Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ai-Khanoum/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 24 November 2022 [1].

---

Ai-Khanoum

Nominator(s): AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I present Ai-Khanoum, one of the greatest discoveries of modern archaeology, and sadly, one of its greatest losses. In 1961, the King of Afghanistan found a massive city founded by Alexander's successors in the shadows of the Himalaya, untouched for two millennia and lying just inches below the soil. But the modern world had to have its say—a team of French archaeologists got just a dozen years of underfunded excavation in before Afghanistan collapsed into chaos. Since then, the site has been looted, plundered, and ransacked almost beyond imagination. Such a loss.

I have near-completely rewritten the article. This is my first FA nomination, so firm and gentle guiding hands are requested. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Coord note -- Welcome to FAC, Airship Jungleman. Just for your benefit, and as a reminder to coords/reviewers, as part of this nom we'll want someone to perform a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- this is a hoop we get all newbies to jump through. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Ian, I'll happily do a source spot-check. The British Library is conveniently near my flat. I'll report back here on Thursday, probably. I'll also add comments on the article here (first impressions are most favourable.) Tim riley talk 08:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Tim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Image review

Image review

Don't use fixed px size File:Ai_Khanoum_landscape_photograph.jpeg needs a more expansive fair-use rationale, and suggest using {{non-free fair use}} instead of the current tag File:Ai-Khanoum-gold_stater_of_Antiochos1.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Ai_Khanoum_Portrait_of_a_man,_found_in_the_administrative_palace.jpg, File:CapitalSharp.jpg, File:Ai-Khanoum_high-relief.jpg, File:Ai_Khanum_Antefix_from_the_administrative_palace.jpg, File:Sakuntala_plate_reconstitution.jpg, File:Ai_Khanum,_Heracles.jpg, File:AyKhanoumWoman.png, File:AiKhanoumPlateSharp.jpg, File:PhilosopherBust.jpg, File:Coin_of_the_Bactrian_King_Agathokles.jpg File:Yuezhi_migrations.jpg needs a source for the data presented. Ditto File:Plan_AI_Khanoum-fr.svg, File:BactriaMap.jpg File:King_Zahir_Shah_of_Afghanistan_in_1963.jpg: source link is dead. When and where was this first published and what is its status in the US? File:Ai-Khanoum_mosaic.jpg needs a US tag File:Reconstruction_of_the_ancient_city_of_Ai-Khanoum.jpg needs a more expansive fair-use rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC) Oookay. Please bear with me and my very possibly stupid questions on this. What do you mean by "a tag for the original work"? Is the original work the object photographed? Can you give an example of such a tag? Correct. When you are photographing something that is not two dimensional, there are two potential copyrights to consider: the copyright in the photograph, and the copyright in whatever is being photographed. You have two potential approaches: demonstrate that the thing being photographed is covered by a relevant freedom of panorama law (for example, in the US most photographs of buildings can essentially ignore the copyright of the building), or demonstrate that the thing being photographed is freely licensed or in the public domain. Most if not all of the things pictured here would be PD due to their age, so you just need an explicit tag to say so. Here's an example of such an image from a current FA - you'll see it has separate tagging for the photo and the coin pictured. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC) For File:King_Zahir_Shah_of_Afghanistan_in_1963.jpg, I assumed the last sentence of the note would be relevant: "Works of Afghan origin that were no longer under copyright in Afghanistan on July 29, 2016 are not copyrighted in the U.S. due to a previous lack of copyright relations between the U.S. and Afghanistan." What tag would be needed here, if not? In any case, I don't think I can find a source link. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC) That's why I was asking about publication - Afghan copyright expires 50 years after publication for photos, so we need a publication date to confirm when that would have been. (Assuming of course that it was first published in Afghanistan). A source could help with that, particularly since the current date field ("1950s") seems to contradict the image name ("in_1963"). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC) I think I've done everything apart from File:King_Zahir_Shah_of_Afghanistan_in_1963.jpg, which I'll try and find soon. Could you please see if I've done it right (in all likelihood I haven't). Many thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Nikkimaria, I was unable to find a source, so have replaced File:King_Zahir_Shah_of_Afghanistan_in_1963.jpg with a much more copyright-friendly (albeit slightly less focused) photograph. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC) Looks like File:BactriaMap.jpg is still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• While I'm here, I notice that your Sources section contains several harv errors - ie items in this section aren't linked from short citations. Uncited works should be in a separate section from cited works. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, I believe everything has now been done appropriately. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
    • As above, looks like File:BactriaMap.jpg is still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
      • Nikkimaria, File:BactriaMap.jpg was replaced in the article with File:Greco-BactrianKingdomMap.jpg. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
        • Ah, missed that, apologies. Should be good to go then. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Review

