Talk:Šamaš-šuma-ukin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 19:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if people interested in palaeontology are also generally interested in ancient human history? Anyway, I am as well, so I'll take this article too. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, ancient human history is the "sequel" on the time scale after all :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the ancient Mesopotamians appear to have had pet dinosaurs (or silesaurs?) after all... FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ishtar is duplinked.

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link all terms and names in article body which are linked in the intro? For example cities which are now unlinked.

I've added some links but could have missed some as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

State locations of other artifacts in their captions as you do for the infobox image?

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect that Sargonid dynasty already be mentioned and linked in the background section?

It is now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link Medes?

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Shamash-shum-ukin is traditionally believed to have committed suicide" By what traditions?

As in most historians have typically believed that he committed suicide (though no ancient text explicitly says he did) - perhaps there is a better way to say this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps clarify "traditionally believed by historians"? Otherwise it could be read as it was part of some legend. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, went with your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You now link Nineveh at last instead of first mention.

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"As typically done by Assyrian rulers, Shamash-shum-ukin venerates his ancestors in many of his inscriptions, typically naming his great-grandfather Sargon II, his grandfather Sennacherib (from whom he typically omits the title "King of Babylon" due to Sennacherib's actions against the city), his father Esarhaddon and sometimes his brother Ashurbanipal. Their inclusion in his titles may be because of fears that his legitimacy might be questioned if they were omitted." This reads oddly as the only part in present tense surrounded by past tense.

Made into past tense. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"meaning "Shamash has established the name" Perhaps this should also be mentioned and possibly elaborated on in the background section? What does it entail that "Shamash has established the name"?

With some ancient names the meaning and context is quite clear; Sennacherib's (who ruled with his birth name) name means "Sîn has replaced the brothers" because his older brothers had died by the time he was born, Ashur-uballit II's name (assumed when he became king) means "Ashur has kept alive" because he hoped to save and restore the Assyrian Empire right before its final fall. I couldn't find any source that comments on why Shamash-shum-ukin is called Shamash-shum-ukin or what exactly "Shamash has established the name" means, but if I had to guess "established the name" could be interpreted as something along the lines of "has established me as king". Difficult to elaborate on without sources, though. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Shamash-shum-ukin grew tired of Ashurbanipal's overbearing control" To grow tired is surprisingly specific considering the article body doesn't go into such detail, is this what the source says, or is it a kind of paraphrasing?

Changed the phrasing to something in-line with what the article body says. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would perhaps be significant enough to mention in the intro that his memory was almost erased?

Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any indication why the oldest son was given the lesser title?

Not beyond the speculation that is already in the article. As mentioned, some sources seem to suggest that "king of Babylon" wasn't actually intended to be that much of a lesser title and that the two brothers were supposed to be equals but that Ashurbanipal disregarded this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff, if we aren't getting more eurypterids soon, these are a good replacement. Will promote when the last comment above is addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the final comment. Thank you for looking through this one! I feel like most of the really urgent eurypterid stuff has been covered (most of the more well-known genera, the big Eurypterid article etc.), but I do promise to get back to the eurypterids (and other Paleontology eventually), there are some articles there I really want to work on :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll promote now, as for eurypterids, the "elephant in the room" might be Eurypterus itself! FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hehe, oooh right. Eurypterus is indeed a glaring omission in terms of getting work done. I've begun a draft right now, but considering the wealth of sources available it will probably take some time before it gets off the ground :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]