Talk:Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 06:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy to review this fascinating looking article.

Review

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:

General points:

1. Go through the links to other articles, as there are numerous examples where links could be added, and where over-linking occurs. Examples are listed below. Any words linked in the lead section or the infobox also need to be linked once (where they first appear) in the main text, you need to check throughout the article for where they might need to be added (see WP:MOSLINK for further information).
2. The article is 'heavy going' for readers, perhaps because of the same words used many times (inscription), or where the prose needs copy editing to help it make more sense (e.g. the "Lord of Kings", the Achaemenid king and Eshmunazar II's suzerain, granted his subject the lands of Dor, Joppa, and Dagon in recognition for his great deeds), or where there is excessive detail or redundant text.
3. There are numerous minor points that any experienced editor would have picked up on, which suggests to me the article needed to be checked more thoroughly before being nominated (e.g. the correct use of italics, copy editing to improve the prose)
4. The article could be improved by reducing the number of images (see the comments below).
5. There are examples of long quotations which would be better off paraphrased. See WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:NOFULLTEXT for further information to help explain my concerns about the quotation of text from other sources in this article)—the Wikipedia on citing quotations needs to be followed for any direct quotes. See my comments below.

Lead section/infobox

• Link sarcophagus (in the lead section and the infobox); consulate; inscription; Hebrew.
• It should be 'BC’, not B.C. throughout the article (MOS:BCE).
• inscription appears 10 times in the lead section, I would try to reduce this number.
• I would amend the caption to note the image is a detail from the sarcophagus.
• Unlink French; Lebanon (MOS:OL).
• Use the ‘convert’ template for the measurements in the infobox.
• Replace Near Eastern antiquities section in room 311 of the Sully wing in the Louvre, Paris (in the infobox) with ‘The Louvre, Paris’.
• Any wikilinks in the article should also be linked in the infobox (e.g. Sidon).

1 Eshmunazar II

• Consider red-linking Eshmunazar I, as he reigned for a quarter of a century.
• More information may be required to summarise Eshmunazar II's reign, or perhaps add a hatnote for the separate article on him to the top of the section.
• Link Eshmunazar II.

2 Discovery

• Journal of Commerce should be in italics (the same issue occurs elsewhere).
• Link hypogeum; Sidon.
• The Discovery section has seven images – see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE for this number could be seen as too many. I would remove the journal clipping (see MOS:TEXTASIMAGES). The two near-identical maps should be reduced to one.
• Amend "Magharet Abloun" to ‘the Magharet Abloun’, as you have done elsewhere in the article.
• Link chancellor; archaeologist; Ottoman rule (Ottoman Empire); Mufti; necropolises (Necropolis).

3 Description

• Link anthropoid-style sarcophagus (Anthropoid ceramic coffins); shroud; falcon.
• an agreeable smile – this needs to be cited, as its sounds at present like your personal opinion.
• The deceased wears – 'The deceased wore'?
• The two captions do not end in full stops (this issue occurs elsewhere).
• There is little need for the header, as it is self-evidently the sarcophagus.
• I'm unclear why black-and white images that are nearly a century old are included, when modern images are available.

3.1 Origin and dating of the sarcophagus

• Unlink Lebanon.
• Amend ca. to c. for the sake of consistency.
• Redundant text: therefore; belonging to the father of Eshmunazar II; on a clean surface
• Who is Elayi? Who was Herodotus?
• I would amend the new sarcophagus to ‘it’.
• The last paragraph looks as if it needs to be rewritten to improve the prose.
• The left-hand side Origins and style influence image is not discussed in the article, and the comparison with the sarcophagus of Esh. II may not be clear to readers without some sort of explanation in the text of the article. Imo it doesn’t work having the two images put together, as they should be illustrating text in different places in the article.

