Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sennacherib/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 January 2021 [1].

Sennacherib

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about ancient Assyria's most famous king. Sennacherib appears as a ruthless conqueror in the Bible, with his attack on Jerusalem being portrayed (and later remembered) as a near-apocalyptic event, the city only being saved through divine intervention. The real Sennacherib was more tragic and seemingly uninterested in conquest. He was superstitious due to a religiously damning fate that befell his father and he built the greatest city the world had ever seen up until his time. Throughout most of his reign he was plagued by problems caused by his arch-enemy, Marduk-apla-iddina II of Babylon. Sennacherib stands out among the Assyrian kings as a complex figure in his own right; his reign and his actions read more like a narrative, riddled with twists and heartbreak, than the otherwise seemingly randomly directed campaigns of his predecessors and there is significant discussion to be had in regards to his actual character and who he was as a person. The article has passed through a GA review, peer review and a copy edit and I believe any potential remaining issues could be addressed during the FAC process. Should the article pass, it will be the first FA of an ancient Assyrian king. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Sennacherib/archive1, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
Any edits I do this week are actually procrastination but if Acamptonectes is still in need of reviews by next weekend (which I assume will be the case), I can take a look then :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the meantime, I see a bunch of duplinks, which can be highlighted with the usual script:[2]
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subjects of images should preferably face the text instead of away from it. Though you don't really have much room to do that everywhere here, I think the first image after the infobox could be right aligned so that Sargon II faces the text. Then the image just below in the "Sennacherib as crown prince" section could be left aligned.
Realigned the two images specified. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Neo-Assyrian and other terms only linked in the intro at first mention in the article body (these are not seen as duplinks).
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sargon claimed he was the son of the earlier king Tiglath-Pileser III" You could perhaps say "claimed he was himself the son of" for clarity, had to read it a couple of times to understand you didn't mean Sennacherib.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Assyria and Babylonia shared the same language" Mention which?
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The relationship between Assyria and Babylonia was not entirely unlike the relationship between Greece and Rome in later centuries; Assyria and Babylonia shared the same language" This would imply Greece and Rome shared the same language, but that wouldn't be the case, no?
Languages of the Roman Empire – Latin and Greek were the two official languages of the Roman Empire, even before Byzantine times, so Rome and Greece did share a language. You are correct however that the linguistic aspect isn't really relevant to the Rome-Greece comparison on account of Latin eclipsing Greek among the Romans. I've moved the bit on them having the same language to its own sentence after this one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You introduce "Assyriologist Eckart Frahm", but not for example Josette Elayi. Would be best to be consistent throughout when introducing modern people.
Made it consistent throughout the article to introduce with "Assyriologist" or corresponding occupation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a bit problematic that the svg maps used are in German. Maybe English versions could be made? Perhaps the author, Enyavar, could be asked?
I've asked Enyavar at their talk page, so we'll see what happens. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because portions of the Assyrian army were away in Tabal in 704 BC, and Sennacherib, possibly considering a two-front war too risky, he left Marduk-apla-iddina unchallenged for several months." This sentence is pretty convoluted and hard to understand. Seems to be something grammatically wrong? Perhaps the words I bolded need to be removed.
Looks like it has already been removed. I've also rewritten the sentence and split it into two, should be clearer now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had fled to the southern Sea Land" Anything to link?
The Sea Land is explained right after and we don't have an article on it yet (though one should probably be made). I can't link to Sea Land since that redirects to the Principality of Sealand, where Marduk-apla-iddina definitely did not flee to. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "brother of an Arabian queen" Link Arab? And isn't "Arabian" more of a geographic designation than ethnic, unlike Arab?
Don't think "Arabian" is explicitly wrong as the queen in question ruled in Arabia but Arab should be fine as well seeing as Assyrian inscriptions explicitly title her as the "queen of the Arabs". Changed "Arabian" to "Arab". Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "destroying the fields of the Chaldeans, Arameans and Babylonians who had supported the revolting regime and taking over two hundred thousand prisoners." Confusing who did the bolded part. If the Assyrians, you could say "and took over two hundred thousand prisoners" or such.
Yeah, it was the Assyrians. Went with your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sennacherib described Bel-ibni as "a native of Babylon who grew up in my palace like a young puppy"." That's kind of hilarious!