I'll do a full review over the next couple of days, but from a preliminary canter through I notice we have both BrE and AmE spellings in the text: armour, centre, defences, honour, kilometres, metres, mould, neighbours, recognised, rigour, but also centered, center, theater. The King's English or Uncle Sam's would be equally acceptable here, but not, please, a mixture of the two. – Tim riley talk 09:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Apologies. I had used the script over at User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB, but perhaps I (or it) did something wrong. I'll have a run through and try to fix everything. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC) I'm pretty sure the three AmE words I mention above are the only ones that have crept in. Tim riley talk 18:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC) General comments This will take me more than one go. Here's my first lot of comments: Lead "Ai-Khanoum was likely founded" – as we seem to be in BrE this AmE form would be better avoided. No doubt creeping Americanism will take over in Britain eventually, but for now "was probably founded" is the idiomatic English form. I'm probably part of the first British generation unable to distinguish between BrE and AmE for anything more than basic spelling and word choice, so apologies for that. Apologies not required. I am of an age to have been at school with your grandfather. Just bear in mind that you too will be an old buffer one day and will sniff at the loose English of the younger generation and be just as pontifical as I am now about it. Tim riley talk 20:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC) "However, there is a possibility" – this is the first of eleven "howevers" in the article. One is in a quote and can't be tampered with, but to my eye the other ten add nothing and just impede the flow of the prose. I am not an anti-however zealot, and the word has its place, but I don't honestly think any of your howevers here are beneficial. I regret to say that I am a however-person ("howeverist"?) and so I hope you'll forgive me for retaining three of them, in addition to the quote. Forgive? To Hell with that! I abominate reviewers who say "This is how I would write it and therefore you must too". If the remaining three howevers are what you want to write there will be no quibble from me. I hope, though, that you agree that some of the cull of howevers is a Good Thing. Tim riley talk 20:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC) "mining" – do we really need blue links to help us cope with such commonplace words as "mining" and, later in the lead, "palace"? Probably not. "may have initially grown in population due to the presence of a mint" – in AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer. The things you learn... "the Greco-Bactrian kingdom collapsed —Ai-Khanoum was captured by Scythian invaders, and its inhabitants abandoned the city— and Greek power was displaced…" – careful with your dashes. The Manual of Style requires either spaced en-dashes – like that, or unspaced em-dashes—like that. Fixed. Ancient "A thousand years later, the area would fall … and would further expand" – not sure why the "woulds" rather than a plain past tense. "carried out by the Graeco-Macedonians" – but elsewhere you use Greco- rather than Graeco. "Seleucid construction programs were not continued" – if we're in BrE "programs" is reserved for computers: other programmes retain the traditional spelling. "While the first assault led to the end of Hellenistic rule in the city" – I suggest caution with "while". Too often the writer may mean "although" but the reader sees "at the same time as". I don't say it should only be used in the temporal sense, but incautious use of "while" can lead to such constructions as "The Dean read the lesson while the Bishop preached the sermon". All noted and fixed. Modern "While similar holes were found … while the small quantities of limestone" – too many whiles, perhaps? Those wily whiles... Location "copper, iron, lead, and rubies" – more WP:OVERLINK in my view. Really? Okay. "whose valley provided access … but which also formed a natural corridor" – I don't think we want the "which" here. Fixed. More anon. – Tim riley talk 13:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Above problems taken care of, I think. Many thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC) All fine. More tomorrow or over the weekend, Tim riley talk 20:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Second and concluding batch of comments Layout and architecture "Aside from the southern zone" – perhaps the BrE "apart from" rather than the AmE "aside from"? Similarly with "Aside from textual fragments" in the Modern scholarship section. Done. Palace complex "350 by 250 metres (1,150 ft × 820 ft)" – I'm puzzled by the contrasting ways you write lengths in metric and imperial: "by" -v- "x", and "metres" only once apiece but "ft" twice. It doesn't bother me, but it looks a trifle odd. And you aren't consistent: in the Private housing section we have "66 by 35 metres (217 by 115 ft)" and "108 by 72 metres (354 by 236 ft)" (which I think better than the "350 by 250 metres (1,150 ft × 820 ft)" form, but I don't press the point.) After a good consideration of {{convert}}, I think I've fixed the problem. "Built by order of Eucratides I, the size and intricacy of the complex would have served as a demonstration of his power" – this is a dangling modifier, although not a particularly crashing one. Grammatically the sentence says that the size and intricacy, rather than the complex, were built by order of Eucratides I. Done, although perhaps slightly awkwardly. Looks fine to me − clear and concise. Tim riley talk 13:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC) Treasury "and a disk of mother of pearl" – two points here. The OED describes "disk" as "now chiefly US" and favours the English form, "disc". And the OED hyphenates "mother-of-pearl" Done. Private housing "blocks of large aristocratic houses, separated by streets perpendicular to the main north-south road" – I'm struggling with "perpendicular", which to me means vertical. I followed your blue link to the Wikipedia article, and insofar (not very) as I understood it, it seems you are in fact using the term correctly here, but if, as I take it, you mean "at right angles", it would be a kindness to your reader to say so. Done, albeit with reservations. Religious structures "the Persian and Achaemenid elements of the temple's architecture was remarked upon" – plural verb, not singular, needed here "The identifying "indented niches", along with the building's stepped platform, were both common features" – the "along with" and "both" rather clash with each other. The sentence would flow better without the "both", I think. Both done. Heroön of Kineas "One of the most-studied monuments in the city is a small heroön (hero's shrine)" – rather late in the day to explain what a heroön is, as you've mentioned it twice already. I think you're right to explain the term inline rather than just relying on the blue link, but it would be best to do so at first mention. Done "ἀνδρῶν τοι σοφὰ ταῦτα παλαιοτέρων ἀνάκει[τα]ι" etc – in your source the Greek lines are punctuated – one high dot, two full stops and four commas. I don't know if it matters that six of these seven punctuation marks are omitted in the article; I merely mention it. The punctuation is a modern addition for ease of understanding. Ancient inscriptions generally didn't have any. Coinage "as per the traditional lineage system" – on the sound basis of the maxim "prefer good English to bad Latin", I think "as per" is out of place in a serious piece of prose, and so, more to the point, does Fowler (2015 edition, p. 68). "the winter of 1973/4" – the Manual of Style is prescriptive about date ranges, and this one should be either 1973–74 or 1973–1974. Modern scholarship "The historian Rachel Mairs" – we've met Rachel Mairs earlier in the text. The job description would be better at first mention than here. Citations "You should make your page ranges consistent: we have "Martinez-Sève 2015, pp. 36–7" but "Martinez-Sève 2015, pp. 39–40"; "Wood 1841, pp. 394–95" but "Martinez-Sève 2018, pp. 413–414"; "Bernard 1996, pp. 101–2" but "Bernard 2001, pp. 971–972". The second of each of these examples is the prescribed form. There are other citations later in the list that need similar tweaking. Still on page ranges, there are a few with hyphens rather than the prescribed en-dashes, e.g. Bopearachchi 1993, pp. 433-434, Holt 1981, pp. 9-10, Mairs 2015, p. 112-14. Gone through all citations, think I've fixed everything. Sources "The Hellenistic settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India" – the capitalisation looks odd. For books you generally stick to the customary form Location XXX, Publisher YYY, but for Lecuyot 2020 and Mairs 2014 and 2025 you omit the location. Both fixed.

