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.
Thank you for nominating this article - always good to see archaeological work coming into high-quality articles. It is clearly a good article and within striking distance of the standards: what follows is mostly advice to improve it further and to cement that status. This isn't my specific field, so please do let me know if I've misunderstood anything, or been unclear or unfair. UndercoverClassicistT·C10:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest taking opportunities to clarify terms known well in the scholarship but not necessarily to laypeople: e.g. Persian Achaemenid Empire or similar, explaining who Eshmun was.
I added "Persian Achaemenid" is some places to make it easier for lay people to connect the dots. Briefly introduced Eshmun.
A map would be extremely helpful, particularly for the "Historical Context" section.
Map added.
People who have died should be discussed in the past tense: e.g. Eshmunazar II descends should be descended.
Comma off the transcription of Eshmunazar's name; you could consider adding an IPA transcription if you're able.
Done.
I wouldn't generally capitalise "King of Sidon", as it's not a formal, emic title (it's our description), but we should capitalise e.g. " King Eshmunazar" when it's used as part of someone's name. However, The Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II is correct. MOS:JOB is the relevant guideline here, though it's not exactly crystal-clear.
Done.
Per MOS:WORDSASWORDS, when we're talking about the name (or its spellings) rather than the person, it should be in italics or double quotes.
Done
traditionally placed in the course of the fifth century: clarify BC on this first mention.
Done
There is a monster multi-cite a few sentences into the Chronology section. Long strings of blue numbers aren't good for readability: if all of these citations really need to be in this place, suggest using the SFNM or REFN template to compress them into a single footnote. However, can some of them be moved to earlier sentences that they more specifically support, or others be done away with if they simply duplicate what already-cited sources say?
Are 883–859 BC the dates of Ashurnasirpal's reign or life?
added a reigned template.
The link to Mount Lebanon would seem to be better on Lebanon mountain range than on the Lebanon
Good point.
its coastal cities including Sidon: comma after cities.
Done.
Tyre was besieged for 13 years: it's usual to write numbers under 21 in words, unless another consideration arises: there's nothing wrong with this as such, but it's odd when we've had the ninth century a few lines earlier.
Ok
Eshmunazar I, a priest of Astarte and the founder of his namesake dynasty became king: comma after dynasty. Link Astarte and explain who she was ("the goddess Astarte").
Ok
To date, all that we know of the king's reign has been learned from his funerary inscriptions.: I'd like to see a citation here.
Solved.
The reverse of some of the locally minted coins show that the Sidonian kings were personally engaged in religious ceremonies: does it really show that? You can put anything you like on a coin: by that logic, Alexander the Great's coins show that he had horns....
XD Referred back to the source and fixed the sentence.
by depicting them as pious, and the recipients of divine favor and protection: and as is more grammatical.
Thanks.
this royal function was materialized by Eshmunazar II and his mother Queen Amoashtart through the construction of new temples and religious buildings for the Phoenician gods Baal, Astarte, and Eshmun in a number of Sidon's neighborhoods and adjoining territory: manifested rather than materialized. I would make this into a new sentence: it's already long as it is, and forms part of a huge one.
Revised.
(see lines 15–18 of Eshmunazar II's sarcophagus inscriptions): this is very specific detail for a lay reader, who probably can't read Phoenician. I would move this sort of comment out of the body text: if you really want to include it, add it to the footnote.
Done.
Additionally, Eshmunazar II's sarcophagus inscription calls upon the gods to severely punish anyone who disturbs the deceased king's resting place: isn't this sort of thing fairly standard in the genre? We've presented it as evidence of his religiosity, but was it anything more than a convention or cliché?
It's redundant, removed.
who fathered Eshmunazar II from his sister: from reads oddly: by is more usual, although the whole construction is a bit archaic.
Modified.
It was found just outside of a hollowed-out rocky mound that's locally known as...: outside instead of outside of in formal writing; omit that's (and avoid contractions in general).
Done
who informed and sold the sarcophagus to the chancellor of the French consulate in Beirut and amateur archaeologist Aimé Péretié: I would put Péretié's name sooner: he otherwise ends up at the end of a confusing sentence.