Gotta love ancient writings. There's a lot of fun to be had reading ancient Mesopotamian documents commenting on politics (also if they are written by someone making the decisions themselves, such as Sennacherib) or random stuff (this customer service complaint is a classic for instance). Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, I really like the quotes sprinkled throughout, adds colour! FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lachish is linked in two successive captions. Each term only needs to be linked in the first caption it is mentioned in.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "proclaimed a noble by the name Ethbaal as the new king of Sidon as his vassal" The double "as" is confusing. Do you mean "and" the second time?
Yeah, changed to "and" at the second time. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; changed so that it is two separate links. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article becomes very image-heavy as you go down, and the images seem to almost clash with each other. Perhaps related images could be collected into double images, as I tried in for example Podokesaurus and Réunion ibis?
Oh, I see you had already done this a few places, but perhaps more could be tried, I attempted small fout image compilations yesterday at quagga... Could maybe be used to collect some of the Lachish reliefs?
Not ignoring this; I'll go through and fix the images sometime after christmas. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and grouped together many of the images. Unsure about some of the ones I didn't group together, so see how you feel about the images as they are now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Levant could be linked in the article body too.
Linked. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Negal-ushezib and the Elamites attacked the Assyrian army " First time you spell the name "Nergal"?
Yeah, Nergal is correct (it comes from the god); fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some Babylonians seized their king Ashur-nadin-shumi" Not sure what else you could do, but seems somewhat inappropriate to refer to someone imposed on them as "their" king...
Very true. Removed "their king" entirely so that it just says that the Babylonians seized Ashur-nadin-shumi. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The king who had anxiously considered" Is there a reason to use the ambiguous" the king" when you are dealing with two kings here?
See under the next point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The king who had anxiously considered the implications of Sargon's seizure of Babylon and the role that the city's offended gods may have played in his father's downfall was gone, replaced by a king wishing to avenge the death of his son and tiring of a city well within the borders of his empire that had repeatedly rebelled against his rule." This s very specific and almost seems like mind-reading, so could be made clear if this is speculation by later historians or somehow implied by Sennacherib himself.
I've reworded this part and split it up into more sentences; this is Brinkman's interpretation of Sennacherib's reasoning. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This leaves the blame of the fate of the temples not personally on Sennacherib himself, but on the decisions made by the temple personnel and the actions of the Assyrian people." This also reads like one historian's interpretation, so could need in-text attribution.
Something is up with this being the only action during Babylon's destruction that Sennacherib doesn't take personal credit for, but yes I agree. I've added in-text attribution here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "eradication of the Babylonia" Is "the" needed? You don't use it elsewhere when you mention Babylonia.
Removed "the". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Construction of Nineveh" This title made me think he constructed it form scratch. Is there a way to imply it was more of a expansion, rebuilding, or similar?
I've changed "construction" to "renovation", if that works better? Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where colossal statues of bulls from Sargon's palace depicts them with five legs so that four legs could be seen from either side" I think it should be "depict"?
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed link. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His father forced Arda-Mulissu" This seems oddly worded considering the article is about this father (and not about Arda-Mulissu), why not just say "Sennacherib forced"? Perhaps switch it around: "Sennacherib forced Arda-Mulissu to swear loyalty to Esarhaddon, but Arda-Mulissu made many appeals to his father to reinstate him as heir".
Yeah, changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as he had reached the height of his popularity but was powerless to do anything to him" This is a bit unclear. Maybe the last "him" could be "his brother"?
Changed "him" to "his brother". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "escaping after murdering Sennacherib" Perhaps add "after murdering their father Sennacherib?" for context?
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in the meantime, Esarhaddon had raised an army" Where was he at the time of the murder?
This is already in the article; he was still in "the western provinces", where he had been sent by Sennacherib, who feared Arda-Mulissu would hurt Esarhaddon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything specific on how his death was lamented? Anything on his funeral, ceremonies?
I don't think anything is recorded for this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is possible that Sennacherib suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder" This seems awfully speculative, and should probably have in-text attribution.
Yeah, you're right. I've attributed it to Frahm in the text (his full name is given earlier in the article so just including his last name down there). Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Medieval Syriac tales, characterize Sennacherib" Why the comma?
Removed the comma. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where some have even been reburied" Why?
Elayi doesn't say anything except that they were large; maybe to avoid damage being caused to them by the elements (since they were too big to transport out of there)?
