Talk:Qedarites/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mcorazao (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

After a quick skim this looks well referenced and the writing appears fairly clean. Some initial observations:

• References:
  • It is worthwhile to include links to online copies of the referenced materials to make it easier for editors to review your work, e.g. Geography of the Bible, The later prophecies of Isaiah.
    • Done. Tiamut^talk 10:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The books should have a location of publication (i.e. the city) specified. This is not strictly required for GA, though.
    • Probably will pass on this for now, given that its rather time-consuming and not necessary for GA. Will do it eventually though. Thanks for the tip. Tiamut^talk 10:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Some of the prose seems written from a scholarly perspective rather than being written for the general public. E.g.
  • Be careful when referring to statements and opinions of scholars like Herodotus and Philip J. King. Ideally the prose should not be referring to the scholars too much (i.e. just tell the story). In cases where it is necessary to mention one of these scholars provide at least some context on who the scholar is (e.g. "The Greek historian Herodotus" or "The theologian and historian Philip J. King").
  • The prose uses historical terminology like Achaemenid without explanation (including mentioning the Persian Empire without explaining these refer to the same entity). Since these things are beyond the scope of what the average reader knows about, the prose should be written in such a way that the reader does not have to click the links to understand the discussion.
    • Added some explanatory notes for this and others. Tiamut^talk 10:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Block quotes should not have quotation marks around them. Also you might want to use the {{quote}} template.
  • • Removed quotation marks. Will look into the {{quote}} template later too. Tiamut^talk 10:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• The List of Qedarite monarchs section could be better designed. This section is mostly just lists with little information about the items in the list. It would be better for the section to have the prose just discuss the monarchs but not attempt to list each one unless it is discussing each one. If you want you can have tables off to the side that have these lists.
  • I'm working on putting together a table for this information, since there is not much more to say about the individual rulers and half of those mentioned are discussed above in the section on Extrabiblical inscriptions. In the meantime, if it will hold up approval of the article, feel free to move it to the talk page. Tiamut^talk 08:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll do a more comprehensive read as I have time.

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your intial feedback. I'll be reviewing your comments more closely and as I implement the changes suggested, will let you know. Tiamut^talk 08:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added some comments inline for things I've done. Will add more as I do more. Thanks again for your time. Tiamut^talk 10:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Overall good but some issues. Some of the prose is still unclear (see examples below). More importantly, though, some of the discussion is choppy, mentioning this authority or that one and jumping from one historical observation to another. Makes it difficult to follow.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Overuse of quotation marks ("). In general when referring to terms (i.e. what something is called) you should use italics instead of quotes.

• I think I addressed this, but if I did not go far enough, please let me know. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Almost everything is extremely well-cited. One or more citations should be explicitly attached to the table, though.

• Table is now mostly cited and altered to fit the source used for it (itchen instead of the Regnal Chronologies source which is not RS). Three entries still need cites. If I can't find other references for them, I'll remove them. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   There really isn't much about the Qedarite culture and society. Isn't there more information available?

• I'll look for more, but sources on the details of their cultural and societal practices are rare. There is a bit of information on their religious worship, which is only briefly mentioned now, but I can expand that at least.

• I've added a Culture and society section with some new information and a religion sub-section. I also made "Language" a subsection of it. If you feel it needs additions or expansion, let me know. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1. B. Focused:

   The majority of the article is the "Historical References" section. Though this section does contain some embedded history about the Qedarites it is largely the people who have said things about them. Also the "Genealogy" section is more about traditions and controversy. It is probably more properly titled "Arab genealogical tradition" or some such thing. In any event it seems that discussion of the sources and discussion of the traditions takes center stage in a lot of the article.

• See below. Its not jusst Arab geneaological tradition, but also Jewish tradition and biblical scholarship that puts forward this thesis.

• I'll try to add an intro section to the historical references section that provides a more general overview of what is known about them. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   At times the article seems to mix religious accounts, tradition, and historical research without a clear indication of which statements fall into which category. Maybe some of these discussions should be put in separate sections?

• I've tried to clarify further, but biblical tradition has seeped into modern scholarship and the divide is difficult to determine. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Sennacherib.jpg and Kinadshburn.JPG are not properly tagged (most of the information is about how it was copied from en.wikipedia which is irrelevant; the web site given is a broken link)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   I'm a little on the fence because the images seem to be somewhat tangential. The map, for example, shows the Assyrian Empire but not specifically the Qedarite kingdom. Are there any maps that are more specific?