Done
The Egyptian-style black amphibolite anthropoid sarcophagus was first described, and the acquired: and then acquired? Comma after acquired if so.
Simplified.
a French aristocrat and holder of an immense fortune: holder of an immense fortune is a bit over-egged. We normally assume that aristocrats were wealthy: was de Luynes so much wealthier than his peers that it needs to be commented on here? If so, could have "one of the richest people in France/Europe/the world".
Done.
de Luynes who donated it to the French state: cut who.
Done.
The sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II dates back to the 26th dynasty of Egypt (664–525 B.C.): As in the Chronology section, I would put this information about what the sarcophagus is and when it was made before the information about when it was discovered: this article is a summary of the thing, not a story of its discovery.
Good point.
Elayi posits that the sarcophagi were: is there more than one?
A long inscription of twenty two lines is carved on the surface of the sarcophagus lid: do we really need four citations for this? Bundle if so for readability.
details removed
De Luynes believes that they to have been trial carving marks of the engraver of the inscription: we usually discuss scholarship in the present tense, but only if it is considered live: that is, we're discussing it as part of a present-day conversation rather than as part of the history of scholarship. Treating an 1856 source as the last word is pretty unusual: I'd put this one into the past tense and, ideally, find a modern source to back it up or critique it.
Details removed.
Separately, De Luynes believes that they to have been trial carving marks of the engraver of the inscription: believed them to have been or believed that they were, or even interpreted them as...
Idem
De Luynes is (correctly) de Luynes in the text, but (probably incorrectly) Luynes in the footnotes.
nobiliary particles are messy. Done.
KAI 14: should be in double quotes. Can we explain what this designation means?
Technical for this particular article, removed.
They identify the king buried inside, tell of his lineage and temple construction feats and warns against disturbing him in his repose: and warn against. We've already heard a lot of this further up, though.
Kept only this one.
Lord of Kings: we should have introduced this guy further up: this section could simply be moved to replace the existing material on the same subject in Reign.
Removed redundancy
With such a long bibliography, use columns: the template {{refbegin|30em|indent=yes}} at the start of the list, followed by {{refend}}>. will greatly improve readability.
Done
During the first phase of Achaemenid rule Sidon flourished and reclaimed its former standing as Phoenicia's chief city: we never actually said that it was Phoenicia's chief city before, only that it was flourishing and independent.
Changed.
I think Eshmunazar is romanised rather than Latinised: Latinisation is e.g. turning Charles into Carolus, while romanisation is turning e.g. Δημητριος into Demetrios.
Correct
Do we really need three citations to say that Jal el-Bahr is in the north of Tyre? If so, would suggest bundling for readability.
Now bundled
reimposed the annual tribute: it's confusing to hear about something being re-imposed when we haven't heard that it existed.
Also referred back to main source (Sennacherib), changed the verb to "impose".
After the Achaemenid conquest in 529 BC ... Eshmunazar I, a priest of Astarte and the founder of his namesake dynasty became king around the time of the Achaemenid conquest of the Levant.: the repetition here is confusing. Could we perhaps have became king around the same time?
Done.
Still needs a slight look for clarity: he was a priest only of Astarte, not of Astarte and of the founder of his dynasty. UndercoverClassicistT·C
attested in the Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II and Bodashtart inscriptions: consider introducing these a little, particularly the latter, as to when they're from and what they are.
a number of Sidon's neighborhoods and adjoining territory: needs a bit of a look: a number looks as though it should modify adjoining territory, which it can't. Perhaps in a number of Sidon's neighborhoods and in its adjoining territory?
Done.
I don't actually see much in the Territorial expansion section, other than In recognition to Sidon's naval warfare contributions, the "Lord of Kings" awarded Eshmunazar II the territories of Dor, Joppa and the lands of Dagon which are in the plain of Sharon, which actually has anything to do with Eshmunazar. The preceding sentence implies that Eshmunazar expanded Sidon's territory, but doesn't actually say so. If this bit can't be expanded, I would suggest cutting it and rolling the two sub-sections here together.