  • "Hormuzd Rassam returned" You shouldn't spell out his full name at second mention.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "under the Assyriologist T. Madhloom" Can we find the full name? And if not, what's the point of a red link?
I've added his full name (Tariq) and removed the link entirely. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The traditional assessment of Sennacherib as a ruthless conqueror has faded away in modern scholarship. Writing in 1978" But can you cite a single 1978 article for this broad statement?
I've added Elayi's 2018 assessment of Sennacherib as well. Maybe this introductory sentence could be reworded to be less all-encompassing but I can't find many other concrete assessments of who Sennacherib was. I don't think many modern scholars hold the view that he was a ruthless enemy of God. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "exhibited at the Iraq Museum" You don't mention the museums in any other image captions, so it should either be removed here or added to all of then, I think...
Removed this part of the caption; IIRC it was mentioned in one of my previous Assyrian GA:s that mentioning the museum was unnecessary in image captions since objects tend to move around a lot and only be exhibited sometimes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it's interesting to note even if something is exhibited somewhere temporarily, as wherever something is now, it was there when the photo was taken... But the most important thing s just to be consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are various more terms that you link multiple times in image captions which only need a link at first occurrence.
Think I've fixed all cases of this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or because of the ill omens associated with the battlefield death" The article body doesn't seem to say specifically this was due to ill omens?
I've removed "ill omens". Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His most famous work in the city is the Southwest Palace, which Sennacherib named his "Palace without Rival"." Should this perhaps be past tense, as it doesn't exist any more?
The palace doesn't exist anymore but it is only the "most famous work" today, hence the present tense. I'm unsure on this one but I can change it to "was" if you think that is correct. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any speculation at all on why Arda-Mulissu was replaced at crown prince?
Not beyond the little speculation that is already in (that Esarhaddon's influential mother might have had something to do with it) - it is clear that it was a strange decision in comtemporary times as well since even Esarhaddon, who benefitted from it, commented on it later. I'm not sure if it is needed here since it might clog up an already long article, but Esarhaddon's account of this stuff is in his article, with some quotes, if readers are interested in that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arda-Mulissu and another son" Not sure, but would it be appropriate to name the son here?
Yeah it is a bit strange to only mention one of the conspirators (even if Arda-Mulissu was clearly the senior of the two), I've added Nabu-shar-usur to the lede as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be nice to find a higher res version of this drawing[3] and clean it up a bit, it's pretty cool...
The image is huge (2839 x 3486) in the source specified at Commons so I've added the larger version. I agree that it's pretty cool. What type of cleaning did you have in mind? Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, quite an improvement, I was thinking a version could be made where the border was cropped and the contrast and tint was corrected, but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the 1553 drawing is really useful here, it is pretty nondescript (it looks like any random guy), and the images are really crammed in that section. Perhaps put it in a double image with the somewhat similar Georg Pencz woodcut?
I've removed the image entirely; think it would look even more crowded if grouped with the George Pencz woodcut, which looks a bit cooler anyway IMO. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for taking your time to go through this one (it's one of the longest I've done) and for the support! I'm gonna have a busy spring but I'm hoping that at least one more of the Sargonids makes it over here to FAC in the not too distant future :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support (including source review) by A. Parrot

[edit]

This looks close to FA standard, but I see two overarching problems. One is wordiness: ideas are often conveyed in a repetitive way, to such an extent that whole sentences could be shortened and combined with each other without loss of meaning. I've cut out some verbiage myself, but for more major instances I've listed my suggestions in the bullet points below. Second, the article seems to speculate a lot about Sennacherib's thinking and character. I'm uncomfortable with speculation about the thoughts and feelings of ancient people, especially before classical antiquity, in which we have more extensive evidence of what individuals' personalities were like. In most cases the speculation seems to be supported by the sources (though I haven't done a thorough source check), but in at least a couple of cases it seems like the article text could express more caution, and if there are sources that challenge the speculation, they should absolutely be brought in. A. Parrot (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working through the article and for offering your input. I'll work through your comments soon, just wanted to quickly clarify that I haven't inferred any of Sennacherib's thoughts or anything of his character myself in the article; it should all come from the sources. Some of the assumptions could probably be better attributed, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Levantine War of 701 was made necessary by…" It seems like this sentence can be combined with the description of the beginning of the war in the preceding paragraph.
I've almost entirely removed the beginning of this paragraph; less repetition now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…a campaign recorded not only in Sennacherib's own accounts, but also in the Second Book of Kings in the Hebrew Bible." It doesn't seem necessary to mention Sennacherib's own accounts here, as it's only one of many campaigns the Assyrians recorded. Secondly, why is "Hebrew Bible" used and linked here, while "Old Testament" is used and linked in the first paragraph?
Removed mention of both Sennacherib's account here and of the Hebrew Bible (since this is already stated in the first paragraph). Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening paragraph leaves one wondering why Ataliya was ever considered Sennacherib's mother. Elayi specifies that Ra'īmâ was identified by a new reading on her stela, so it seems worth pointing out that a recent development changed the picture. According to the article on Sargon II, Ataliya's grave is also a fairly recent discovery, from the 1980s, so if the sources specify that those two developments changed the picture, it seems best to say so.
Added dates and changed some things around here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would Sennacherib's mother have to have lived to 692 BC? Or should that clause apply specifically to Ataliya because her approximate date of death is known? If the latter, does it derive from her grave?
Inscriptions mention a "Queen Mother" as alive in 692 BC and as that title only applies relative to the king, that means that Sennacherib's mom was still alive by then. Added this with source to the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…though his letters indicate he wanted to please Sargon, they also show he knew him quite well." It's hardly surprising that these would both be true. It would be more straightforward to say "his letters indicate he knew Sargon well and wanted to please him."
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sennacherib may have resented his father for this as he missed out on the glory attached to military victories." Elayi mentions this possibility in a rhetorical question, which seems like an even weaker way of putting it forward than stating "Sennacherib may have…". If it were me I would leave this sentence out, but if you want to keep it, at least qualify it further by attributing it to Elayi.
Elayi brings this up later in the book again (amended the citation to list both pages); so she appears to believe that it is a possibility and I think it is worth noting. I've attributed it to Elayi in the text. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…not entirely unlike…" is wordy, and this kind of double negative is rarely advisable. "Similar to" works fine here. That said, the paragraph as a whole is great at clarifying the cultural background, and it ends with the kind of punchy sentence that we rarely get to write in Wikipedian NPOV-speak.
Changed to "similar to". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He appears to have been in denial, refusing to acknowledge and deal with what had happened to his father." More psychologizing; I can only access a snippet of the source on Google Books, so I can't see on what grounds the source suggests it, but it seems like it would need greater qualification. In the snippet that I can see, the wording is uncomfortably close to that in the article text.
I've attributed it to Frahm and added in his direct quotes, which should help with the problem of the wording being uncomfortably close. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…images that Sargon had created at the temple in Assur…" Were they statues or reliefs?
The source did not specify. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sargon's wife Ataliya was buried hastily when she died without regard to the traditional burial practices…" In what way? She was stuffed in a coffin with another body, but the structure of the sentence implies that there was more to it than that. In addition, the sentence would be clearer if rearranged to begin with "When Sargon's wife Ataliya died…".
The odd coffin-sharing was the "withour regard for ..." thing IIRC, changed the wording here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notably, it is the most well-documented event in the history of Israel during the First Temple period" could be shortened through merging with the preceding sentence: "…is very well-documented compared to many other events in the ancient Near East and is the best-documented event in the history of Israel during the First Temple period."
Done as per your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marduk-apla-iddina's main strength…" This sentence seems redundant with the one about the results of Elamite support later in the paragraph.
Removed the sentence. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence that begins "He conspired with Egypt…" is confusingly structured, making it unclear whether the actions later in the sentence were performed by Hezekiah or Sidqia.
Hezekiah did them; made this clearer. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two sentences about the Rabshakeh could be shortened and combined with each other.
Shortened and combined. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same is true for the beginning of the paragraph about Ashur-nadin-shami's apparent position as crown prince.
I've shortened this paragraph a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The king who had anxiously considered the implications of Sargon's seizure of Babylon…" This sentence feels like it could be shortened a good deal.
I've split it up and changed things around, you're welcome to take a look and see if parts of this should still be removed or if you think it's fine as is. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…it is possible to assume some aspects of Sennacherib's character." I think "infer" would work better here.
Changed to "infer". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…the popular image of the king has been mainly negative. There are two primary reasons for this. The first is…" The middle sentence could be cut out and "The first" amended to "The first reason…"
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "world event" is worth putting in quotes (as it is, because it's not a common term), it should be attributed.
