Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ai-Khanoum/archive1

Ai-Khanoum

Ai-Khanoum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Ai-Khanoum/archive1

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

• 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

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

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

• "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)