushed relatively quickly suggest likely with the help if Sin-shumu-lishir, stopped Nabu-rihtu-usur and Sin-shar-ibni, crushing the conspiracy relatively quickly.

Done---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of Babylon

The rise of another king might have endangered his position and as such led him to revolt and attempt to seize power for himself. suggest The new king might have endangered his position, therefore he revolted in an attempt to seize power for himself.

Done---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Footnote) It is also possible that Nabopolassar was an ally of Sin-shumu-lishir in the previous revolt and merely continued his rebellion, but this theory requires more assumptions without any concrete evidence. Nadav Na’aman has some pretty concrete discussion around the possibilities here, and it seems quite important to the article, so I'd suggest moving this from the footnote into the body of the article, and adding a few more sentences discussing it, with the supporting evidence of Hellenistic tradition and the tablet made into a footnote at the end of it.

@Iazyges: Can you please tell me what part of the source deals with that ? Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani: https://www.academia.edu/13458703/Chronology_and_History_in_the_Late_Assyrian_Empire_631_619_BC_Zeitschrift_f%C3%BCr_Assyriologie_81_1991_pp_243_267 from page 257 on. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, gonna need more time to deal with that one.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: I've read the source from page 257 to 265, but as far as i can see, there is no subtancial content about this issue. Please let me know if you think that i'm mistaken. If you agree with me, then i guess that all the issues have been addressed. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani: Yes, I am happy with the status of the article; passing now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, these campaigns were successful; in 625 BC the Assyrians took the city of Sippar and Nabopolassar's attempt to reconquer Nippur failed. suggest The Assyrian campaigns were initially successful, seizing the city of Sippar in 625 and repelling Nabopolassar's attempt to reconquer Nippur.

Done---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should have mentioned this earlier, but as a btw, BC doesn't need to be referenced except after the first time it is used in the lede and in the body; although there are 95 usages in the article, so removing it would be a pain, and it doesn't really mess with the flow of the text, but I thought I should let you know for the future.

I'll remove them anyway, thanks for letting me know about this.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

met an army which surrendered without fighting and successfully seized the Assyrian throne. is it explicitly know that this army was the garrison of Nineveh, or was it just along the way? If it was the garrison, suggest where the army garrison surrendered without a fight, and successfully seized the Assyrian throne. if along the way, suggest encountering an Assyrian army along the march, which surrendered without a fight, and seized the Assyrian throne.

Not done No, i have not been able to find where that army was.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sinsharishkun then abandoned his Babylonian campaign and though he successfully defeated the usurper after a hundred days of civil war, the absence of the Assyrian army saw the Babylonians conquer the last remaining Assyrian outposts in Babylonia in 622–620 BC somewhat awkward, suggest Sinsharishkun then abandoned his Babylonian campaign to defeat the usurper, accomplishing the task after roughly a hundred days of civil war; however the absence of the Assyrian army saw the Babylonians conquer the last remaining Assyrian outposts in Babylonia in 622–620 BC

Done---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although Nabopolassar's attempt at taking Assur, the ceremonial and religious center of Assyria, in May of the next year failed and he retreated to Takrit, the Assyrians also failed to assault Takrit and put an end to him suggest Although Nabopolassar's failed to seize Assur, the ceremonial and religious center of Assyria, in May of the next year, forcing him to retreat to Takrit, the Assyrians were unable to capture Takrit and end his rebellion.

Done with a minor grammar correction, i think that you meant "Although Nabopolassar failed to seize Assur" instead of "Although Nabopolassar's failed to seize Assur".---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medes intervention

(Image caption) Map of the Median Empire at its greatest extent (6th century BC), according to Herodotus suggest Map of the Median Empire at its greatest extent (6th century BC), according to the ancient Greek historian Herodotus.

Done - LouisAragon (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

plundering the city and killing many of its inhabitants after its capture suggest removing after its capture as superfluous.