Those are my few quibbles. I am impressed by this article and have enjoyed reviewing it. I look forward to supporting its elevation on my next visit here. Tim riley talk 11:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tim. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Happy to support FA status for this article. It is well and widely sourced, seems comprehensive and balanced, has excellent illustrations and is well written − a really good read, in fact (which cannot always be honestly said of archaeological FACs). It meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I hope we can look forward to more FACs from Airship Jungleman in due course. − Tim riley talk 13:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Source spot-check

Source spot-check

Part one I've ordered three publications at the British Library: Francfort et al 2014, Lecuyot 2007, and Mairs 2014, and will go through them on Friday (not Thurs). Meanwhile, as I can access two of the main sources online, here are my comments so far. As always with any spot-check I undertake, my apologies in advance if I have failed to see something that is in fact in the source. Martinez-Sève 2015 5 fine 7 fine 16a should be pp. 27–28 rather than just p. 28 as it now says Fixed. 16b fine 19 fine 22 fine 26 fine 28 fine 30 I can find no mention of patronage of artists and philosophers on the three pages cited. The comparisons with Alexandria, Antioch and Pergamum are all on p. 40. My mistake, have altered both the text and the citation. 32 fine 52a fine 52b fine 67a fine 67b fine 123 fine Holt 1999 14 fine 15 nothing about elephants in Holt pp. 28–29 as far as I can see, otherwise fine. Have added additional citation, which specifically mentions the elephants. 18 fine 25 fine 116 fine 159 fine Looking good so far, with only a couple of minor quibbles and no trace of excessively close paraphrase. (Material from the sources is most elegantly and concisely condensed, in fact.) More on the other three publications on Friday. – Tim riley talk 18:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Spot-check concluded Mairs 2024 6 – fine 34 – fine 37 – fine, except that as the striking phrase "a devastating fire" occurs in both the source and the article it might be as well to rephrase the latter. Source-text correlation was a little too close, so I have rephrased the sentences. 38 – fine 45 – fine 48 – fine 55 – fine 65 – fine 74 – fine 76 – fine 77 – fine 78 – fine 79 – fine 82 – fine 85 – fine 125a & b – What is the citation for the text in Greek? It isn't given in Mairs. And her English translation is on p. 74, not 73. You have done well to convey the gist of that translation without plagiarising it. It was from the other source—I have now stated that. 138 – fine Lecuyot 2007 49 – fine 64 – fine Francfort et al 1 – fine 33a – fine 33b – fine 63 – fine 69 – fine 71 – I can't find mention on p. 34 of a curved road running west and then south. Am I looking straight through it? There's the curved road ("une voie coudée") but no mention of the directions, so I have removed them. 73 – fine 75 – page 40 consists of two photographs with captions; not sure that the description in the article fits either photo, but am willing to be convinced. I meant p.41. Fixed. 80 – fine 83 – fine 84 – fine 86 – fine 88 – fine 89 – fine 95 – fine 97 – fine 98 – fine 107a – fine 107b – fine 112 – fine 122 – fine

That's a total of 37% of citations (62 out of 168) spot-checked. I shouldn't mind clarification of my few minor queries, above, but I've found no serious problems, and in my view the article passes the spot-check test. I'll be back wearing a general reviewer's cap to comment on the article a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 12:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tim. I have responded to your spot-checks above, and will shortly do so for your general comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Comments

"Anabasis" I would suggest links, if necessary to wiktionary, for terms unlikely to be known to the casual reader. Also, "foundation" is used in sense the reader may not grasp. Fixed. The lead section might profitably say where the present-day name derives from. Unfortunately, no-one really knows, and no-one has said in reliable sources that they don't know, which is rather annoying. "Ai-Khanoum, which may have initially grown in population because of the presence of a mint in the city, " Where is this supported in the body of the article? Was meant to be off this line " that this mint spurred the development of the city as a royal foundation". I have smoothened both the lead and the body. "Around one-third of the bronze coins found in the city were issued in the period following Antiochus' accession in 281 BC, an indication of his unceasing outlay.[20] " This is unclear. Whose unceasing outlay and what is meant by it? I think it fairly clear that it is Antiochus, but I have clarified the 'unceasing outlay'. There are a number of listed sources which are not used, for example Mairs 2013a, and anything by Lerner other than 2003a (there are others besides). Fixed.

