Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cleopatra Selene I/archive1

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2017 [1].

---

Cleopatra Selene I

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Cleopatra, but not the most famous one. Actually, her story is as interesting. Cleopatra Selene I married her two brothers, then married her cousins (two of them,.... who were also brothers). She then married her step-son and gave birth to two children, one of them became king. This is a summary of the story of Cleopatra Selene, queen consort of Egypt and Syria then regent and queen regnant of Syria. She started as a winning card in the hands of her mother and became an important political player herself. The article was reviewed by our great editor Constantine and took two months to write because most of the sources (which are scarce to say the least) were not available online which meant that I had to tour the country to find the sources at different libraries. Hope this will be an enjoyable read into the mysterious life of the queen.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• Seems like this one has been hard work! I'll review it soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort

• You explain the name Selene, but maybe the name Cleopatra should be explained too? What was its significance since so many different queens had this name?

Done

• Maybe give some context for sister-brother marriages, that it was normal back then?

Done. It was (still) further explained in the notes. Now note number 7

• To me, since this is a pretty short article, I think some of the more significant footnotes should be incorporated into the main text. I think it would give a better flow, and a fuller/more comprehensive reading experience. Since I wanted to know more details about what happened, I had to go back and forth between the article and the notes to get the full picture, which was kind of disruptive.

I have eliminated four notes. The rest are divided into: 1- opinions by different scholars which will confuse most readers and are not historic events, just theories. 2- notes about other events not really related to the queen, such as the marriage of Cleopatra IV or the long arguments about Ptolemy XII's legitimacy which is already the focus of a paragraph. Putting them into the main text would deviate the article from its main subject.

Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• "that Herakleon will never be accepted as king" Should be past tense.

done

• "ugate coins which depict her alongside her ruling son" This should mean we there are depictions of her, that we could possibly use here?

Yes, and I have links to the three coins but as usual, copy rights are the problem. Here is a link to an article that have the so called Burgess coin, the last to be discovered, and this link shows you the coin directly if you dont wanna scroll through the article. The second coin which is the first to be discovered, called the Bellinger coin can be seen here. The last coin, that of Kritt, can be seen here. The Bellinger and Kritt images are taken from this article

Hmmm, so it seems most of these photos have been recently published? And we don't know of old sources that have published images of the coins? If they weren't 3D objects, we would be able to upload the images freely... We would be allowed to trace-draw the images, but I think the results would be dubious... FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

the oldest was published in the late 1940s.... sadly

In what country? The US had pretty lax copyright laws until the 1970s, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a chance. The oldest was published in 1952 in the USA. Now, the publisher have the coin on their website and I read this note "All images licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License." This is the link, can you make sure ?

Wikipedia sadly doesn't allow non-commercial, but if the oldest one was published in the 1950s in the US, there is a chance the copyright of the book was not renewed. Search the title of the book here[2], and if it doesn't show up, it wasn't renewed. Then you can upload the image with a licence like this image has:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It didnt show up. It is from 1952. This is the link. How will I upload the picture ? I dont have the picture that was published in 1952. I only have the newer version taken lately and published on the website of the ANS.

What is the title of the 1952 publication? Perhaps we can find it online, or request it at the resource request[4]... I definitely think it would be worth it... FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The author is Bellinger, Alfred R... The year: (1952)... The article: "Notes on Some Coins from Antioch in Syria"... The journal is: Museum Notes... The volume is: 5... The publisher is: The American Numismatic Society... ISSN is: 0145-1413.--------I tried to find it online but its not provided. Only Jstor allows me to see it but only the first page and I couldnt access it through my university

That definitely looks like a winner. I suggest you request it at the resource request, and enable your email (under preferences) so it can be sent to you. I have limited JSTOR access so I can read the article online, but I can already see there are some nice images we could get in higher resolution with the PDF. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Asked for it

Nice, I'll assist if you need help uploading, and then I'll support. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The image was added

Nice, might be a good idea to add the JSTOR link to Commons as well. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Alfred Raymond Bellinger (it)" Never seen such a link to a foreign language Wikipedia, not sure if it's allowed.

fixed

• "if they actually existed and sent to Kos" Were sent to.

