Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alexander II Zabinas/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 August 2019 [1].

Alexander II Zabinas[edit]

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A BC version of the Wars of the Roses, the Later half of the Seleucid Empire's era was chaotic. In short, two branches of the royal family fought for the throne and the period was full of intrigues and strong queens. Alexander II was the last claimant of the Antiochus IV's line, the infamous king behind Hanukkah. History is written by the victor, and that is why the legitimacy of Alexander II was always questioned, but one need to read this article, which incorporate the most recent scholarship, copy-edited by the editors guild, and is the result of months of work, to decide what is true.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • The background section alone made my head spin. You should nominate one of the articles about the queens one day! I'll review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine... not very easy to follow tbh. I wish there was a way to make it easier, but even in academic books written for a non-specialist audience it will still be confusing. Too much happened, too many people, and too many events.
  • The many coins show are a bit confusing; could it maybe be stated in the captions what their relations to the subject were?
Done
  • There are a bunch of duplinks not so far from each other, you can highlight them with this script:[2]
Done
  • I'm confused by the structure, which is of course also due to the flurry of names and events. But why do you present the subject after the section that covers his coronation as anti-king (if I follow correctly), Choosing Alexander II? I can see why you would want to get a lot of details out of the way first, but why not put the Choosing Alexander II section after the section that first presents him, to help the reader (and put the focus on the subject of the article earlier)? That section actually seems to overlap with some of the text under Ascending the throne already, perhaps merge the two?
I thought a lot about this before nominating. The first part of the article is thematic instead of chronological because if I dont mention that Alexander II was chosen by Antiochus VIII then the reader will reach the surname section and not understand what is happening. At the same time, I cant talk about Alexander II's ascension before I give the long introduction and the events initiated by Demetrius II. I merged the section choosing Alexander II to the background. The section is more concerned by the rebellions ignited by Ptolemy VIII and not Alexander II anyways. Also, choosing Alexander II in Egypt does not indicate his coronation. It seems that Demetrius tried to leave Egypt before Alexander can reach Antioch and be crowned.
  • "Modern historic research preferred the detailed account" Prefers?
Done
  • "elevated to kingshp" Missing i.
Done
  • "bore the epithets Theos Epiphanes (god manifest) and Nikephoros (bearer of victory)" Why does the article title not use one of these names, as Zabinas is apparently not a self-identification, but derisory (maybe, but therefore controversial)?
Most common name is the derisory one....
  • You use both ise and ize endings. Is this US or UK English?
I will fix this tomorrow.
Fixed. Its UK English now
Still seeing some izes under the footnotes. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed
  • "based on triads that include a supreme god" perhaps use past tense, as I doubt anyone believes in this anymore?
If only. The Middle East would have been much more peaceful now. Fixed
Hehe, doesn't seem like it kept people from fighting back then, though! FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)½½[reply]
Guess its in the genes....
  • "The Syro-Phoenician religious complex" Perhaps state this was of the natives, to contrast it with the Greek rulers at the beginning of the section?
Done
  • "that a son of deity" a deity.
fixed
  • "then it can be understood that Alexander II might have married a Ptolemaic princess. Ancient literature does not record a marriage between a Ptolemaic princess and Alexander II" I think you could merge these two sentences, as much of it is repetition, and to make it more concise. For example by saying "then it can be understood that Alexander II might have married a Ptolemaic princess, though such a marriage is not recorded by ancient literature".
Done
  • "This led the Jews to send an embassy" Jews or Judeans? I wonder what is more appropriate here?
I think Jews is correct. By that time, Judaism and Judeans became one and the state was based on Jewish religion (aftermath of the Maccabean revolt)
  • "struck to celebrate of his victory" Is the of needed here?
Fixed
  • More names and terms could be linked in image captions.
Added
  • "the cornucopiae coins can be used to show" Why suddenly present tense?
Fixed
  • "dates to 125 BC by many numismatists" According to?
Fixed
  • "and choose Alexander II" Chose?
Fixed
  • "a representative of Antiochus IV's line" Supposed representative?
Added

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Done
  • In all cases an explicit tag should be included for the original work, not solely for the photograph. Also not a fan of including auction details in the image description
Tags added
  • Photo tagging for File:Coin_of_Antiochus_VII_Euergetes.jpg doesn't match that of other CNG images - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. Its included in the standard CNG tag. I fixed it

