Talk:Gilgamesh/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 15:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Overview

I have assessed the article at B now.

1. Prose:

• No copyright violations.
• The article reads very well, but is unclear at some points. See below for details.
• You are using multiple names for the same characters. This is confusing. Better just mention the local variations in brackets but stick to one name for a consistent narrative.

@Farang Rak Tham: I am not sure that is possible, because, for whole periods of history spanning centuries, the characters were known by different names or different variations of the same name. Gilgamesh is actually first known in Sumerian as "Bilgamesh" with a "B" and, for nearly the first century after the Epic of Gilgamesh was discovered, its protagonist was known to scholars only as "Izdubar," before scholars eventually realized that name was incorrect. Similar situations are the case for nearly all the other characters in the epic. I have tried to cut down on the different names as much as possible and to use the names consistently, but I am not sure how much more I can do without distorting and oversimplifying things. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you could review how tertiary sources such as encyclopedias or other sources with a wider scope deal with this problem. I know that in Buddhist studies, when comparing different Buddhist traditions, scholars tend to use only one language (Sanskrit) for technical terms, for reasons of consistency, even when Sanskrit was not used yet during early Buddhism.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

2. MOS: Adding some short descriptions to the sources for further reading would be nice.

3. References layout:

• No dead links.
• The Stone 2012 source is a little hard to identify. Any identification number, or an url?

None that I am aware of. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a url of the publisher? --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Is "A. & Company" a publisher?

No it is not; that would appear to be a typo for "W. W. Norton & Company." I have now fixed it. Do not blame me for this one; the citations that are given as full-length in-lines rather than sfns and are not listed in the bibliography are left over from before I came. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I forgive you. ;-) Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• introduction to The Epic of Gilgamesh: Chapter or book?

It appears to be a chapter, specifically the introduction to Sandars's 1985 translation of the epic. I have now fixed the citation to clarify this. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Tweaked.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

4. Reliable sources: yes.

5. Original research: A few wikilinks may brink on OR. Is Gilgamesh suffering from Death anxiety as defined by psychologists, and if so, what is your source for that?

I originally had that wikilink as "Fear of death," but that is a redirect to "Death anxiety (psychology)." I think that that article seems to be the most relevant. It defines death anxiety as the "feeling of dread, apprehension or solicitude (anxiety) when one thinks of the process of dying, or ceasing to 'be'", which sounds exactly like what Gilgamesh experiences in the epic. If you think the link is inappropriate, I will remove it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Better remove it. It seems too discipline-specific to me.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I have now removed it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

6. Broadness: To be checked later.

7. Focus: yes.

8. Neutral: yes.

9. Stable: article is stable.

10-11. Pics:

• Could you tell me something about the license of Mr. George Smith?

I do not know who took that photograph, but George Smith died in 1876, which means that any photographs of him should be in the public domain, because he would have been long dead decades before the public domain cutoff date of 1923. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Then the statement "The original image is ©The British Museum" is incorrect, isn't it?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not think so. Obviously, I am no legal expert, but my understanding is that two-dimensional images produced prior to 1923 are automatically in the public domain, so I cannot see how the British Museum would be able to maintain a copyright claim on a living photograph of a man who died in 1876. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed the copyright sign myself, now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• There may be a problem with the image Gilagmesh.jpg that it is located in the US, where there is no freedom of panorama for sculptures. You could try using a fair use tag.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: I am afraid you appear to have misread the caption; the statue is not located in the United States; it is located at the University of Sydney, which is in Sydney, Australia. As it happens, Australia does have freedom of panorama for public sculptures, which means the image is not violating any copyright laws, as far as I can discern. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a little late last night...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Kato, the part on Sydney is not mentioned in the Gilagmesh.jpg image page. Please add it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: You seem to be confused again; it is the statue of Gilgamesh that is located in Sydney, not the photograph of George Smith, so I am not sure why you would want me to add something about Sydney to the description for the image of George Smith. Please also read my above comment regarding that photograph. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how that happened, but I meant the Gilgamesh statue, of course. Rephrased above. Anyway, the location of Sydney is on the page, I found it now. It is written outside the template in the Summary section, I hadn't noticed that.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Detailed review per section

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries.

Lead

• ... his shade tells Gilgamesh ...: wikilink, whether red or blue. If possible, blue.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Historical king

• In April 2003, a German expedition claimed to have discovered his last resting place. Any updates? What was the likelihood of this being authentic?

I could not find any more recent information about this. I have removed the part about them supposedly discovering his tomb for now. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sumerian poems

• Underworld: wikilink please.

I have wikilinked the word "Underworld" to the article Kur, which is about the Sumerian Underworld in particular. I have been meaning to merge the articles Kur and Irkalla into one article entitled Mesopotamian Underworld, but have not gotten around to that yet. I noticed that the French Wikipedia has a substantial-length article on the subject. Unfortunately, I cannot read it because I do not speak a word of French. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Could you expand a little on why you have included external links to the ETCSL inline?

I adopted the style of putting the ETCSL number and link in parentheses after the title because it is what several of my sources do. Louise Pryke, in her 2017 book Ishtar, published by Routledge, always gives the ETCSL number in parentheses after the title of the poem whenever it is first mentioned, and the Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus provides both the number and the link in each of their articles about Mesopotamian deities. I thought this was a convenient way of linking to the pages and, based on the sources, it seems to be a common way of referring the reader to them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I can follow your reasons, but I cannot find an allowance for this in WP:EL, unless you upload the content on Wikisource and use a Wikisource citation template in the article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The text cannot be uploaded to WikiSource because the translation is copywritten. Perhaps it would be possible to upload the transliteration of the original Sumerian text, but that would not be of much use to your average Wikipedia reader. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid this is not allowable, but I have posted an inquiry over here.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I have reluctantly moved all links to the ETSCL into citations. I do not think they will be nearly as useful there, but I have moved them nonetheless. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• In the end, the gods condemn Enkidu to death due to his lack of compassion for Huwawa. But you just wrote it was Gilgamesh who beheaded him.