It seems comprehensive and well-written but this isn't really my field.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments, Wehwalt. Much appreciated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Wehwalt, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  Support on prose. Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review

• Add col and row scopes to the table per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Heartfox, I believe I have now done so. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
• When glancing over the article, I wondered where the artworks depicted are today, would it perhaps be helpful to state this in the captions?
  • Unfortunately, due to the chaotic state of present-day Afghanistan, the whereabouts of most are unknown. A great many were looted from the National Museum of Afghanistan. With the recent Taliban takeover, it is impossible to state with any certainty whether they even exist anymore, never mind where they are. Looking forward to your next comments. ~~ ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems this already has the needed number of reviews (I've had little time to review in the meantime), so I'll just wrap my section up here. But if a fifth review is somehow needed anyway, feel free to ping me. As for the captions, I meant the whereabouts of the images when the photos were taken, but perhaps that isn't necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Jens

Review

"who established a satrapy" – explain this term in a bracket? I guess most readers won't know this, and it would save one click. Somewhat unsure on grounds of prose, but have done so. Link Oxus. I know it is linked in the lead, but should be linked in the body again. Done there is a consensus that the establishment of a settlement at Ai-Khanoum was carried out by the Greco-Macedonians. – I can't really follow. It is the first time that the Greco-Macedonians are mentioned, so where does this consensus comes from? Related to the above: The "Ancient" section starts with introducing the Indus Valley civilisation, thus giving background and a brief chronology of the history of the region. This is excellent. BUT the Greco-Macedonians themselves are not introduced! How do they fit in? There seems to be something missing here. Hmm. On both, I seem to have taken for granted that the reader would know about Alexander. An excellent point, and one which I hope I have quickly rectified. Let me know if it is still unclear. Based on ceramic data gathered at the site, it is more likely that Ai-Khanoum was expanded in stages. – More likely than what? Does removing the "more" fix it? I think that was a holdover from an earlier draft. Removed. whose mother, Apama, was the daughter of the Sogdian warlord Spitamenes, – why is this information pertinent to the article? It might be relevant, but if so, it does not become clear why, and therefore does not really help me in my position as reader. added a phrase Antiochus, whose mother, – Maybe write "Seleucus son Antiochus"? I know that it is a repetition, but it is extremely hard to remember all the names, and this would improve comprehensibility a lot. I am reluctant to do this, especially since the end of the sentence does say 'his father'. Its not as if the identification was many paragraphs before, in which case I would be much more sympathetic. Several integral buildings, – I would add "in Ai-Khanoum" for clarity, because only know it seems to be really about the city itself. Done. Antiochus III invaded the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom in 209 BC, defeating the Greco-Bactrian ruler Euthydemus I – maybe "its ruler" instead of repeating "Greco-Bactrian" improves reading flow. Now how did I miss that? seceded from the Seleucids and founded the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. – It was not clear to me that Ai-Khanoum was part of this Greco-Bactrian Kingdom until much later in the text. This needs to be made clear. Turned out to be surprisingly difficult to incorporate. I hope it being made explicitly clear in the next sentence is sufficient. the first invasion – "The" The end of Eucratides' reign was marked by sudden chaos: … until end of paragraph: I found this a bit difficult to read. Maybe first state that a tribe attacked the city, and shortly after a second time, and only then state that the king was assacinated during the first attack. Providing the context first. Hopefully I've made it clearer. but the reoccupation of the city – what recoccupation? I thought the Saka occupied the city? Could this be made clearer? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC) I have rephrased the first sentence of the paragraph. Thank you Jens Lallensack for some very pertinent comments from the viewpoint of a general reader. I have responded above: if you have any more suggestions, I would greatly appreciate it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC) was entered from the curved road through a propylaeum. – was already already stated it actually actually wasn't ;) but I can see how it would be confusing, so have clarified South of the reception area lay a suite of rooms, that would have served – comma too much? Fixed Section Treasury: Does the heading need to be "Treasury and library"? I don't think so; have made certain. Image caption: Imprint from a mould found in the sanctuary of Ai-Khanoum. – should state what the mould depicts (veiled woman). Rephrased and done. This early, Seleucid temple – comma too much? Probably. libation – can this be linked? Has been. by a winged victory in a chariot drawn by lions – Winged victory, isn't that something roman? The linked article makes no mention of uses outside Roman culture. It is the best I can do. The correct term would be 'a Nike' but people would then think that refers to the Greek goddess Nike, when in reality it is just a spirit of victory. This theme is common to both Greek and Roman culture, but Wikipedia does not yet have an article on it. They have been subsumed by the Roman depictions, similar to how the Erotes are, to the general public, indistinguishable from Cupids. If you have any suggestions, let me know. I have now just changed it to "a Nike", very deliberately unlinked, because it seemed to be comfusing a lot of people.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC) In addition, many artefacts were found at the temple – This confuses me. The article was talking about evidence for Mesopotamian influence. "In addition" suggest to me additional evidence for such influence. Instead, it continues with Greek (and apparently Roman) features. Don't see it myself, but have deleted the "In addition". Oriental – I think this should be lower case Can I ask why? mention in which museum the artifacts are currently stored? Kabul? Or are they distributed over different countries? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC) No one really knows. Most were in Kabul, which means they're now in the hands of the Taliban. Last time the Taliban controlled Kabul, they systematically looted their national museum for profit on the black market. Most probably, quite a few are in the hands of private collectors, many are circulating in illegal channels, some are in Kabul basements, and the rest have been destroyed. I think it would be very helpful to add a sentence like "the status of the artifacts collected by the French team is unknown", or at least state that they have been part of the repository in Kabul. This was not clear to me at all. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC) I have added it in a note, since I could not find a simple way to integrate it into a sentence. However, there is no citation for the first line, so I have had to leave it out. Thank you Jens Lallensack for your comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Hi Jens, just checking if you had anything to add... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC) The discovery of Ai-Khanoum re-energised the discipline; and, subsequently, numerous Hellenistic sites have been found throughout Central Asia. – I think the ";" should be an ",". Alternatively, you could remove the "and". But both together don't work well in my opinion. Done.