Attributed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Midrash, similar examinations of the Old Testament…" Similar to what?
Removed "similar" here, unclear why it was there in the first place. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'm thinking about doing a source review for this article as well, given that I'm familiar with an adjacent field and source reviews are in short supply, but I'm not good at detecting problems with the formatting of sources, and I'm not sure I'll have time. In any case, here's my last round of comments outside a source review.

My only substantial point is about Egypt: Egypt in Sennacherib's time was really the Kingdom of Kush, which should be mentioned and linked. Moreover, there's a hypothesis (first advanced in a rather polemical fashion by a non-expert, but deemed worthy of consideration by a whole volume's worth of RSes) that the Kushite forces were responsible for the lifting of the blockade of Jerusalem. I don't know how you want to treat that, but I'd be inclined to briefly mention it as a possibility. The rest of my comments are mostly more prose stuff. A. Parrot (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that Egypt was under the Kushites in the time of Sennacherib. I think the hypothesis of Kushite intervention is worth mentioning as a possibility; I've added it to the article but I haven't elaborated on it; a more elaborate discussion of this idea (and the other ones) could probably be added in an eventually expanded Assyrian siege of Jerusalem (where it is already mentioned briefly). Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the third paragraph could still be trimmed a bit, like so: "In the Levantine War, the states in the southern Levant, especially the Kingdom of Judah under King Hezekiah, were not subdued as easily as those in the north. The Assyrians thus invaded Judah."
Trimmed as per your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like the discovery of Ataliya's grave would go more naturally in the sentence that mentions the information derived from it: "…Ataliya's grave at Kalhu, which was discovered in the 1980s, indicates she was 35 years old at most when she died."
Yeah, I agree. Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about Assyria and Babylonia as husband and wife is awkward. Perhaps: "The relationship between Assyria and Babylon was emotional in a sense; Neo-Assyrian inscriptions implicitly gender the two countries, calling Assyria the metaphorical 'husband' and Babylon its 'wife'."
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The passage about the Rabshakeh's threat could be rendered more directly: "According to the Biblical narrative, a senior Assyrian official with the title Rabshakeh stood in front of the city's walls and demanded its surrender, saying the Judeans would 'eat feces and drink urine' during the siege."
Amended to almost your suggestion, with "threatening that" instead of "saying". Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear to me from either Luckenbill or 2 Kings that Sennacherib remained at Lachish while fighting Libnah. Perhaps you could say: "According to the biblical account, the Assyrian envoys to Hezekiah returned to Sennacherib to find him engaged in a struggle with the city of Libnah."
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…and Sennacherib granted substantial portions of Judah's land to the neighboring kingdoms of Gaza, Ashdod and Ekron."
Changed to this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the third paragraph about the Elamite campaign could be crisper; something like "Sennacherib was cut off from his own empire by Elam and Babylonia, whose alliance now had the upper hand."
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to Hanigalbat goes to Mitanni, a kingdom that had been defunct for centuries in Sennacherib's day, though apparently Hanigalbat became a province within the Middle Assyrian Empire. Was the term used for a city in Sennacherib's time?
Good spotting. I made a mistake here; Hanigalbat is used as a name for the wider geographic region corresponding to the ancient kingdom in the source. Fixed the error. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

As I said, I'm not the best at finding errors in source-list formatting, but everything looks well and consistently organized. Most of the sources look to be of excellent quality. There are a few I can question, though. A. Parrot (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Barcina Pérez has some problems. It seems to be a master's thesis, which isn't generally regarded as an RS, but you've formatted the citation as a journal article, which it doesn't seem to be. Can it be replaced with a stronger source? If not, is there anything about it than makes it more reliable than a typical master's thesis?
I've removed the source entirely; it was only used to substantiate a date when two sons might still have been alive, this info is not critical here and is more important in the articles on Arda-Mulissu and Esarhaddon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luckenbill is a very old source. Luckenbill 1927 is an anthology of primary source texts, but Luckenbill 1924 is a history, and a lot of the article is dependent on it. Interpretations of ancient texts can change a lot in a century. My advice is to look over the passages cited to Luckenbill and see if they can be replaced or bolstered by a citation to a more recent source.
