Talk:King of the Universe

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:King of the Universe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BMO4744 (talk · contribs) 15:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing the King of The Universe (title) article for GA status.

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

1. It is reasonably well written.
2. The article follows the manual of style pretty well, but I do see a few grammatical errors in the background section after looking over the article.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.Y

   All of the sources seem factually valid.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a The page covers most of the topic, but I do not believe the article has been developed enough to pass this section. I was even considering not even trying this article because of the age of the article and the lack of citations in the overlook and in general. Also the fact that the article is in a start class. Looking back over the article I found a few continuity and grammatical errors in the background section. I do not believe that the article has developed to the point where the scope of the topic is fully covered. I do not know much about the topic, but I do think that the article needs more time to bake before applying for good article status. I forgot to mention the fact that only 1 user has made all of the contributions to the page. This also damages the review because their is only the scope of 1 editor for the article.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Very Neutral and nothing to contest exept that only 1 editor has contributed to the article.

1. It is stable. Y

Not even 500 edits or any undos.

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
2. decently illustrated but the article could need with more pictures of the kings who held the title or any original texts relating to the issue.

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I feel like it's a bit strange to fail a GA review without corresponding with the nominator? I don't think there is a lack of citations anywhere? Everything is cited and there is an extensive bibliography? It's start class because not so many people have looked at it, I don't think it deserves to be in start class. I have had many articles that I've expanded go straight from "start" to GA. I've put in everything I have been able to find on the topic and I don't think it's fair to deem the article as not fully covered when you admit that you don't know much about it? Obviously it would be good to have more input but I feel like this is a bit weird. In past GA reviews I've been involved in, the reviewer usually mentions everything they believe needs to be changed and lets the nominator address the issues. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: I have looked, and you have expanded many articles that meet the good article criteria. All of them were already existing articles with more than 1 editor making all the edits. I understand that my perspective could seem biased because of my lack of knowledge on ancient Mesopotamia, but looking at the guidelines and seeing the article. I thought that there was no way this article could pass within a reasonable time period. I must apologize because I was not very specific on the problems with the article. The heading does not have enough citations. (zero in the second paragraph), the article could really do with more illustration, and the fact that only 1 editor over the course of a month has fully developed an article worthy of GA status is continuous. Also though the article covers most of the subject. The article feels half baked when it comes to the presentation and all of the above mentioned issues. A article of this size needs more edits and editors to meet the writing criteria for a good article. I recommend linking this to people skilled on the topic to check the article and to maybe change that start status to low or mid range importance before requesting a reassessment

For full disclosure, I raised this issue at the GA nomination talk page as well, just to get my head around it. I'm not calling you biased; I was simply pointing out that it isn't very fair to assume the article is incomplete when you admit that you don't know the topic very well. By "heading" i assume you are referring to the lead (intro/first part) of the article? As far as I know it is standard practice to not fill that up with citations as it is simply a summary of the rest of the article; everything in there is elsewhere in the article and cited in relevant places. More illustrations is hardly a reason to fail an article? As I mentioned on the GA nomination talk page, I am sure there are improvements that could be made but I would have liked to have been corresponded with before you decided to fail the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: Per WP:LEADREF you are not required to supply refs in the lead because the content is verified within the article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not offended by your actions. It is just my thoughts that this article is not ready for good article status. Also thank you for catching me on the header vs. lead and for TheDoctorWho for WP LEADREF. Illistartions is not the reason I have failed the article. I failed the article because of the red flags I saw with the article. BMO4744 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

So what happens now? Are you interested in continuing the review? Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:King of the Universe/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: T8612 (talk · contribs) 13:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Lede:

• Add the extreme dates between which the title was used. Idem for the "Akkadian period".

Specified the dates of the first and last ruler to use the title. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Tell that Sargon was the first to use the title under that meaning and it lasted until the Seleucids.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Avoid repetition of "It is possible" in the second paragraph.

Avoided repetition. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• When you say "it might have had to be earned by each king individually", I would add "after successful military campaigns".

"possibly through completing seven successful military campaigns" already directly follows "it might have had to be earned by each king individually"? Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Body:

• Add dates in the titles (background, Sargon, etc.).

Like this? Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• "to either gain of keep"→or keep.

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Early Dynastic IIIb period", must be linked.

I originally avoided linking it because it's just a redirect to the "Early Dynastic Period" which is already linked, fixed now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Ur, Uruk, Lagash, Umma and Kish", I would list these cities in the beginning, in the sentence "the rulers of the various city-states".