• Excellent article, and this is everything from me. One minor point above, and one suggestion in a reply, but that does not prevent me from giving my support now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much Jens. All points actioned. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Source review

Review

- taking Tim's spotcheck above as read. Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited - for example, I see the first part of the abandoned range in text, but not the second Fixed Ditto the lead - for example I don't see 290BC in text Fixed Daily Telegraph is a work, not a publisher Fixed, I think? Be consistent in when you include publication location Journals now don't include location; books do. What about other source types? Of your two full inline citations, one includes location and the other does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Oh I see. Fixed. Page ranges should be written out in full and use "pp" - eg footnotes 35 and 123 Fixed Don't duplicate identifiers in |url= I don't think I have, but I might have just missed something. For example Bernard 1982. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Right yeah that makes sense. Check alphabetization of Sources Done. What makes Electrum a high-quality reliable source? Anabasis? All sources from the above publications are from high-quality authors. Martinez-Sève is currently in charge of publishing the remaining excavation reports of Ai-Khanoum, having succeeded Paul Bernard, the former lead archaeologist, in that role. Frank Holt is cited elsewhere in the article and is one of the leading numismaticists for the Hellenistic world. Jeffrey Lerner's 2003 work "Correcting the early history of Ay Kanum" remains a pivotal work in recent research, directly or indirectly influencing pretty much every paper since. Do you have a citation for that last piece? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC) I can provide evidence of being cited in numerous bibliographies, sometimes with critical commentary, since? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Sherwin-White is not cited Moved to FR.

• Further reading should be a separate section. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, is this now GTG? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