This query hasn't been replied to. I don't object to the use of Luckenbill as a source for quotations from ancient texts, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with Luckenbill used as a secondary source interpreting the texts; see my comment about Humban-numena's jaw below. A. Parrot (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A. Parrot: Yes, I intend to go through the Luckenbill citations in the article soon but it is easily going to be the most time-consuming point so I have been saving it, did not intend to make it look like I was ignoring it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A. Parrot: I've gone through and (with some necessary rewrites) significantly reduced the number of citations to Luckenbill (1924) and the extent to which information is cited to the source. I'm not sure if any (and then which) of the remaining uses are egregious enough to have to be replaced, so I await your comment on that (for the Humban-numena issue, see my response below). Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also weird to include Luckenbill's two books in the external links as well as the works cited. The works-cited entries already link to the online copies of Luckenbill, so putting them in the EL section is redundant. I know that that if you remove them the Commons category box is left sitting awkwardly on the right side with nothing under the section header, but you can use {{commonscat-inline}} to put the Commons category in a bullet point instead.
I figured that both books contain translations of Sennacherib's own works; they work not only as sources but also as works that an interested reader could easily access and learn more from. Is there policy against including something both under EL and in the sources? Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found that there is, in a section of WP:EL: "Links to these source sites are not 'external links' for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section.". A. Parrot (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've removed them from external links and changed the commons category box to the template you suggested. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark seems to run one of the better publicly accessible ancient-history sites on the web, but that doesn't make him an RS. The only thing you cite him for is the statement that Sennacherib is one of the best-known Assyrian kings because of his prominence in the Bible; do none of your other sources say that?
I'm not sure what exactly makes Mark unreliable, but I can see the merit in finding another source for this. I've got an 1870 source that says pretty much the same thing but I'd wager that this source might be too old? The first page of Elayi's introduction to the book on Sennacherib could be used to substantiate a similar sentence, though she calls him one of the "main" Neo-Assyrian kings rather than one of the "best-known" and points out that his image is negative due to the Bible and the destruction of Babylon, not that he is famous for these things. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Leave Mark as it is. A. Parrot (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Google Books URLs often include specific search terms that only apply to one passage in the article. It's more convenient to have a nonspecific link to the book.
Removed the search terms from all the URLs. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and spot-checks

I've checked at least twenty citations to the sources that I can access. Most have no problems, but here are the problems I found.

  • Why are there citations in the lead section? FAs generally shouldn't (though there seems to be an unwritten exception for details about spellings and pronunciation of a subject's name). Aside from the details about the name, I don't see anything in the lead that isn't supported in the article body aside from the assertion that Sennacherib is one of the best-known Assyrian kings, which should be somewhere in the Legacy section.
I'm going to be very busy for the next 10 to 11 days so I won't be able to deal with most of the source review very fast but I'm going to respond to this point immediately; I agree that there shouldn't be any citations in the lede (with the exception of the name stuff, which feels appropriate when compared to other articles). I've added that he is one of the best-known kings in the legacy section and removed that citation from the lede. The remaining citations in the lede serve to counteract vandalism. There have been at least one time where someone tried to remove that Marduk-apla-iddina was a Chaldean (unclear why) and the passage about how it is unlikely that the Assyrians were outright defeated at Jerusalem and that Sennacherib actually won the Levantine war (through Hezekiah submitting to him) was very frequently vandalized (since it contradicts the Bible) before the citations for that part were added to the lede as well. Not sure if there is policy justifying this, but there has been much less vandalism since they were added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. A. Parrot (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really understand Citation 4, though I assume it's meant to function as a note as well. I'm assuming this is how Sennacherib's name was spelled in Sumero-Akkadian as opposed to Assyrian cuneiform, but it's not apparent why it's moved down there when the Neo-Assyrian cuneiform spelling is in the running text, especially because the article doesn't contain any other notes. I can't make head or tail of the cited source either, though I'm guessing that Sennacherib's name in cuneiform is contained within the inscription.
This citation was not added by me and I don't really understand the citation to the CDLI website either; could it be removed? Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say remove it for now, but copy it onto the talk page in case the editor who added it—apparently it was User:पाटलिपुत्र—wants to make a case for its inclusion, though if it does get re-included, it should be in a less cryptic way. A. Parrot (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation structure in the section on Sennacherib as crown prince is odd, treating pages that are very close together as if they have to be cited separately. Citation 18 could easily be changed to pp. 30–31 and Citation 16b eliminated so that Citation 18 would cover most of the paragraph. Similarly, Citation 21 can simply be merged with Citation 20, which includes the same page as Citation 21.