fixed

• I think "morganic marriage" could be explained briefly in parenthesis or such.

done

• "son of Ptolemy X, was among the princess", "had two Egyptian princess in his hands" Princes.

fixed

• "by his niece Cleopatra III" Only mentioned in intro.

fixed

• "Considered by her mother more easy to control than her sister" Only stated in intro.

fixed

• "but the marriage lasted less than a year" Only explicitly stated in intro.

fixed

• "To protect herself and her position" Also seems only to be stated in the intro.

fixed

• "fed up with the Seleucids' civil wars" Fed up seems a bit too informal here.

changed wording

• One last thing, you state in the blurb here that she married her cousins, but no cousins are explicitly mentioned in the article?

Yes, Antiochus VIII and his brother are the sons of Cleopatra Thea, the aunt of Selene

Oh, I mean, from reading the article, you wouldn't know they were cousins, could it be stated explicitly? FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Done

• Support - everything has been dealt with nicely, and it was great we found a free image after all! FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

At a first look, I have some problems with the prose in this article. Some examples follow.

Grammatical problems:

• "Considered more easy to control by her mother": more easy to control than what?

More easily controlled than Cleopatra IV. I reworded the sentence.

• "As a queen of Syria, she is the second to rule with the name Cleopatra": tense. Should be "was".

Done.

Redundancies:

• "leaving Cleopatra Selene free for her mother to possibly marry her to the new king, Ptolemy X.": "possibly" is entirely unnecessary here.

Well, it does seem unnecessary at first glance. However, the article explains that this marriage is not attested but a very strong theory. So, Selene possibly married Ptolemy X but we can not say it as a fact and that is way it is important to note this in the lede.

Hmm. I might suggest rewording this for clarity, then, because I did not get that at all. Tension between the king and his mother grew and ended with Ptolemy IX's expulsion from Egypt, leaving Cleopatra Selene behind; she probably then married the new king, Ptolemy X., perhaps? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

done

• "the marriage lasted less than a year before she lost her new husband who was killed in 95 BC": "she lost her new husband" and "who was killed" tell us substantially the same thing. Simply "before her new husband was killed" would be fine.

Done.

I don't have time to do a full review right now; I shall come back to this later. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

More comments:

• "fed up with the Seleucids' civil wars": "fed up with" seems like an extremely casual register for encyclopediac writing.

fixed

• "between 135–130 BC": "between 135 and 130 BC". See MOS:DATERANGE.

fixed

• "Ancient writers, such as Cicero and Appian, mention the queen with the name Selene": this is a little unclear, but I think means: "Ancient writers, such as Cicero and Appian, call the queen Selene"?

fixed

• The second paragraph of Cleopatra Selene I#Queen of Egypt is confusing to me. First we read that Cleopatra III decided that Cleopatra Selene should marry Antiochus VIII; then that Cleopatra Selene divorced Ptolemy X; then that Ptolemy ran away before the divorce. The chronology seems all mixed up.

fixed

• "Justin wrote that Cleopatra III "made two daughters husbandless by marrying them to their brothers in turn"": again, not really sure what this means. Cleopatra III seems to have done a very good job of keeping Cleopatra Selene in husbands, so far!

This quote is a circumstantial evidence to support the notion that Selene married Ptolemy X. Selene is one of the two sisters who was married to her brothers (not brother) in turn (this means Ptolemy IX and X)

I think this needs more clarification, then, because this wasn't at all obvious to me from reading the article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I cant explain it cause I have no source for the explenation. Chriss Bennett who wrote the academic article "Cleopatra V Tryphæna and the Genealogy of the Later Ptolemies. Ancient Society. Peeters Publishers. 28" missed to include that quote in the article. He had a website where he said that he should have used that quote (see not 13, section III). I cant use the website as a source as it wont fulfill the criteria for reliable sources. However, deleting the sentence would be damaging as it is an important evidence and some readers will be able to analize it