6 Significance

• The titles of the two subsections could be deleted, as the text for each consists of a single paragraph.
• Amend Karatepe bilingual inscription to ‘Karatepe bilingual’, in part to help to reduce the number of times inscription is used in the article (it's 72).
• Introduce Jean-Joseph-Léandre Bargès, as you have done in the lead section.
• To improve the prose, try and avoid Phoenician being used 3 times in one sentence.
• Reduce the size of Bargès’ quote by paraphrasing it.
• the first French president and then-emperor of France – this sentence with this phrase has no date (which it needs); consider amending the text to ‘the Emperor of France’.
• Renan's subsequent publication was entitled Mission de Phénicie - this publication covered more than the newly-discovered sarcophagus, which makes it unnecessary to include.
• biblical scholar, Semitic philologist and orientalist – can be simplified to ‘biblical scholar’ for the sake of brevity.

7 See also

• I’m unclear why the three links have been included. How they are connected with the article?

8 References

• "Metropolitan Museum of Art". www.metmuseum.org. is incorrectly cited.
• Ref 18 (Dussaud, René; Deschamps, Paul; Seyrig, Henri) and Ref 19 (Kelly, Thomas) should be cited here, but listed in the Bibliography section.
• Refs 19 & 20 appear to be identical, and should be combined.
• Ref 22 (Louvre) is a dead link, which I think should be replaced with https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010120357

9 Notes

• Quote 2 should be deleted (or a small portion of it should be included in the text), as according to.WP:QUOTE, quotations should be brief (this is not), attributed in the text of the article (this is not). According to WP:COPYQUOTE, a shorter quote should be used where this could be done (it has not) and “The quotation must be useful and aid understanding of the subject” (imo it doesn’t). As the text is available online, there’s no need to include it all here.

This is the entire text of the inscription. Cutting it will make it lose its informative value. el.ziade (talkallam) 11:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• The same might apply to note 5, but I cannot tell where it comes from, and so cannot verify it or understand its context.

From Barges as evidenced in the body. el.ziade (talkallam) 11:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Notes 3 and 4 need to be explained to understand why they have been included.

The notes are translated from the french, they are referenced, and they explain the significance of the find. el.ziade (talkallam) 11:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

10 Biblography

The formatting for the sources here needs to be consistent:

• Amadasi Guzzo, Maria Giulia—surnames should be first.
• Luynes, Honoré Théodoric Paul Joseph d'Albert duc de—is in French, but it doesn't say that.
• Remove the url for Gibson, John C. L. (it has no preview).
• Pritchard, James B.; Fleming, Daniel E.—Pritchard is the editor, omit Fleming, replace with Franz Rosenthal, and replace the url with this.
• Ref 30 (Herbert Donner, Wolfgang Röllig) can be cited here, but needs to be correctly formatted and placed in the Bibliography section.

Other comments:

• Caubet, Annie; Prévotat, Arnaud should be moved to the References section.
• Tahan, Lina G. is available here, and I would replace the current url.
• I would replace the url for Versluys, Miguel John with replace url with this.
• Buhl, Marie Louise seems to have the wrong url, and should be replaced with this.
• Nitschke, Jessica is an unapproved thesis, and I wouldn't cite it.
• The section needs to be put into alphabetical order.
• I would replace the url for Hitzig, Ferdinand with this to aid translation of the German.

---

The following sections have not been reviewed in full:

3.2 Later evolution

• generally called "Anthropoid sarcophagi" – why are the quotation marks needed?

4 Inscriptions

• Unlink Israel (MOS:OL).

5 Removal to the Louvre

• I would delete references to the Sully wing, as being unnecessarily detailed.
• Louvre is over-linked in the article – it should at the most be linked once in the lead, once in the infobox, once in the main text, and once in a caption.
• I see no reason why the quote cannot be paraphrased and incorporated into the text of the article.
• What is £400 equivalent to? (see https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency-converter/)
• in Louvre museum – 'in the Louvre'?

Failing the article

I'm failing the article now, as it's clear that a considerable amount of work needs to be done to get it to GA. The issues I have identified need to be addressed before it is re-nominated, something which I think is well worth doing. Please note that my review was not completed before the article was failed; in another review, other issues not mentioned by me will be listed. Good luck, Amitchell125 (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)