Done the changes you suggested. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 32, to Frahm, checks out in and of itself, but it doesn't say anything to connect Sargon's unspecified "sin" with the taking of Babylon, nor does it say at what point in Sennacherib's reign he expressed concern about it. Unless Brinkman (which I can't access) says something about it, the sentence about Sargon's "sin" looks rather like synthesis.
I don't see the problem here. Frahm states that Sennacherib was investigating the nature of "a sin" committed by Sargon, which is repeated in the article here. The article text does not explicitly connect what Frahm says with Babylonia; if it did Frahm's comments would be presented before the part which talks about offending Babylonia's deities (which comes from Brinkman). I don't see the time in which Sennacherib searched for answers in regards to this being relevant and it is not mentioned in the article so it's not something that goes uncited; the idea that Sargon could have committed a sin illuminates Sennacherib's views on Sargon after Sargon's death and is important in regards to everything related to Sargon mentioned after. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. A. Parrot (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of the Luckenbill 1924 citations, I particularly wonder about Citation 59: the assertion that Humban-numena had suffered a stroke that locked his jaw. I don't know the which ancient text says this (Luckenbill leaves it unclear), but it seems like the kind of thing that some later scholar might reinterpret as a metaphor or as a derogatory remark by the Assyrians. Do the more recent sources say anything about it?
It is apparently true; I've added a more recent source (2018) which repeats that he suffered a stroke that locked his jaw. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording of the text supported by Citation 74 is uncomfortably similar to that of its source.
With the work that has been done the number of the citations has been changed around but I amended the portion I think you mean. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 95 ("He viewed Assyria's enemies as people who did not respect the gods…") seems to be cited to the wrong page, and possibly the wrong book (it's to Elayi 2017, which is her book on Sargon II, rather than the one on Sennacherib published in 2018).
Yes, this appears to be a mistake. I've removed the sentence and the associated citation since Elayi does not say this about Sennacherib. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]

I enjoyed reading this article a lot – I found it easy to read and well-explained, and therefore learned much from it.

  • Why do you choose the name Kalhu and not Nimrud, which is much more widely known?
IIRC I believed that Nimrud was the biblical name whereas Kalhu was the actual Assyrian name, but looking it over I realize that Kalhu is actually from the Bible. Nimrud also appears to be more widely used both popularly and academically, so I've changed all instances of "Kalhu" to "Nimrud". This makes the choice of name contradict the use in other related articles, but that can be fixed with time. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The population of Babylonia was divided into various ethnic groups with different priorities and ideas – I don't understand what you mean with "ideas" here. "Ideals"?
The main point here is that the groups were different ethnically and in what they wanted to do (ideas); I suppose "ideals" is a better fit; changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "Assyria and Babylon" provides the basic background. Why isn't this the first section of the article?
The background section is structured so that it first provides the personal background of Sennacherib (his lineage and early life), then his occupation before becoming king (crown prince and what he did then), before moving on to give the geopolitical background. I like it the way it is but if you feel the geopolitical background should be first I can move it to before the others. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before he began any other major projects, one of Sennacherib's first actions as king was - these two parts of the sentence are somewhat redundant, maybe remove one of them.
Removed the first part. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • under the command of his commander – what does this add? It seems unsurprising to me that the commander had the command.
Hehe, you're right. Don't remember why this was done; removed the part in question. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • seemingly spent the rest of his reign in peace, – reads a bit awkward, maybe this can also simply be removed as the rest of the sentence tells everything already.
Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the reliefs were completed, – this also seems redundant.
Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • makes this idea somewhat unlikely – Can we drop "somewhat" here? Also, is this accepted consensus?
Dropped "somewhat" and added attribution to who said it was unlikely. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • apparent for several years – "apparently"?
The position is heir apparent. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The event and its aftermath affected and had consequences for not only the Assyrians and the Israelites, but also the Babylonians, Egyptians, Nubians, Syro-Hittites and Anatolian peoples. – what are those consequences?