At least per my reading of WP:SPS, if we are accepting Bennett's scholarly articles as reliable sources, his website might be acceptable as a reliable source for claims within the same field, even if it hasn't been published with editorial oversight. On the other hand, if you don't think that Bennett's website counts as a reliable source, and you expect readers to draw this conclusion from the quote, then you are in danger of violating WP:SYNTH. (In fact, I don't think that readers are likely to draw this conclusion, and you are not violating any policies but you are failing criterion 1a of WP:WIAFA: non sequiturs are not a feature of prose which is "engaging" and "of a professional standard". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Bennett's work is accepted by modern scholarship as a whole so he is a pretty respected expert in this field, His website is defunct and the current website is only hosting the content of the original one and thats why I cant consider reliable, not because of doubts regarding Bennett. However, what you said about WP:SYNTH and criterion 1a violations is totally baseless. The sentence is referenced, and it's talking about Cleopatra III and her daughters and Selene was one of them. If I have added an explenation without a reference then you would have been able to claim a failure to fulfill criterion 1a. Since the sentence is referenced then you are using criterion 1a wrong. There are no non sequiturs in this article. All sentences has something to do with delivering the best possible knowledge about this vague queen. So, no SYNTH is here and we cant delete this very important passage. I will put it as a note and this would be a suitanle solution rather that delete it !

I still don't really see why you don't think the website is a reliable source: it's hosted by a reputable academic institution, and is hosting the works of an expert in the field. I think you are misinterpreting criterion 1a, though: that's not about referencing at all, but about quality of writing. A random quote without any explanation of its relevance is, I maintain, bad writing, and therefore a violation of criterion 1a. (I think it's better as a footnote insofar as it isn't distracting from the flow of the main text, but I'd still like to see an in-text explanation of the relevance. This is the only time you quote an ancient source directly: readers will want to know (or at least this reader wants to know) why it's important enough for that.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Many experienced editors read the article and the quote and found no problem understanding it; it can not be random as you describe it since this article is about one of Cleopatra III's daughters and the quote is about Cleopatra III's daughters. As a writer of feautured content, bad writing can not describe what I write and must be maintained as your own opinion and not an actual bad writing. Anyway, I explained Bennett's view just to put an end to this

• "The capital of Syria, Antioch, was part of Antiochus VIII's realm at the time of his assassination; Cleopatra Selene most probably resided there." This seems a bit of a non sequitur. If the fact that Cleopatra Selene lived in Antioch is worth pointing out, probably it should go before the assassination, with "details of Cleopatra Selene's life with Antiochus VIII are not clear".

I believe this is the most suitable place cause we cant say that Selene resided in Antioch for the duration of Antiochus VIII's reign since he was evicted from that city several times by his brother Antiochus XI. Hence, we can be sure only at the time of his death that Selene might have resided in the capital

Okay, I see the point that this is making now. In that case, this might be better placed with the next paragraph, where the fact that Cleopatra Selene was in Antioch is relevant to Antiochus IX's seizure of power and marriage to her? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, the current place is also suitable since her residing at the capital at the time of the assasination is directly related to the time of her marriage to Antiochus VIII. The following paragraph starts with telling that the queen held out in Antioch before the coming of Antiochus IX. Moving that sentence below will turn the paragraph on Antiochus VIII into a very short one. Plus, the sentence clarify that Antioch was part of Antiochus's VIII realm and its more suitable for it to be in Antiochus VIII's paragraph than in the paragraph about Antiochus IX.

I am still unconvinced by this, but if you insist I would at the least rewrite this sentence to put the focus on Cleopatra Selene. Perhaps "At the time of Antiochus' assassination, Cleopatra Selene was probably staying in Antioch, the capital of Syria."? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I dont see why is this becoming an issue. The paragraph is about Antiochus VIII. The guy lost the city multiple times so its important to mention that it belonged to him when he was killed to justify the position of his wife in it. I can not delete this fact like you suggest! Disagreeing on the place of a sentence is not part of the criterea for FA.

its important to mention that it belonged to him when he was killed to justify the position of his wife in it Why is it important to mention that his wife was in it at all? It seems to me that that fact is only important when explaining her marriage to Antiochus IX – hence why I believe that it makes more sense for it to be part of the next paragraph. If there's another reason that it is important to tell readers this, I'm really not seeing it, and I think the article should make it clearer. Even the note which follows this claim is about Cleopatra's relationship with Antiochus IX. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Implementing the change you want will damage the article. I can not see the merit of your proposed deletion of information and changing the place of the sentence from its most suitable place. I can not convince you why it is important if, after all I have wrote, you can not see it. Convincing an reviewer is not what a featured review is about. Its about guaranteeing the best information for the reader and deleting an information would definitely damage the article. Feel free to Oppose the nomination.