Sure, moved them there. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• "heaven after the flood", perhaps use a capital letter for Flood (and elsewhere in the article).

Capitalized the two instances of "flood". Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• "first great Mesopotamian empire, the Akkadian Empire (named after Sargon's second capital, Akkad).", need links and date.

Added links and year. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• "The title of šar kiššatim was prominently used", wait, you didn't mention that before in the text (only in the lede). Is there a paragraph missing?

I put that Sargon adopted the title "King of Kish", replaced that with him adopting šar kiššatim (which means the same thing) and should make things clearer. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• "reintroduced by the kings of the Neo-Assyrian Empire who took", date. You should stress here that there were more than a thousand years between the Akkadian Empire and the Neo-Assyrians. And that kingly titles were reused regardless of the civilisation.

I stressed the large timespan but I really think that several cilisations reusing the title and why they did becomes quite apparent from that paragraph without further additions. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• "The title had been used sporadically by previous Assyrian kings, such as Shamshi-Adad I of the Old Assyrian Empire and Ashur-uballit I of the Middle Assyrian Empire." date, date, date.

Added dates for their reigns. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Shamshi-Adad was the first Assyrian king" date.

Already dates his reign in the sentence before now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Since the title is not attested for all Neo-Assyrian kings and for etc." I would make a whole section of this with a title like "attribution of the title". Was there a governing body attributing the title?

I'm not sure there would be enough material to put together a section like that. There was no governing body attributing these titles as far as we know, but all we have to go on are the stuff left behind by the various kings (claiming to be kings of various things). It is possible (if not likely) that there were more kings that called themselves "king of the universe" and anything relating to how the titles were achieved (e.g. seven successful military campaigns) is modern speculation (and is specified as such in the article). Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

All right, but I would add something like "but the process by which a king could acquire the title is unknown" after "had to be earned by each king individually".T8612 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• "title was also among the many Mesopotamian titles assumed by Cyrus the Great", but not his successors? it should be expanded.
• Was Antiochus I the only Seleucid to use it?

I'm going to respond to both of the above points here. Cyrus is the only Achaemenid we know to use the title and Antiochus is the only known Seleucid to do so. The titles were probably not part of their standard titulature (they are only attested once for Cyrus and once for Antiochus) and were likely only used for them by the people living in Mesopotamia (equating them with the previous "great kings" in the region). There were other Mesopotamian titles that did become standard for the Persians (e.g. "king of kings" and "king of lands") that do appear in both Old Persian and Akkadian language in their inscriptions. The Seleuicids are only very rarely talked about in Akkadian-language inscriptions, which explains why Antiochus I is the only Seleucid we know to have been attributed the title. In essence, for these later rulers that were not actually based in Mesopotamia (just controlling it), most Mesopotamian titles would have been applied to them by the Mesopotamians themselves. It is possible that they would have referred to other Seleucid kings similarily but we have no records of it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I think you should add what you just said to the article. Make a new paragraph from "The title was also among the many Mesopotamian etc.".

Significantly expanded this section. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• I added a ref for the coin of Antiochos, but you should format it in your citation style.

Formatted the citation to fit in with the rest. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

T8612 (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Nice, now several more suggestions: Can you add the location of the three low-reliefs (museum, or place in-situ)?

Of course, added the locations of all the reliefs. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Do we have an illustration with the title written?

That would be great, I'll see if I can find any images of it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I put together an image of it on the Cyrus Cylinder (link) but it's borderline original research and the cuneiform of the cylinder itself is barely visible at all. Looks like all the images of the Cyrus Cylinder on commons aren't very good at giving a clear view of the beginning of line 20 (where the title appears). I haven't had much luck in finding other images of the title. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hah! Nevermind, I found an example from Rimush which titles him as "King of Kish" (which would have been synonymous with "King of the Universe" by his time). Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Was the title translated in other languages? Perhaps the Seleucids translated it in Greek?

Doesn't appear so, it is only used by Cyrus in the Cyrus Cylinder and by Antiochus in the Antiochus Cylinder, both of which are written in Akkadian. It does exist translated to Hebrew (as per the religious stuff, probably translated to Greek somewhere as well since it appears in the psalms) but since its use in Christianity and Judaism does not appear to be directly related to the Mesopotamian use as an actual ruling title it might be unnecessary to include that in the lead. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would also add links to the various kingdoms/empires listed in the "List of known Kings of the Universe". They are already linked in the text, but this is quite complex and readers may need to open new links again without going back in the text to find them. T8612 (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah makes sense, added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Status: passed. Good job. T8612 (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look through this as thoroughly as you did! Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)