Talk:Shalmaneser V/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 07:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Will comment below. Constantine ✍ 07:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you use the {{transl}} template for transliterated terms, rather than simply mark them with italics.

Changed instances of just italics to use the transl template. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the form 'Shalmaneser' come from?

Presumably it is derived from the Biblical rendition šlmnʾsr, will see if I can find a source that says this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added more discussion on his name, including the origin of the modern rendition. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link 'mina' to some suitable article or provide a brief explanation

Linked and explained. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the 'Illil of the gods'?

It's one of the designations used for Ashur, Assyria's national deity (for an example of usage of the phrase where that is more clear, see here). I'm not sure how this is best made clearer in a non-awkward way in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The succession box mentions Marduk-apla-iddina II, but he does not appear in the main article at all, nor is a different succession in Babylonia discussed.

Marduk-apla-iddina seems to have kind of come out of nowhere and seized Babylon's throne after Shalmaneser's death before Sargon could be crowned in the south as well, so he can't be incorporated into this article in a significant way. I've added a sentence about Marduk-apla-iddina to after the article talks about Sargon dealing with the "guilty Assyrians". Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good, but be consistent in providing (or not) locations for the books.

Added locations for the books that were missing it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this is a well-written article, packed with information but presented in an accessible manner. The information is cited to reliable sources and conflicting views and interpretations are discussed, apparently to an up-to-date standard. A spotcheck of references showed no copyvio problems. Once my remarks above are addressed, I will be happy to promote this. Constantine ✍ 08:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to do this review. I've addressed most of the remarks - will see about finding a source on the origin of the modern rendition of his name. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: All done except the point about the "illil of the gods". Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can add a note about it with {{efn}}. It won't, in a way, disrupt the quote, and would give an explanation for the reader. If you decide to go with it, don't forget to add a separate "Notes" header with {{Notelist}}. --► Sincerely: Sola virum 11:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Solavirum: Yes of course, done. Thanks! Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: That should be everything done! Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ichthyovenator: Hi, I've come to check this review, hope all is well with you. This isn't a person I had any knowledge of, but the article is well-written, all the review points have been met, and I'm impressed by the sources. I have one note before I'll promote this: there are two "Mark, Joshua J. (2014)" web sources, and one of them doesn't seem to be referenced properly. Best, Kingsif (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Hello. Thank you! I've removed the second Mark (2014) source - checking again, both of the cited statements can be found in the one that remains now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]