• "the queen needed an ally who will help her control the capital": another tense problem. "who would help".

fixed

• "It is unlikely that this marriage appeased Antiochus VIII's sons." I know what you mean, but I don't think that "appeased" is quite the right word here.

fixed

• "Antiochus IX marched against his nephew but was defeated and lost his life." No need for the passive voice here. "killed" is more concise and straightforward.

done

• "The rationale of the marriage might be more pragmatic": once again, be careful with tenses. "might have been". I would also say "rationale for" rather than "rationale of".

fixed

• "jugate coins": might be worth linking jugate

done

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Would be nice to have an image of her if one might be available

I have links to the three coins of her but as usual, copy rights are the problem. Here is a link to an article that have the so called Burgess coin, the last to be discovered, and this link shows you the coin directly if you dont wanna scroll through the article. The second coin which is the first to be discovered, called the Bellinger coin can be seen here. The last coin, that of Kritt, can be seen here. The Bellinger and Kritt images are taken from this article

• The first two coins need US PD tags, the second two should include explicit tags for the coins rather than just the photos. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll add those tags

Comments from Dank

• "[[:it:Alfred Bellinger|Alfred Raymond Bellinger]]": I changed this to [[Alfred Raymond Bellinger]]. If you don't like the red link, then create a stub here on the English Wikipedia.
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Sources look to be in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. A very minor formatting point: where citations are to multiple pages (25, 40, 70, 72, 76, 77), pp. rather than p. should be used. Brianboulton (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

done

Support Comments from RL0919

There are some tangles and uncertainties, but as best I can tell, most of that is due to the subject having a complex and imperfectly understood life. I only have a few suggestions for improvement:

• "... the Ptolemaics practiced it perhaps to consolidate the dynasty." That they practiced it seems clear, so I assume 'perhaps' is meant to qualify the motivation. In that case, should there should be a comma between 'it' and 'perhaps'?

done

• "It seems that Ptolemy X was horrified by his mother's ruthlessness and ran away as can be read in the work of Justin." This wording seems awkward, and it is ambiguous as to whether both clauses are supported by Justin or just the second. If Justin affirms both points, perhaps it could be recast to something like, "Justin wrote that Ptolemy X was horrified by his mother's ruthlessness and ran away."

done

• The encyclopedia article by Peter Nadig listed under Sources doesn't seem to be used anywhere as a source. Use, remove, or move to a Further reading section.

removed

• WP:ALT text for the images would be desirable but isn't mandatory.

Done

That's all I have; everything else seems to be in order. --RL0919 (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review

No other issues in my standard review checks, so happy to support. --RL0919 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I had a look at this last night with a view to promoting, and couldn't quite follow parts of it. I looked again today and I'm still not sure. There are parts that are very hard to follow and would stand some rephrasing to make clearer. It isn't helped by the (unavoidable) huge number of Cleopatras who are mentioned. For example:

• "In 116 BC, shortly after Ptolemy IX's ascension to the throne,[15] his mother, Cleopatra III forced him to divorce her daughter Cleopatra IV": I'm not sure why there is a comma after mother. And from this I assume that he was divorcing his sister? But it does not come across quite as clearly as that, and had it not been for the start of this section, I think I'd have missed it. Maybe we could say that he was married to his sister, Cleopatra IV but their mother forced them to divorce: just change the order around slightly.
• "the 2nd-century historian Justin implied that this was Cleopatra III's condition to accept Ptolemy as co-ruler.": This is the first indication that he was a co-ruler and can we make explicit why it was her decision? In fact, we are missing quite a lot of background information about who these people were, or how the whole system worked. Can we add context, given that criterion 1b requires the subject to be set in context.
• "Cleopatra Selene, favored by her mother, was chosen as the new queen consort in 115 BC.": Given the large number of Cleopatras, can we re-establish who her mother was here? Who was it that chose her? And my reading is the second sister that he married. But it should be made explicit I think.
• There are a few places where we give the opinions of people but don't say who they are or why their opinion matters: for example who are Grace Macurdy and Auguste Bouché-Leclercq?