• The images are a bit of problem. I suppose none of the fair use ones can be used here since are are non-essential. As for the map, I can't find a map of the Qedarite kingdom in Wiki commons and don't access to one to upload either. Perhaps moving the map of Assyria to the section where it is discussed would help. Please remove any images that can't be used here. Tiamut^talk 15:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Examples of unclear prose:

• "that lived in an area extending eastward from the western boundary of Babylon in the 8th century BC." - A bit strange phrasing. "Extending eastward" to where? Perhaps a different word than extending.
• Some cases of mentioning something before explaining it. For example, Sennacherib is brought up without mentioning who that is.

• Both of these issues have been addressed. I also did some general minor copy edits to try to smooth out the prose. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples of statements that may be misleading:

• "The Qedarites are named for Qedar, the second son of Ishmael, mentioned in the Bible" - Is it true that historians have found contemporary evidence of Qedar's existence and his being the son of Ishmael? That is what this implies. If that is not the case then perhaps this could be rephrased "The Qedarites believed themselves to be descendants of Qedar, described in the Bible as the second son of Ishmael" or something similar.

• Perhaps just adding "thought to be named" would be okay here? Its not just Arabs who believe there is an association between Qedar (Ishmael's son) and the Qedar or Qedarites. Many biblical scholars, Jewish geneaolgoists, and even contemporary scholars make this connection. I'll try to make that more explicit in the text. Tiamut^talk 21:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have never researched this myself so I can only go by the research you present. It would seem unlikely that there are credible records that go this far back (but again, I wouldn't know). "Thought to be named" is weasel wording. The point here is to distinguish between scholars who have done research according to modern scientific standards and scholars who have collected traditional beliefs according to some group. The former case, provided it is consensus among most such scholars can be stated as fact whereas the latter needs to be qualified as tradition, even if it is well-researched tradition. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• These traditional beliefs tend to be presented uncritically by modern scholars. The text reflects mainstream scholarship on the issue. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Arab genealogical scholars widely consider" - Unclear what this means. Is this talking about historical evidence or tradition?

• Both. I'll try to make that clearer in the text, but its already alluded to in the discussion of the various scholars. For eg. its mentioned that al-Kalbi, "established a genealogical link between Ishmael and Mohammed using writings that drew on biblical and Palmyran sources, and the ancient oral traditions of the Arabs." Tiamut^talk 21:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'll look at this again in more detail. The question is not whether al-Kalbi did thorough research but whether the research is accepted by most modern scholars as scientific proof. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• "the genealogy of Mohammed, the prophet" - Be very careful when dealing with religious references. On one side you can inadvertently offend and on the other you can inadvertently sound like you are advocating for a religion. In this case saying "Mohammed, the prophet" sounds like you are asserting that Mohammed was a genuine prophet. A more objective description like "Mohammed, the founder of Islam" avoids any debate.

• Would it be okay to write "Mohammed, the prophet of Islam"? That way his prophethood is given in the context of the religion that views him as such. Tiamut^talk 21:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sort of a gray area. The problem here is that you are asserting his being a "prophet" as fact, meaning that he was truly commissioned by God. This is a religious viewpoint which is, by definition, non-neutral. One could argue that in this context "prophet of Islam" is implying "who is considered by Muslims to be God's prophet", but some would argue legitimately that's not what the phrase says. As a general rule when dealing with such contentious issues it is generally better to look for wording that few people could find a reason to disagree with. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Changed to the wording first suggested and removed references to prophethood elsewhere. Tiamut^talk 17:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Questionable references:

• http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/Jordan.html - This is a self-published site, not a reliable source.

• removed this source and a paragraph sourced to it for which no replacement could be found. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Cedar_(2) - Be careful how sources affiliated with religious institutions are used. Such sources have an inherent bias and can be seen as non-authoritative in historical matters.

• Attributed the material from that source directly to it. Tiamut^talk 15:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: The citation for the thesis "Women and their agency in the Neo-Assyrian Empire" has no information about the university that published it originally.

• The author is affiliated with Helsinki University (according to the acknowlegements), and it an e-thesis that was published by Doria, a site that contains "the digital collections of Finnish universities and polytechnics." Tiamut^talk 20:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall, this is a very well researched article. The above mentioned things should be addressed to make it GA. I'll leave this open for a little while. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Revised review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Sennacherib.jpg and Kinadshburn.JPG are still not properly tagged (most of the information is about how it was copied from en.wikipedia which is irrelevant; the web site given is a broken link)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Ideally at least a more directly relevant map should be used. I'm going to pass it though.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Although I do still have some concerns I think the article meets GA quality. Certainly it is very thoroughly researched. For FA I think some more aspects of how the topic is covered would need to be addressed.

The one limiting issue, though, is that some of the images still do not have correct information to establish that they are public domain. I can't pass it without that being addressed. If the information on the images simply isn't available then they should be removed from the article. --Mcorazao (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, for now I commented out those images. I'm awarding GA. Congratulations. --Mcorazao (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)