Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Antiochus X Eusebes/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2018 [1].

Antiochus X Eusebes edit

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many ambiguous characters appeared during history, and I think that king Antiochus X is one of the most intriguing ones. All we have of him are few coins and short passages in the works of ancient historians; the earliest is the Jewish historian Josephus who lived a 150 years after Antiochus X. Yet, the works of modern historians, linguists and numismatists have greatly expanded our knowledge about this ruler who, at the age of 20 (max) was able to avenge his killed father, face four of his cousins who tried to destroy him, and still have energy and a good judgment to leave the petty dynastic feuds behind to stand against one of the most powerful empires of his time, Parthia. I think I have gathered 98% of all the academic works about this king and it took two months to complete this short but very comprehensive article (taking into account the very little we know about the king). I hope this will be a good and enjoyable read for everyone.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi edit

  • Seven instances of p/pp error e.g., Bouché-Leclercq 1913, p. 641, 643, 416
  • Houghton 1987, p. 79. Harv error: link from CITEREFHoughton1987 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Dobiáš, Josef (1931). Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFDobiáš1931.
  • Dumitru, Adrian (2016). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Goodman, Martin (2005) [2002]. Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Hoover, Oliver D. (2011). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Houghton, Arthur (1989). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Kelly, Douglas (2016). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Llewellyn Jones, Lloyd (2013) [2012]. Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Olbrycht, Marek Jan (2009). "Mithridates VI Eupator and Iran". Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Scott, Roger (2017) [1989]. Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  •  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • All is fixed. As for the pagenums of chapters, I intentionally dont add them because I make sure to mention the page in the shortened citations. But since you mentioned it as a problem, I added pages numbers.
      • i didn't know we had a "green" template. that'll be handy in some circumstances. :-) As for page numbers, I very, very seriously doubt anyone would consider failing a FAC over it, but best practice would be to put the page number that the cite refers to in the sfn, and the entire page range of the article or chapter in the cite book/citejournal/whatever. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it is more professional to go your way tbh :) I had a prof who would deduct a full point (out of ten in an assignment) for not adding those numbers in the bibliography

Comments Support by Constantine edit

Late Seleucid history is a confusing mess, and I got a headache every time I tried to read about it (one can only keep track of so many people named Antiochus...). User:Attar-Aram syria has a real talent in writing articles about these guys that are both comprehensive and comprehensible, and this is another example of it. I've gone through it making various minor changes for style (feel free to revert if you disagree), but otherwise the article looks fine to me. All significant aspects of the reign, and scholarly debates, are covered, the tone is neutral, high-quality sources have been used throughout (WP:AGF on comprehensive coverage, but from the text it certainly looks that way), the article is well structured. The article reads well, but I recommend making a request at WP:GOCE to polish it further as befits a Featured Article. Other than that, the only missing thing I can see is the lack of WP:ALTTEXT, which should be rectified. Well done once again, I will be glad to support once these couple of things have been done. Constantine ✍ 19:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your words! I added the ALTTEXT and asked the guild for help. I noticed that you corrected the Greek writing of the king's name and I was wondering if you could do the same for the page Philip I Philadelphus (who should be in Greek Philip Epiphanes Philadelphus) and the page Seleucus VI Epiphanes (who sould be Seleucus Epiphanes Nikator). I have re-written Philip but wont nominate it because its too short (though I collected all the info there is about him). I will re-write Seleucus soon but also wont nominate as it will also be short (same reason as Philip's). I do not know Greek so my attempts at writing the names of kings mostly results in mistakes (ofcourse other Greek names throught the article (the names of the people of Laodice for example) are directly copied from the sources themselves so no worries there) Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The file Antioco X Eusebes Filopator, tetradracma.jpg is still missing alt text. Names int he articles you mentioned have been done. IMO, Philip is definitely of a size and quality as to be a viable FA candidate, but that is your choice, of course. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Constantine. The file have an alt now. The copy edit is over as well. And now thatyou have said so, Im encouraged to nominate Philip after Antiochus. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the changes, looks good. Moving to support. Well done, once again :). Constantine ✍ 18:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. Your opinion always matter to me.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not affecting my support vote, but could you perhaps add a map? At least a geographical one with the main cities etc. mentioned in the article? It would help the average reader a lot. Constantine ✍ 18:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sure, I was thinking about creating a map showing the limits of Antiochus, Philip and Demetrius' domains, so it will depict the situation in 92 BC.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that would be great! Constantine ✍ 18:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Constantine, the map is added. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk edit

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "The manner" section could be renamed "manner of death", it makes little sense in itself now.
  • On this note, single sentence sections are discouraged, so I wonder whether the year and manner sections can be merged into one. "Year and manner of death"? "Circumstances of death"?
The year is the topic of its own debate between shcolars. The manner is the same. Thats why I made them seperate. I eleminated the sub-section of the manner section (which I renamed). Now it doesnt look like a one sentence section.
Looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "None of those assertions is based on evidence" Are.
  • The infobox image could need a caption?
  • "According to Josephus", "According to Appian", you could add that they were historians.
  • "prostitute in love with Antiochus who saved him" How?
  • "showed the king bearded" Why?
  • "expelled him from of the city." From of?
Typos corrected. I introduced the historians in the lede and added a caption for the image. As for how the prostitute saved him, Appian does not mention. We also dont know why they appeared bearded, its a observation but we have no clue about their internal motives. According to the source used (Lorber & Iossif 2009), it seems that a bearded Seleucid king meant that he wants to take revenge or defeat a usurper. So probably that was a sign that he wont take care of himself until he take his revenge.
  • "two epithets: Philadelphos and Philometor." Shouldn't these words be in italics here?
Done
  • Any reason why the "Children" comes before the "End and succession" section? It kind of disrupts the flow; you read about Antiochus life, then suddenly about his children, and then back to his life again. Furthermore, you list the children last in Cleopatra Selene of Syria.
I always wondered why do I have to put the children in an article about a historic figure after the death section. You have your children while alive, they are part of your life not end. In this particular article however, the children came before the death because his son Antiochus XIII will be mentioned a lot in the end section considring the scholarly debate about the mixing between father and son. I saw that its better to introduce the children first before mentioning one of them in practically every paragraph; thus I could avoid introducing Antiochus XIII as the son of Antiochus X twice.
That's a good point with the name confusions. FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This date is hard to accept" To who?
to Hoover. The sentence starts with this: According to Hoover, the dating of Newell is hard to accept.
Ok, but the way it is written now, it reads like Hoover has proposed a date, and that others find it hard to accept: "Hoover proposed the year 89/88 BC for the end of Antiochus X's reign.[note 7][62] This date is hard to accept". I think it could be made clearer that he himself finds it hard to accept. FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In 2007, Hoover estimated the total die usage of Antiochus X and came up with 89 BC. But in 2011, he noted that the king had two series of coins, one when he first took the capital, and another when he took it a second time. Most the dies were used for the first period and a minority for the second period. Thats why Hoover himself raised the point then blamed Philip I's recoinage for the few dies left to us from Antiochus X second series. I made this clear by adding the years in which Hoover made his suggestions.
  • Perhaps the significance of the name Antiochus and whether it related to Antioch could be stated in this and other Antiochus articles? You give a nice explanation of names in the Cleopatra Selene article.
Done
  • Support - there wasn't much to nitpick to begin with, as it is also a pretty short article, but nice that an article this comprehensive can be written about what appears to be an obscure historical figure. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "This new status seems to have been a privilege bestwood upon the city by Antiochus X, who, as a sign of gratitude for the city's role in eliminating Seleucus VI, would not have only rebuilt it, but also compinsated it for the damage it suffered at the hands of Seleucus' brothers." This paragraph seems to have escaped copy editing - bestwood > bestowed? "would not have only rebuilt it" > "not only rebuilt it"? compinsated?
    • I added this sentence while in a hurry, and it happened after the copy editing. my mistake. All corrected
  • It is not all corrected You still have "a privilege bestwood upon the city" and "perhapse" and "would not only rebuilt it". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The city's coinage included pieces bearing a royal portrait that seems to depict Antiochus X according to Hans von Aulock" This sounds a bit awkward and is more definite than the note. Maybe "In the view of Hans von Aulock, some coins minted in the city may carry a portrait of Antiochus X." perhapse?
    • Done
  • I would move the children section to the end as it mostly covers events after his death.
    • The issue was raised by funkmonk, but since the son of Antiochus will be mentioned in practically every paragraph of the end and succesion section, I saw its better to introduce the children first.
  • twenty first is usually hyphenated.
    • Done
  • "Such a scenario is complicated; more likely, Antiochus XIII bore two epithets: Philadelphos and Philometor" This sounds POV. As you have cited the names of historians taking the opposite view, you should name those you are citing here.
    • Done
  • "hence, no evidence supports this identification, which remains a theory" This also sounds POV.
    • Im not sure here. There is no mention of Kybiosaktes' parents anywhere in ancient sources, so any identification of him witha son of Antiochus Eusebes will naturally be a theory. How do you suggest we can make it NPOV?
  • As above, I suggest that you attribute the comment as the view of named historians rather than your personal opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the numismatist Oliver D. Hoover refuted Kritt's reading" "refute" is a bit strong as it generally means disprove. I think "reject" would be better.
    • Done
  • "counting on the account of Appian" What does this mean?
    • Maybe I should write based on the account of Appian ?
  • I found this article difficult to follow at times, no doubt due to the conflicting sources rather than the editor, but an interesting insight into a period I know very little about. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking the time to do this review. It is really a problematic period in history. We dont have info but we have clues and with clues, the space opens for theorizing and every historian have a point.

Coord notes edit

It looks to me that between Lingzhi and Constantine the sources have been examined for reliability and formatting; I think we still need an image review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Maybe User:Nikkimaria can help if she have time ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look below. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - mostly looks good, a few comments. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two CC licenced coin images need additional PD old tags (for the artwork on them).
  • What source was the map image itself taken from (not the text on it)?
Thanks for this !! I added the required tags and the source of the map which is: Near_East_topographic_map-blank.svg--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great, looks ready to go now. The Cleopatra image was already reviewed and approved in another FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2018 (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/Antiochus_X_Eusebes/archive1&oldid=843864239"