This is just from one section. I am not opposing or recusing at the moment, but I think this needs to be looked at. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sarastro1. I talked more about the family in the family section and this will take the confusion about Cleopatra IV and the brothers away. I also gave context to the situation in egypt upon the death of Ptolemy VIII and why his son was going to be a co-ruler. I added the profession of the people mentioned; sometimes I just assume that every reader already knows who those historians are. I have went through the article to make sure that there are no more ambiguities (I didnt focuse much on the situation in Egypt but I did focus on the situation of Syria and so I think the section about her reign in Syria is well informative. If not, Im ready to write more whenever a reviewer gives a comment). I hope that I have adressed your comments well.

I'm still finding this a little hard to follow, but I'm possibly being thick. I wonder if Mike Christie could have a look, particularly in terms of 1b and putting the subject in context. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I should be able to take a look, if not tonight then by the end of the week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I'll add comments as I go through the article. Please revert any copyedits I make as needed.

• The article named "Cleopatra Selene I" but that name does not appear anywhere in the article. There's only one mention of "Cleopatra II Selene" in the article, which makes it appear that that's the modern way to refer to her, so I am quite puzzled.

thanks for your review. Actually, Cleopatra Selene I is just the name given to the article on Wikipedia. Its not prevalent in scholarship and I would like to rename the article Cleopatra Selene of Syria.

• OK, glad to hear it. I would suggest moving it once the FAC is completed to avoid having to move the FAC as well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Why not to Cleopatra II Selene, which is listed as an alternate name? FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Would be suitable. But then we need to move the article of Cleopatra Thea to Cleopatra I Thea. What do you think ?

Whatever most of the sources use is probably what should be used for either. Is there any prevailing name? FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

this is the problem. Numbering the Cleopatras of Syria was introduced by professor Michael Roy Burgess. But most sources dont use the numbering and simply mention Cleopatra Thea and Cleopatra Selene with no regnal numbers

• In the first paragraph of the lead I found myself clicking through to other articles to understand the relationships better. It's a tangle, and hard to clarify concisely, but I think the attempt has to be made. It's not clear, for example, that Cleopatra IV is also Cleopatra III's daughter, nor is it clear that Cleopatra Selene was queen consort of Egypt at her first marriage.

I reworded the lead

• I think that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Cleopatra Selene's parents had many children, including Ptolemy X, and, Ptolemy IX and Cleopatra IV, who married before the death of their father. Suggest making this "Cleopatra Selene had many siblings, including Ptolemy X, Ptolemy IX, and Cleopatra IV" and leaving the marriage of the latter two to the "Queen of Egypt" opening paragraph, where it fits naturally -- currently you don't mention the marriage at that point.

Done

• In 103 BC, Ptolemy IX was fighting in Judea; this caused Cleopatra III to worry and she sent troops against her son. The queen mother feared an alliance against her between Ptolemy IX and his friend Antiochus IX of Syria, who was fighting a civil war with his brother Antiochus VIII. Suggest restructuring these two sentences: don't say she sent troops till we know that she's worried, and why.

Done

• Justin wrote that Ptolemy X abandoned his mother and ran away; he was probably horrified by his mother's ruthlessness: is this Justin's opinion? If so, I'd make it "and that he was probably" in order to make that clear. In fact, I think the paragraph needs some rewriting for flow -- for example we have "an alliance against her between Ptolemy IX and his friend Antiochus IX of Syria" followed soon by "an alliance between her son and Antiochus IX", a redundancy which could be eliminated by a bit of reorganization. Similarly, the last clause of the section ("this seems to have happened...") looks back, which is confusing; it would be better to build that into the chronological sequence by e.g. saying "According to Justin, Ptolemy X was probably horrified by his mother's ruthlessness; Justin records that he deserted her, and it seems to be after Ptolemy X's departure that Cleopatra decided..." or something along those lines.

