Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Kings of Assyria/archive1

Kings of Assyria[edit]

A very important list. Have made it more organized with charts and added statue pics. Chaldean 05:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have couple of very small points that may help clarify some of the information. Until you get to the 'Kings whose eponyms are destroyed' section it's not immediately clear whether the chronological order of the kings is from left to right down each row, or down the left hand column then down the right hand column. Also I assume that the empty low dates are like that because they are unknown, it's probably best to put 'Unknown' otherwise it looks like they simply haven't been filled in. CheekyMonkey 11:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, will clearefy it more. Chaldean 14:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is HAR-su spelled that way? It is the only name with extra capital letters. Would the images in the image gallery be better if distributed along the right side of the page, next to the tables? Rmhermen 21:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is how it is written in the Assyrian King List B and C amcient scripts. As for the pics, I was thinking of adding maps of the Assyrian empire throughout the years on the side of the kings. Chaldean 01:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the references in the article HAR-su is not spelled that way. Rmhermen 03:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong, sorry. Fixing. Chaldean 03:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No (explicit) references, other than a minor footnote. See WP:LAYOUT for details on section headings. Colin°^Talk 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to put reference on every King's name? Did you miss Kings_of_Assyria#Literature and the external links? And I went through this; Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) - and dont understand your point. Please be specific.Chaldean 18:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standard headings are mentioned briefly in the page you quote, in detail in the page I quoted. See also WP:CITE. You need to tell me (the reader) which of these were used by you (or any other editor) as references and which are just listed "for further info". Wrt inline citations, then if you can add some that would help enormously. For example, did your list of "The Kings who lived in tents" come from one source? Think of the reader who wishes to pursue the topic - which of the dozen refs should he consult for certain info? See California Gold Rush for an example of formatting for Notes, References and Further Reading. You book refs need to be more complete. See {{cite book}} for a template if you find that useful. Colin°^Talk 19:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with the headings? Please tell me. The only thing I can see is in the early period with the three sections of "The Kings who lived..." - these are not my words. This is the way it is written in the scripts. Do you want me to change that? We have informed the reader what the list is based on. Please read the beginning paragraph; Babylonian chronology and the limmu lists, which give the names of eponymous officials for each year, provide good absolute dates for the years between 911 BC AND 649 BC.......The dating below for the kings of this period is based on Assyrian king list] B and C. The list is based on the ancient scripts of Assyrian king list, not any of the literature I mentioned. Chaldean 19:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is you need a References section (after Notes). OK, you are claiming your source is an ancient text (or texts). But I doubt very much you physically referred to this primary source. Instead, you must have read a modern print/translation. You mention versions "B and C" but I've no idea what those are (Assyrian king list doesn't help). I'm no history scholar - maybe some history Wikiproject can help here. Regardless of the source for the list(s), you need a source for your lead. You make lots of claims that X is less reliable and Y is agreed on and Z is missing, etc, etc. Where do you get these facts from? Colin°^Talk 14:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are claiming your source is an ancient text (or texts). But I doubt very much you physically referred to this primary source. Instead, you must have read a modern print/translation - the transcript of the scripts is posted under "External links". With all due respect, all of your arguements have been weak so far. I have shown you over and over again, the information is right their, but you seem to have some type of vandetta here. Chaldean 14:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not in the References section, then it doesn't count as a reference. Both "Further reading" and "External links" are not references sections. If there is material in those sections that you used as references then the material is in the wrong section. I see you've renamed the "Literature" to "Further reading" and then to "References". That is fine if those books were your references and really do back up all the information in the list. Books are generally much more reliable sources than web sites.

Why do you point me at the transcripts in the External links? Did you use these as references or not? If you did then a brief comparison shows they disagree slightly with your list. For example, you don't mention Apiashal as a Tented King but do claim Ikunum is a Tented King when he isn't listed as such on those sites.
For the "Low dates" column, you have a comment "Dates as appearing in A.Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East volume I, 2006, p. 351" Can you move this to a proper footnote and give a full citation with ISBN.
The current footnote "Dates as they appear in N. Na'aman, ZA 81 1991, p. 251" looks like you are citing a book or paper? Can you please give a full citation.
Some of the linked wikipedia pages disagree on the dates. eg. "Sargon I", "Shamshi-Adad I", "Eriba-Adad I", "Enlil-nirari", "Adad-nirari I". There's probably more but I didn't exhaustively check. I accept we are not judging those pages here, but it would be nice if they agreed. I see you've discussed elsewhere the problem with dates - it would certainly help if you got them all from one consistent source and indicated to the reader which source you chose.
The Rimush link needs to be linked to the appropriate page.
The third sentence at the start of the "Early period" section, is a fragment and also not very clear.

Please don't take this personally. I've said "you" above, but clearly there have been many editors. You could ask for help on the WikiProject Assyria - projects can be a good help to polish an article when trying to get Featured. Colin°^Talk 17:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose is served by having links to years thoughout the article? I don't see information found on these year pages that contribute to the the list article. Hmains 22:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]