Done - LouisAragon (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

allying with him and signing an anti-Assyrian pact suggest expanding that the Medes and Babylonians married "Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar to a Median princess" as in the cited text.

Done---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 612 BC, the Medes and Babylonians joined their forces to besiege Nineveh and after a lengthy and brutal siege, the city was taken by the allied forces,[20][21] the Medes playing the major part in the city's downfall. suggest In 612 BC, the Medes and Babylonians joined their forces to besiege Nineveh, taking the city after a lengthy and brutal siege, with the Medes playing a major part in the city's downfall is anything more known of why the Medes played the major part? It may simply be a matter of manpower, which the sources seem to indicate, but aren't very clear about, but if any other source could shed more light, it would be helpful for context. Maybe superior siege techniques, as indicated by the "after an artificially engineered flooding and desperate storming" section?

I added your suggestion for te "In 612 BC..." part. Wikaviani needs to check the other questions you asked. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not known why the Medes played the major part, it may well be a conjunction of several reasons.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thus Ashur-uballit II did have a coronation in Harran and took this city as his capital. suggest Therefore Ashur-uballit II was coronated in Harran, which he made his new capital.

Done - LouisAragon (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the few subjects Ashur-uballit II governed himself probably did not share this view. suggest the few remaining subjects Ashur-uballit II governed likely did not share this view. it seems from sources they didn't view him as anything more than crown prince because he was not coronated in Assur according to tradition, suggest mentioning this here if this can be properly cited.

Done, the cited source (Radner) supports this.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt and Mannea, first mention of Mannea, was this a new alliance, if so mention, or were they "sitting this one out" until this point, if so, mention the reasons why (if known) and that they just now joined the war.

Egypt and Mannea were allied with Assyria, we don't know if they were allied together. It seems that these two kingdoms began to intervene when they got that Assyria's situation was dire, thus, after the Medes entered into the war.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

goal was probably seen as quite possible and his rule at Harran and role as crown prince (and not legitimately crowned king) probably seemed like a mere temporary retreat. suggest ambition was quite possible, and his temporary rule from Harran as crown prince, rather than legitimately crowned king, may have seemed more like a temporary circumstance.

Done---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

had effectively ceased to exist suggest had effectively ceased to exist as a state.

Done - LouisAragon (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the Babylonians had ruled Harran for three months, Ashur-uballit and a large force of Egyptian soldiers attempted to retake the city, but this campaign failed disastrously. Beginning in July or June 609 BC, Ashur-uballit's siege lasted for two months, until August or September, but he and the Egyptians retreated when Nabopolassar again led his army against them. It is possible that they had retreated even earlier. suggest After the Babylonians had ruled Harran for three months, Ashur-uballit, along with a large force of Egyptian soldiers (unless he was out of Assyrian soldiers and the Egyptians were basically his entire army, in which case keep "and a large force of Egyptian soldiers") attempted to retake the city, launching a siege in June or July of 609 BC. His seiege lasted at most two months, until August or September, before being forced to retreat by Nabopolassar; they may have retreated even earlier.

@Wikaviani: Please allow me to speed up things. This review's been out there for a long time as far as I can see. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure ! any help from a more experienced editor than me for a GA review would be much appreciated. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Because there is no mention of a large battle between the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Medes in 608 BC (a battle between the four greatest military powers of their day is unlikely to have been forgotten and left out of contemporary sources) and no later mentions of Ashur-uballit, it is possible that he died at some point in 608 BC before his allies and his enemies could clash in battle. suggest There is no mention large battle between the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Medes in 608 BC, which would have been mentioned in contemporary sources as it marked conflict of the four greatest military powers of their day, and there re no later mentions of Ashur-uballit, it is possible he died at some point during 608 BC, before such a battle could occur.