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources appear to be working, per the external links checker tool. But why are some links included in the short citations, while others (e.g. Barag & Qedar, Brug, etc) are in the main sources list?
When I have a link in the short citations, it takes you to the required page (if its available online). When the link is in the main list, then no link exists that takes you directly to the required page; you either will be redirected to the full article and have to scroll to reach the page, or the article is not free to read online but the link will take you where you can somehow order the book...etc. The links in the short citations are always titles with the numbers of the desired page and the pages are only linked if there is a copy of them online
  • Formats
  • Ref 10 requires pp. not p.
  • Likewise 14
  • Likewise 65
  • Likewise 71
  • Ref 73: range requires ndash not hyphen
  • Ref 75 requires p. not pp.
  • Ref 77 requires pp. not p.
  • Likewise 91
  • Ref 95 requires p. not pp.
  • Ref 117 requires pp. not p.
  • Likewise 119
  • Be consistent about the inclusion of publisher locations in the sources list. You generally omit these, but see Bevan 1902
Done for all above
  • Quality/reliability: the article is extensively referenced, including many from foreign language sources. So far as I can judge, all sources appear to meet the required criteria for quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape, although I have no clue about this historical period in Syria. I have a few comments:

Thanks for taking this
  • "most ancient historians and the modern academic consensus"
Done
  • suggest "the Egyptian king instigated revolt in the cities" if that is what is meant?
Done
  • suggest "where Cleopatra Thea residedruled" if that is right?
Done
  • "He maintained a friendly relations"
Done
  • so, Cleopatra Thea married Alexander I and then Demetrius II? Could she be married to two men at the same time, or is something missing here?
I clarified it. Her father divorced her first
  • link Babylonia
Done
  • "He was able to defeat Diodotus Tryphon" per MOS:SURNAME as he has already been introduced
Fixed
  • this section is rather hard to follow, who is the sister when it says "he warred against his sister"?
Clarified (Cleopatra II)
  • suggest "Justin thenfurther stated that Alexander II"
Done
  • link numismatist
Done
  • "using several arguments" two arguments? I'm not a fan of the bulletting, but can't think of any better way of subdividing the arguments.
Done
  • in note 11, "The historian Nicholas L. Wright" but isn't he a numismatist? At this point in the narrative, you should probably just go with "Wright"
Done
  • suggest "were instigated in their rebellion by Cleopatra Thea
Done
  • at one point Diodorus Siculus is just referred to as Diodorus, I suggest introducing him as Diodorus Siculus and thereafter as Diodorus, if that is appropriate
Usually the full name is used. I applied this
  • the nNike theft if that is right? I'm unsure about capitalisation here, we should go with what is in the sources, but be consistent
Done
  • is there a issn or similar for Brug?
Sadly not
  • a map showing his conquests or extent of his control would be a great addition to the article
I created one

That's all I have, well done on this. I did wonder about the necessity for the extensive and complex Background section, but can see an argument for most of it given the dynastic links etc, and the fact that many of the players come up later. Due to this, if you trimmed the Background section, you would probably have to add a lot of the material in later in dribs and drabs to explain context. It is just hard to follow, but perhaps it must be thus, at least for those not familiar with the period. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. The background is a pain, but all people mentioned had a role in the story and it was the only option to introduce them here instead of breaking the narrative if I was going to explain about them when writing about Alexander II
The map is a good addition. Supporting, nice work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kaiser matias[edit]

I'll preface by saying I know nothing about the topic:

Thanks for doing the review
  • In the lead I'd consider making the stuff about his parentage a separate paragraph, so just have the opening sentence stand on its own. It just seems like a lot to take in right away.
It will make it a one or two lines paragraph, which is too short. I would like to keep it as it is if you dont insist
  • "...the Egyptian king instigated revolt..." Should either be "instigated a revolt" or "instigate revolts."
Done
  • "Based on those arguments, the account of Porphyry regarding Alexander II's claim of descent from Alexander I should be preferred to the account of Justin." The order of the citations here is mixed up (36, 42, 40).
Im not sure what can be done here. Source 40 is used twice so it appears after source 42 in this sentence but also appears earlier in another sentence. I arranged them based on the content. Its meant that source 36 be opened first, then 42, then 40
All good
  • "The coinage of Alexander II was minted in: Antioch, Seleucia Pieria, Tarsus, Apamea, Damascus, Beirut and Ascalon..." Is there any specific reason for the order of cities here? I'd suggest going alphabetical, but if there's a purpose then that's obviously good.
They are arranged geographicaly based on the importance of a region in the kingdom. Northern Syria first (where the capital is), then coele Syria then Cilicia (I moved Cilician Tarsus to the end of the list)
Great, thought there was a purpose, just wasn't sure.
  • And looking over the bibliography, would it be worth dividing it up a bit? Perhaps primary sources, books, journals, or something? I'm not suggesting this has to be done, or should be done even, but just thinking out loud.
Wont be a bad idea, but Im not sure what is a primary source here. No source is contemporary. What seems like an ancient source was written 200 and 400 years after Alexander II's death and was based on older actual primary sources that no longer exist
Like I said was more thinking out loud, and not concerned about how it looks as is.

Overall not a lot I see to clarify, and overall looks good. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All good from me, so supporting now. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Alexander_II_Zabinas/archive1&oldid=910569995"