Yes, you're right. I will keep some for context though.
it was not necessarily done by order of primogeniture as is the case of Eshmunazar II's cousin and successor Bodashtart: this is a little unclear: are we saying that Eshmunazar was succeeded by his cousin, Bodashtart, rather than his children (did he definitely have any?), which proves that primogeniture wasn't necessarily the system. However, by the family tree we've sketched out, Bodashtart was the heir by primogeniture: if Eshmunazar has no children, the claim reverts to his father; if his father then has no other descendants, it goes to his father, and so on until an eldest living child can be found.
Removed, not very important for context in this particular article.
the role of interregnum regent: not really a phrase: the role of regent during the interregnum.
Thanks!
Magharet Abloun [The Cavern of Apollo]: The gloss is better given in round brackets with quotes: ('The Cavern of Apollo'). Magharet Abloun should be in a language template, which will also place it in italics.
Done, except for Magharet Abloun. I don't think italicization is indicated here according to this.
Looking again, it's a bit of an edge case in the MoS. In general, non-English phrases (per MOS:ITALICS) are italicised. Proper nouns are a bit of a special case, but we do have A proper name is usually not italicized, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to, for example, in the lead when the foreign name is included in parentheses after the English name; e.g.: Nuremberg (German: Nürnberg), which seems a pretty good fit for what's happening here, even though it's not strictly in the lead. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, done.
Note F is fairly definitely in breach of the "minimal" aspect of WP:NONFREE. I would encourage you to think hard about exactly what you are trying to show through it, and turn as much of it as possible into cited summary.
I will notify the editor responsible for copying these passages. More info can be found on the sarcophagus article, removed from this article.
The lead seems very short for MOS:LEAD: the idea is that it should summarise the article and be able to stand on its own as a short, summary version of the whole thing. As such, if a major point is made in the body, it should also be in the lead. A general rule of thumb is that each paragraph of the body will normally represent about a sentence in the lead.
Revised
Per MOS:LEADCITE, most things in the lead shouldn't be cited, as long as they're cited in the body (which they should be).
Done
Variable spellings include: are these different spellings in Phoenician or in transliteration? Variant is better than variable here, but if the latter, suggest the name is also transliterated as....
I understand that the list may seem excessive, but it serves a specific purpose. I compiled the names to ensure that this information is easily accessible to a wide range of users. The alternative spelling list can be helpful for users who wish to find more info online and in historical archives.
You can use redirects to bring in readers who search for other spellings, though I do take the point about being useful to readers who will see the alternatives in other sources. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a few points above, de Luyne's donation seems to be a bit excessively cited.
You're pulling my leg here right? Of course it's the island. We should have more faith in our readers' level of intellect.
This is a point of grammar, not intellect: something on Cyprus is on the island (but not necessarily in the Republic of that name); meanwhile, something in Cyprus is unequivocally in the state. UndercoverClassicistT·C15:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I am not a native english speaker and I have a lot to learn still. Thank you for pointing this out. Does the sentence work better now?
Sennacherib instated Ittobaal: this verb doesn't sound right to me in this context: installed is more usual. Do we know anything about who Ittobaal was (his cousin, a local noble...?) that we could include?
On which, I worry that flourishing might be a touch subjective and non-specific for an encyclopaedia. What about it was flourishing: could we expand this out to something verifiable?
I don't want to expand on this. Cambyses used the rivalry between the cities to punish Tyre for not sailing against Carthage. He made Sidon a regional capital of sorts.
The revised Phoenicia's preeminent city is better, but it's still not really a sentence that's verifiable or falsifiable, and so not something we should be stating in Wikipedia's voice. Can be solved by framing this as someone's description: "the historian So-and-So judges that it was Phoenecia's preeminent city during this period" or similar.
This is a widely known and undisputed fact; I might add a citation later.
Do we really need all five citations for the findspot?
Deleted one of the footnotes.