The problem is that the tablets are always badly damaged so there are always many different interpretations. Both those statements come from different sources; Fontenrose clearly states that Gilgamesh beheads Huwawa. Black and Green, in noting that the gods punish Enkidu for his lack of compassion, seem to imply it is Enkidu, but they do not directly say who it is that actually beheads him. If you read the translation on the ETCSL, that one definitely makes Enkidu the one to behead him, but I cannot cite it because it is a primary source. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Then do you need to specify who beheaded him? Can't you say "they killed him"?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wikilink Ishtar, even if it links to the same article as Inanna. It helps to clarify. Better even, use same names for consistency as said above.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• The plot of this poem differs substantially ... Very long sentence, please split, in three sentences or so.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Ishtar does not appear to propose to Gilgamesh ... I missed something here. Proposed what exactly?

I apologize; I was improperly assuming familiarity with the standard Akkadian version of the epic. In the Akkadian version, Ishtar begs Gilgamesh to become her consort, but he refuses her, insisting that all her affairs result in disastrous outcomes for the men she has them with. In the Sumerian poem Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven, there is some kind of exchange between Gilgamesh and Inanna, but it does not appear to involve her proposing to him. Unfortunately, the beginning of the poem is so badly damaged that it is impossible to tell most of what the characters are saying. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Epic of Gilgamesh

Generally well-written, not many comments. * At first she tries to prevent Gilgamesh from entering ... Entering the sea?

No, the garden. I have now clarified this. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• It is at that this point that the epic ends as a coherent narrative. ... Numerous elements within this narrative reveal lack of continuity with the earlier portions of the epic. You mean it no longer is a coherent narrative?

They have slightly different meanings. "No longer a coherent narrative" could be taken to mean that the text is so badly damaged from this point onwards that it is no longer coherent. The sentence about lack of continuity is more precise. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. But right now, it reads as though you mean to say that the epic is coherent at the end.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence as you have requested. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This seems not to have been fixed yet.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: I have removed the sentence "Numerous elements within this narrative reveal lack of continuity with the earlier portions of the epic," which is what it seems like you were requesting for me to do here. If that is what you meant, it has been done; if that is not what you meant, please clarify what you really meant instead. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry to have created this confusion. i just mean that the part ends as a coherent narrative can mean two things: either it is coherent at the end, or it is no longer coherent from this point onward. I have rephrased it now. I hope this still follows the sources.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

In Mesopotamian art

• ... presented as representations ... Awkward. Rephrase please.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• These representations are mostly found on clay plaques and cylinder seals[44] and they can generally only be conclusively identified as Gilgamesh if they relate to one of the two specific scenes from the Epic of Gilgamesh that are often shown in art. Too long, please split.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

In antiquity

* The scene in Tablet VI of the Epic of Gilgamesh in which Gilgamesh ... Too long.

I split it into two sentences. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

* According to Aelian's story ... At first, you called him Aelianus.

His full name in Latin is Claudius Aelianus, but he is almost invariably known in English by the name "Aelian," which is the Anglicized version of his name. I called him "Claudius Aelianus" at the beginning because that is the title of his Wikipedia article, but "Aelian" is definitely the more common name. I have now corrected this issue by simply calling him "Aelian" from the beginning. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Modern rediscovery

Well-written, few comments. Nice to read about Arnold as well. * ... as well as the following one ... Confusing. Better: As well as in another lecture ...

Done, as you have requested. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

* ... though a few were sympathetic. Redundant, better remove.

Removed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

* ... contaminated ... use quotes for neutral tone.

Done.

* ... Aryan ... wikilink to section Aryan#19th century, to be more specific.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

* The German psychologist ... Too long, add some full stops.

I have split it into two sentences. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Modern cultural significance

• It is once again ... When? Remember WP:WTW.

I believe I have now clarified this confusion. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• The last two paragraphs are less organized than the rest. Please combine the sentences on Iraq in one paragraph. Also, the part The Great American Novel ... Soviet Russia."[79] seems out of place, and might best be combined in one paragraph with the last paragraph about ... autonomous entity or simply a name ...

I have reorganized the last two paragraphs based on subject matter. I was originally trying to maintain a strict, chronological order, but, unfortunately, this meant jumping around somewhat between ways that the epic has influenced modern culture. I have now mended this issue, I believe. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead, revisited

• She became pregnant and the guards threw the child off a tower, but an eagle rescued him mid-fall and delivered him safely to an orchard, where he was raised by the gardener. Trim a little.

I do not think I can trim that sentence because all the parts of it are necessary to a coherent summary of the story. Nonetheless, I have trimmed the sentence after it, which I think was unnecessary because it merely stated that Gilgamesh fulfilled the oracle's prophecy by overthrowing his grandfather, which I think the reader could easily infer without it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

There are a few underlined comments left above, in the sections which have not been crossed out yet.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: I believe I have now addressed both your remaining concerns. Let me know if I have failed to adequately address them or if you have any further concerns for me to address. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I am starting to feel a little guilty about all of this... Well, you can't say didn't give you a heads-up before we started this review. Also, if other editors downplay the need to remove the ETCSL links on the policy discussion page, we can revert them back in.

Meanwhile, I have fixed the last issue of the elusive Stone 2012 source. We're done here. Passing. Congrats!

And as always, let me know if you do a DYK, and don't forget to review my articles at WP:GAN#REL as well...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Thank you very much for all your efforts here and elsewhere. I really appreciate all the help you have given me. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, Kato!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Progress

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.