The king being horrified is the explenation given to Justin's statement by a modern historian. I deleted the whole part about him being horrified. I removed the redundancy and restructered the paragraph to include the timing of Selene's marriage in the chornological sequence.

• Why would Cleopatra Selene's marriage to Antiochus VIII prevent an alliance between Ptolemy IX and Antiochus IX?

Fair point. I replaced "prevent" with "counter"

• I don't think you can say both he is generally assumed to have died at around this date (92 BC) and also with modern scholarship proposing the date of 88 BC for Antiochus' demise. Do you mean "was once generally assumed"?

Yes, many modern scholars assume that he died in 92 BC. I made it clearer.

-- Stopping there for the evening; more tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Continuing:

• In the view of historian Auguste Bouché-Leclercq, Cleopatra Selene had little reason to trust the five children of her previous husband: these are not her children, so I'd suggest making it "no known offspring resulting from the marriage, though five of Antiochus VIII's children from his previous marriage are known" at the top of the section, and then "little reason to trust Antiochus VIII's five children" at this point to provide a little more connective tissue. Actually, according to the Wikipedia article on Antiochus VIII he had at least six children, not five; should we be saying "six children", or perhaps "five sons"?

Done

• You still say "five children" at the second reference; shouldn't it be "five sons" or "six children", depending on what the source says? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh sorry, didnt notice. I fixed it. (the source says sons. The daughter of Antiochus VIII was married to a foreign king and played no part in the mess

• There are no dates in the paragraph about Antiochus IX except the initial 95 BC, but it's apparent from the following paragraph that Seleucus killed Antiochus IX and entered the capital no later than 94 BC, so these events follow quite quickly on one another. Can we make that clearer? Perhaps "Within a year of his accession, Antiochus IX marched against his nephew but was defeated and killed" or whatever similar wording the sources will support?

Done. But I wrote within a year of his marriage cause he has been a king for a long time before marrying selene in opposition to his brother Antiochus VIII (and he had already controlled the capital twice before)

• Seleucus VI was pushed out of Antioch in 94 BC: by Antiochus X? You don't actually say that Antiochus X took Antioch back.

Done

• The children were probably in Cilicia or somewhere else in Asia Minor for protection: suggest "had been" rather than "were", since at this point I gather they would be back in Syria with their mother, alongside Antiochus XIII. Or, given that apparently she never controlled Antioch during this period, did the other children stay in Cilicia? In that case I'd say "probably remained", to make it clear we're talking about the period when Antiochus XIII ruled, and that she was not with her children.

Done. I wrote "probably remained" cause even when she declared her son king, it doesnt appear that she moved him to syria. She might have controlled her syrian lands from Cilicia

-- Out of time this morning; more tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Final comments:

• put to death the successors of Seleucus, and carry off their wives and daughters into captivity: this should be "carried", but since it's a direct quote I didn't want to just change it. If it's really this way in the original, I'd make it "[carried]" which would warn the reader of the changed to the quote.

Yes, the source lists the quote as such. I used "[carried]"

• I've been thinking about Sarastro1's comments about 1b and the need for context. I looked through some other FAs on historical figures that might not be well known to most readers, and I think Shunzhi Emperor is a good example of an article that gives some brief, helpful historical background. I think something like that would be helpful here. There are two substantial paragraphs in Shunzhi Emperor; you don't need quite that much here, since this is a shorter article. The goal is to give a reader who knows nothing about the topic a sense of the world in which Cleopatra Selene was operating. I have to say I was surprised that so many articles did very little along these lines -- I looked at Diocletian, Zenobia, Offa of Mercia, and Simeon I of Bulgaria, for example; the last two give a little background, but not much.

I wrote a new section titled Historical Background. Hope its adequate.

Overall I think this is FA quality. The prose is at a minimum workmanlike throughout; it doesn't exactly sparkle, but this is difficult material to work with, and I think it passes the bar. If the remaining two points can be dealt with I'll be glad to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I notice that there is no alt text in this article. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. However, there is no need to delay promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.