Done but i suppose that you meant : "There is no mention of a large battle between the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Medes in 608 BC, which would have been mentioned in contemporary sources as it marked conflict of the four greatest military powers of their day, and there re no later mentions of Ashur-uballit, it is possible he died at some point during 608 BC, before such a battle could occur."---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M.B. Rowton introduce him, perhaps as The historian M.B. Rowton

Done - LouisAragon (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

but by then the Egyptian army is mentioned in Babylonian sources without any references to the Assyrians or their king suggest however by this time references to the Egyptian army in Babylonian sources bear no reference to the Assyrians or their king.

Done (with some minor punctuation corrections).---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rapid collapse of Assyrian power remains a great mystery, but it's clear that the Medes played a role in it. this is pretty awkward, suggest either removing this as superfluous or expanding it into a much larger chunk of text describing the reasons the collapse was so unexpected and why the Medes were so critical, perhaps beginning with It is unknown why the Assyrian Empire collapsed so rapidly...

Done (removed for now, but i will, perhaps, add it back one day if i find the time for that and expand it with some sources).---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

It looks like Iazyges posted the review on October 1, and hasn't been back since; their most recent edit on Wikipedia was October 10. Nominator Wikaviani has made some progress in the months since, but a significant number of points have not yet been addressed in the ensuing two and a half months, and LouisAragon addressed a few issues in mid-November but not since. This has really been taking too long.

My suggestion is to give a hard deadline for Wikaviani to finish addressing the outstanding issues. Since it will have been three full months on New Year's Day since the review was posted, I think that's a reasonable deadline. If the issues have been dealt with by then, a new review will be found to finish this review unless Iazyges shows up again and can commit to continuing the review in a timely manner. If the issues haven't been fully addressed, then the review would be closed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Hi, thank you for your insight. I agree with you when you say that this has been taking too long, but some of the points Iazyges mentioned above require to investigate several sources, this cannot be done in only few days. I have not addressed any point recently, but this does not mean that i'm not working on it. I prefer to have the time to do the job well instead of being put under pressure to finish it quickly, no matter how it's done. This topic about an ancient war requires probably more time to be dealt with than others, as the sources are often rare and not unanimous. If you think that the deadline should be the new year's day, then you can close this right now, as I'd rather stop working on it than do shoddy work. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikaviani, thanks for your response. The main issue seems to me that work on issues raised in a GA review is typically expected to be done in a week or maybe weeks, rather than months—if the issues require that much time to address, the best thing is usually to end the review and allow the nominator to address everything in their own time, after which a new nomination is made. How long do you think it would take to take care of all of the remaining issues, and are you saying that you'll cease work on the article altogether if the review is closed as unsuccessful? That would be a shame, though it's your decision. I'm going to ping Aircorn and Kingsif to get their thoughts on my suggested timeframe. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! @BlueMoonset and Wikaviani: my view on time scales is that 1 week is the ideal, another week is a grace period. I'm quite generous when there are issues (that aren't big) to do with sources. E.g. there is active collaboration so the users might not all have access to all sources, or if I've suggested a lot of sources myself that the nominator is not familiar with. If there's another source issue, like access based on pandemic restrictions to libraries, it's a harder question now: how long will this pandemic go on? Will libraries start collecting e-books? But if you have all of the sources, if the issue isn't a serious V or coverage failure, I'm sure you can get through it in a week. If it is such a big issue, the review may be closer to an immediate fail. Perhaps January 2/3 - a bit of a grace period for the holidays - but I agree with BlueMoonset's assessment of the review needs after a couple months of work. Kingsif (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been checking in every few days; I'm happy to keep the review open in view of Corona, but if editors agree with a deadline, I will be happy to enforce it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the 3 january deadline, i'll try to end this up. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks sorted. Will just add that while I generally agree with Kingsif I am alot less prolific than them and tend to work on longer timescales. As long as progress is being made it can usually be kept open a bit longer. There is quite a bit of leeway given, but when they stay stalled for months there needs to be some gentle prodding. AIRcorn (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]