Review

"surrounded the entirety of the city". You do not need "entirety of" - "surrounded" means entirely. Good point. "Bactrian anabasis of Antiochus III". In the main text you call it a Seleucid invasion, and I think it would be clearer to do the same in the lead. Done "Soon after his death c. 145 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom collapsed—Ai-Khanoum was captured by Scythian invaders, and its inhabitants abandoned the city—and Greek power was displaced to the southeast, with the establishment of the Indo-Greek kingdoms." The account in the main text is different - e.g. you do not mention the Scythians or the displacement, say that the invaders may have occupied the city, and imply that the Indo-Greek kingdom was established earlier. The later history in unclear. The Saka are the Scythian invaders referred to in the lead. The Indo-Greek kingdoms are not one continuous polity, but a collection of loosely defined and understood states which existed for various lengths of times. I hope I have clarified satisfactorily You need to mention the Scythians specifically in the main text if you mention them in the lead. Also, you say in the lead that the city was soon abandoned, but in the main text not at least until the 2nd century AD. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Done. "The northernmost outpost of the Indus Valley Civilization had been established at Shortugai, around 20 kilometres (12 mi) north of Ai-Khanoum, during the late third millennium BC; Shortugai traded with its southern neighbours and constructed the first irrigation systems in the area.[5] A thousand years later, the area fell under the control of the Persian Achaemenids". The figures do not make sense. The late third millennium BC is c. 2100 BC and a thousand years later is 1100 BC, but the Achaemenid empire was not founded until 550 BC. Shortugai existed until at least 1600 BC. I have clarified this in the article. You say that there is no consensus of a settlement before Alexander the Great, and then that he replaced the Achaemenid garrison with a Greek one? Fixed. " The later conquests of Euthydemus and his successor Demetrius I" What conquests? You may have missed that 'later conquests' is linked. "The city's zenith came during the rule of Eucratides I" When? Added, "runic" - You link to Runes, but this article says that the earliest were AD. That article sadly appears to be very western-biased. It would do better to be renamed "Germanic runes" since that is apparently all it covers. Regardless, as all the sources describe the inscriptions as "runic", I have no choice but to do the same. I had the same problem today with an article I am working on. I found a couple of sources and added a sentence to the linked article about earlier usage. It would be helpful if you did the same as otherwise the link makes no sense. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Changed the link entirely so it makes a limited amount of sense; will add sources there so it makes even more sense (don't have access to them at this current moment). "By the time Zhang Qian, a Han dynasty official, visited the area in 126 BC, the Yuezhi had occupied Bactria, with the city of Bactra continuing to function as a population centre." Why is this relevant? I thought it was, but probably I'm too close to it. Removed. "Investigating more closely than Wood" This seems unfair. Wood had no power there, unlike the king. Fair enough. Removed. More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Thank you Dudley Miles for some excellent suggestions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Justin 1853 gives an error message because it should be in sources as you cite it. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC) Paul Bernard. It is usual to only give the surname on second and later mentions. Fixed. "27,000 square metres (2.7 ha)". Conversions should be between imperial and metric, not two metrics. Fixed. "The courtyard was bordered on all four sides by columns, Corinthian in style and 118 in number." "The courtyard was bordered by 118 Corinthian columns." I wondered if that would be allowed through unscathed ;) Fixed. "ncluding smaller and more affordable housing for people of lower status". I would delete "affordable housing" as superfluous and a modern concept. Done. "This early Seleucid temple was completely dismantled and replaced with the current structure". If it was completely dismantled then how could they find so much evidence of it? I don't know if you're misreading or if the words are confusing, but the following evidence is about the most recent structure. I believe they detected the earlier architectural phases through studying the foundations, which were somewhat, but not entirely, reused for the later structure. I think this needs clarifying. Maybe move up "This early Seleucid temple was completely dismantled and replaced with the current structure during the reigns of the early Diodotids." Change to "An early Seleucid temple in the large sanctuary was completely dismantled and replaced with the current structure, often called the Temple with Indented Niches, during the reigns of the early Diodotids." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Oh I see. I have simplified the section. "—Rachel Mairs (maxims)[128] and Shane Wallace (dedication and Greek text)" Presumably translators? I suggest moving to a note and clarifying. Done, I think? You say the first five lines were translated by Wallace and the remainder by Mairs, but the translation is 4 lines followed by five. So is the translation just the maxims by Mairs? This needs spelling out. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Oops, miscounted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC) "a trapdoor intended to stop mounted animals". I am not sure what this means. Turns out I had somehow mistranslated the French original "chausse-trappe" to mean trapdoor instead of caltrop. Fixed. Coinage. So there is evidence of a mint for a short period in the Seleucid times but not otherwise? Clarification would be helpful. Well, it's more accurate to say that there are reliable sources discussing a mint in Seleucid times, but not otherwise. Where later coins were minted has not been studied as extensively, if at all. In view of the size of the site, presumably there must be areas which could still be usefully excavated if conditions allowed? Comment on this would be helpful if there are any reliable sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC) Sadly, no RS. We're basically back to the Middle Ages again—our knowledge relies on eyewitness travellers who have managed to trek to this remote and often troubled place. Well, that and Google Maps, which you can have a look at yourself (note all the holes in the unexcavated parts). Obviously not a reliable source though. Thank you Dudley Miles for a comprehensive review.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2022 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

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