I see five - a big readability hit and I can't really see a justification. What's the smallest number of those sources we need to include 1) the date, 2) the finders and 3) the location? UndercoverClassicist
Copies of the inscriptions were sent to scholars across the world and translations were published by well-known scholars of the time: missing a full stop. Could we have some names, and perhaps what they did with them? Did the inscription do anything for our understanding of ancient Phoenicia?
These are detailed in the sarcophagus article.
Sure, but a brief summary here (at least, "such as...") would be appropriate and in keeping with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, by which the section of this article should give an executive summary of the main article's key ideas and refer interested readers there for more detail. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few of the leading scholars of the time who worked on translating the inscription. I'd like not to delve into the importance of the inscription and its contribution to current knowledge of Phoenicia here. el.ziade (talkallam) 00:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The author of this article clearly knows their stuff: I worry that sometimes they assume a similarly high level of knowledge from the reader. * In places, the article reads as more suitable for an academic encyclopaedia than for a general one. This is particularly apparent in the Chronology section. The "how we know" and the historiography is important, but I would suggest placing the weight at the beginning on what we do know: something like "Eshmunazar is believed to have reigned in the later sixth century BC, during the "Persian Period" of Sidon's history" would help readers to know where they are, before we get into the weeds of scholarly uncertainty
I will definitely be calling on you for peer review man! Very good point.
Quite a few technical terms are linked: per MOS:NOFORCELINK, if we don't expect an everyday reader to know them, we should aim to make it possible for them to understand without having to click that link. Theophoric name stands out: consider numismatic, biblical chronology and perhaps anthropoid as well.
I understand, but I believe we also should push the reader to be more curious don't you think? I will leave these for now.
Absolutely, but the way to do that is to grab people's interest and so their curiosity: you can't be curious if you don't understand what you have to be curious about. The GA criteria require the article to be understandable to an appropriately broad audience, which means people without a background in the field: if a term isn't comprehensible to the average reasonably-competent English speaker, we need to offer some help beyond a link in understanding it. UndercoverClassicistT·C21:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few of the points below are grammatical or typographical: suggest giving the article a good read and copyedit for anything I've missed.
de Luynes shouldn't have his title (Duc) in his name.
are written in the Phoenician language, in the Phoenician alphabet: I think we generally take it as read that languages are written in their own alphabet, don't we?
No, not in the ancient Near East. Hebrew and Aramaic for example utilized the Phoenician script, just like French and English use Latin. Early Phoenician royal names are known to us through Egyptian hieroglyphs carved on scarabs found in the necropolis of Byblos for example.el.ziade (talkallam) 00:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Among the Sidonian kings' various duties, priestly functions were given more importance as is highlighted by the place of the priestly title which preceded the royal title, and the patronym in the royal inscriptions of Eshmunazar I and Tabnit.: a few grammatical points here. more importance needs a direct comparison: we could have particular importance instead, which doesn't. We need a comma after priestly title and to lose the comma after royal title, assuming that the argument being made here is that the priestly title came before the royal one and the family one, and therefore was more important. Separately, I'm not sure I really buy that line: when you write out someone's academic degrees, the BA comes first, but it's not the most important. It might be worth slightly hedging the language here.
Thank you, it's much clearer now.
I'm not sure the fundamental issue is addressed: why should we put so much in store by the order of the titles? How do we know that the Phoenicians considered the first title to be much more important than the others? UndercoverClassicistT·C21:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semitic royal titles of Phoenician regents reveal that Phoenician royalty was hereditary and that monarchs reigned for life: this needs a bit of explaining to me.
