Talk:Nabopolassar

"the last really powerful Assyrian king, Assur-bani-pal"

The article talks about "the last really powerful Assyrian king, Assur-bani-pal." Is that really the best we can do to describe him? That expression is something one might see in a middle school paper. Can anyone recommend a better/more descriptive way to describe Assurbanipal besides "really powerful?"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommstein (talk • contribs) .

LOL, I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps "notable" (minus "really") would be better?-ViolinGirl^♪ 14:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, note that 627BC comes BEFORE 626BC, not AFTER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.152.0.153 (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tartan - Incorrect linking

The word tartan is used in the second section which I believe is incorrectly linked. It is used to refer to Tartars, yet links to Tartan, some Irish skirt thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.78.123 (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed (Tartan is indeed the correct word for the Assyrian title. It should not be confused with the unrelated Tartars.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nabopolassar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 15:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be happy to do this review. Back soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

1. GACR#1a. Well written: the prose is clear, concise and understandable.
2. GACR#1a. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
6. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for linking.
7. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
8. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
9. GACR#2a. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
10. GACR#2b. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
11. GACR#2b. All inline citations are from reliable sources.
12. GACR#2b. All quotations are cited and their usage complies with MOS guidelines.
13. GACR#2c. No original research.
14. GACR#2d. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
15. GACR#3. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
16. GACR#4. Neutral (NPOV).
17. GACR#5. Stable.
18. GACR#6a. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.
19. GACR#6b. Images are relevant to the topic with appropriate captions.

I'll be using this list to complete the review. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I should be able to complete this review over the weekend. For now, I'm happy that the article is stable and the images are fine. Back soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This is absolutely fine and certainly ticks all the boxes above. In fact, I would recommend a visit to WP:FAC because I think it would have a real chance of success there. You might just need to do some fine-tuning but that would be all, really. Very good work indeed and easily passes this review. Well done. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No Great Shaker Thank you for taking the time to look through this and for the encouragement! I'm not sure I have the time to put an article through the FAC process right now, but I'm definitely open to fine-tuning and then nominating this down the line! Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)