I've added an "according to Kalimi" before this; it's not entirely clear what he means from his text; I can make guesses but I won't be able to add them since they would constitute original research. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of Sennacherib's reliefs are exhibited today at the Vorderasiatisches Museum, the British Museum, the Iraq Museum in Baghdad, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Louvre in Paris. – Some of these museums were already mentioned for the inscriptions; seems repetitive and redundant to list them again for each category of objects. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I still feels like it is nice to bring up that his reliefs are widely exhibited, could replacing this with something like "Today, Sennacherib's reliefs are exhibited in historical and art museums across the world" work? Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jens Lallensack, are you feeling able to either support or oppose this nomination? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I thought I already did this! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges

[edit]

Image review

[edit]
  • Some images are missing alt text
Added alt text to all images
  • Suggest scaling up the maps, and would it be possible to get English versions? If no, suggest including the displayed labels as translations in the caption
Scaled up. I have asked the author of the maps if it would be possible to translate them, waiting to see if translations are made. What do you mean by including the labels as translations in the caption? The relevant portions for this article (Babylonia and Assyria) and where they are on the map are already made clear in the captions. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It could be as simple as saying "Assyria (Assur)" - as per MOS:COLOUR we should avoid relying solely on colour to convey this information, especially as here there is already labelling that just needs minor clarification. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I've changed the caption. Do the other terms need to be translated as well or does this suffice (just the terms that are relevant to this article)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captions need editing for grammar
I've slightly changed two captions but I don't know which captions you refer to here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:CENTURY. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images of 3D works from places without freedom of panorama should include explicit tags for the original works
With 3D works do you refer to all the reliefs (technically 3D but I'd argue that they ought to be classified as 2D) or just actual 3D works, such as the prisms? Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out this required significantly less work than I anticipated since most of the works are in London or Berlin, where freedom of panorama exists. The only ones not are the picture of Sargon II and the picture of Esarhaddon and his mother. I am unsure where the infobox picture comes from (the description is in German though), so I will investigate that one further. The picture of Sennacherib's crown prince is also from a place without freedom of panorama but I assume that nothing more needs to be done with it since its page is already clear on why it's public domain. This should all be a quite quick fix, what do you mean by explicitly tagging for the original works? Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is usually meant is that we must indicate it is also PD because the artist died more than 70 years ago, which should be self-evident, but it seems the tag is still needed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the century in which they were created to the commons pages under the "date" field, which should be enough to indicate that the creators are long dead, do I need to add some template (a PD one?) as well?. On the infobox image; everything suggests (based on the uploader's upload history) that the image was taken at Cizre (in Turkey), where freedom of panorama applies, so leaving that one as is for the time being. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should still include a specific tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added (hopefully the right) tags. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:DESTRUCTION_OF_SENNACHERIB'S_HOST..jpg needs a US tag and author date of death. Ditto File:Inschrift_über_dem_Kopf_des_Königs_Sennacherib.jpg
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Former still seems to lack author date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It says "1817-1894" after his name in the source field and it's in the PD template as well? Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I managed to confuse "former" with "latter"; I've updated Dore's image on commons. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Palace_of_Sennacherib_Restored.jpeg: source link is dead, needs a US tag
Added US tag and an alternate source link. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:A_dictionary_of_the_Bible.._(1887)_(14801703843).jpg: as per the Flickr tag, this should have additional tagging indicating specific reasons why it's PD
Added additional tags. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Which images? I've added locations to two of the images that were missing it and I have removed one of the images; as far as I can see the only real offending image left is the one of Sargon II (this one), I was reverted by the original uploader when attempting to tag it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sargon_II,_Iraq_Museum_in_Baghdad.jpg, File:Capture_of_Lachish_-_Assyrian_camp.jpg, File:Assyrian_Crown-Prince_MET_hb32_143_13.jpg, File:Adad-nirari_III_transparent.png. Also File:The_Flight_of_Adrammelech_Murch.jpg is missing author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thank you. I've replaced File:Capture_of_Lachish_-_Assyrian_camp.jpg and added author date of death to File:The_Flight_of_Adrammelech_Murch.jpg.
For File:Sargon_II,_Iraq_Museum_in_Baghdad.jpg and File:Adad-nirari_III_transparent.png I have contacted the original uploader since they were opposed to my edits on commons. What is the issue with File:Assyrian_Crown-Prince_MET_hb32_143_13.jpg ? The image was donated by the museum that has the artifact and designated as PD by the museum itself? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still needs a tag for the original artifact. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've added tags to the image, and to the other two, so everything should be addressed now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sennacherib/archive1&oldid=1003645289"