I don't see that the first (left here) is addressed; could you explain how we've shown that the Phoenicians considered the first title to be much more important than the others? I also still see royalty was for life rather than kingship was for life: "royalty" means "being a member of a royal family", so "royalty was for life" is trivial and slightly tautological. The two aren't synonyms in English. UndercoverClassicistT·C10:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
to the regent's child: a regent is someone who rules in place of a king (usually because that king is young or unwell): I think we simply mean king or ruler here (are there any queens?) UndercoverClassicistT·C10:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Separately: our article calls it the Pavillon de l'Horloge or the Pavilion Sully: any particular reason to call it the "Sully Wing" here? When the usual term for something is in a non-English language, we often keep it (e.g. Cathedral of Notre Dame, not of Our Lady; the Reichstag, not the Imperial Parliament): I'd have thought the same probably applies here? UndercoverClassicistT·C10:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(see line 13 and 14 of Eshmunazar II's sarcophagus inscription): this is parenthetical citation, which is deprecated: it's also a primary source, which isn't ideal per WP:PRIMARY. If proving a matter of fact, we should cite a secondary source: if appropriate, we can say what that source is citing (e.g. footnote "Smith 2019, p. 2, citing line 4 of the Eshmunazar Sarcophagus inscription")]
Alt text shouldn't begin with image of, because screen readers add that automatically, so the caption will be read as "image of image of a sarcophagus...".
We are very nearly there! I've just given the article a copyedit: as part of that, I've stuck in a couple of maintenance tags (from memory, a CN, a when and a couple of clarifies) where things need attention; they've each got a "reason" parameter set so that you (or indeed any other editor) can see what they're doing there. Source capitalisation is still wonky, though that's not in itself a reason for a fail here, and File:Osman Hamdi Bey. Sarcophage d'Eshmounazar, roi de Sidon, au Musée du Louvre. Paris, 1892.jpg still needs its licensing sorted out. UndercoverClassicistT·C17:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but it isn't consistent: Elayi and Sapin 1998 is in title case, Elayi 2018a is in sentence case, King 1997 and Jidéjian 2000 don't follow any set of rules that I've seen.
Absolutely: those should follow whatever the convention in their language is (for French and German, that's sentence case). It does, however, apply to the translated titles of French works.
A few others:
Check caps in Eiselen 1907: Wilson 1982 also seems to have some wonkiness going on.
The last-cited source (Le Sarcophage d'un Roi de Sidon) has no author information and is capitalised as for English.
Sennacherib should not be cited as the author of a 2012 volume (it's fine to only include the editors here)
The title of Munk 1856 is only partly translated, and is it really correct that its title is in French but its subtitle is in German? We've also added an extra space before "Ezer" in the translation.
Klat, Michel G. (2002): seems to be unsure whether it's citing a book or a journal.
"United States magazine of science, art, manufactures, agriculture, commerce and trade" should be in title case, as a journal title. If the author is anonymous, better to say so rather than to invent a collective title.
There's no need to include an OCLC when an ISBN is also included.
I fixed most of the above. The wonkiness in Wilson is in the original title, I don't know how to go about it. I removed the last-cited source as it appears to be uncited. Removed Sennacherib and replaced it with the editor names. I don't know/remember how or why Munk's title was written like that but I consulted the source and removed the subtitle (I didn't find a subtitle in the source); I also removed the added spaces. Klat's is a journal article, no correction needed. I fixed the US magazine source as you pointed out. Please disregard the ISBN/OCLC issue for this review. I also removed the unnecessary and contentious passages you had highlighted. UndercoverClassicistel.ziade (talkallam) 15:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On Wilson: there is a strange bit of the citation reading (Reprinted from the book originally published in 1880 under title. I'm not sure what this bit is, and there's nothing of the sort that would normally fit into the template there. Is it a subtitle? There's an opening bracket but no close bracket, and it sounds as if an alternative/original title was meant to be included.
On Klat: we don't normally cite the publisher and location for journals: this has created the odd situation where it looks as though it was published in vol. 17 of a journal called Lebanese British Friends of the National Museum. If we do wish to cite publisher and place for journals, however, we should be consistent about it. UndercoverClassicistT·C16:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff. We're very much there and to an extent above GAN, but two more quick ones: I'd simply cut "Unbylined" and not give an author (comment it out if having a blank field upsets the template, but it shouldn't), as it's likely to be unclear to some readers. Grayson et al also seems to be out of order (in the Rs), and we're inconsistent on the accentation of Jidéjian. UndercoverClassicistT·C08:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
.jpg){kind=link}
