Talk:Babylonian revolts (484 BC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Babylonian revolts (484 BC)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 17:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I will begin the review shortly.--Catlemur (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Can you clarify the nature of religious worship in Babylon. One sentence in the Background section says "functioning local cult", without mentioning which god(s) was worshiped. Only towards the end of the article are Marduk, Ishtar and Nanayan worshiped. What was the religious affiliation of the Babylonian rebels? Move most of the details about religious worship to the background section.

I've added a sentence to the background that the Babylonians worshipped the Mesopotamian pantheon (which includes Ishtar, Nanaya and Marduk), but that the citizens of Babylon foremost worshipped their patron deity, Marduk. The rebels, as Babylonian kings, probably followed suit in this but I added a little bit on what their names mean (since both names incorporate the names of Mesopotamian gods). Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Esagila is used for most of the article, yet Esagile is also mentioned. This needs to be addressed for consistency.

Esagile was a misspelling; fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Same goes for King of Babylon and king of Babylon.

Fixed so that all uses are lower-case. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Wikilink Esagila and ziggurat when they are first mentioned. Clarify that a ziggurat is a temple.

Wikilinked Esagila at its first mention; removed the single use of "ziggurat" entirely since the Esagila is introduced earlier in the text. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• "easily to dated"

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• "suppressed with by"

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• The term prebendaries is used, the WP article for the term only covers Christianity. So it should either be redlinked or replaced with a synonym.

The source used this term. I would argue that the WP article for prebendaries is then at fault (this is why I didn't link the word itself). The meaning of the term; a temple/church official with a role in the administration of the temple/church appears to be the same, despite the difference in religion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• What does "organic in content" mean?

This was the wording used in the source; I believe what is being conveyed here is that that the content of the documents was unpolitical and about whatever, but that documents written in 484 BC are significantly more political and that documents from different archives discuss more and more similar topics in that year. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "those who and supported the revolts"

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• "End of the closed archives". Were the archives completely destroyed?

I've reworded this a little bit. AFAIK they were not destroyed (as we have their contents today), but that they were closed is inferred from that there are no documents in them from after 484 BC. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Add Category:Religion-based wars.--Catlemur (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Catlemur: I've addressed (or responded) to your concerns above. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Remove the word Cited from the References section, since its already implied.

Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• File:Meso2mil-English.JPG needs a source that confirms that the marked cities were located where the map shows they were, and that their names are translated correctly.--Catlemur (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Added links to two consistent maps on the commons page of the image. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: