Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sargon of Akkad

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 01:59, 24 July 2007.

Sargon of Akkad[edit]

Revamped and overhauled article, recently made GA. I did not originate the article but I did substantially modify it, not sure if that makes it a self-nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, interesting topic and interesting article--Aziz1005 00:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support - very interesting article, nearly there.
  • Remove the 'In Fiction' section
  • Source (and hopefully expand) the statement "The Assyrian and Babylonian kings who based their empires in Mesopotamia saw themselves as the heirs of Sargon's empire."
  • When discussing the 'Sargon Legend', it could be clearer how the 'Legend' relates to the other documents mentioned in the section; also tense confusion with "When Sargon returned to Ur-Zababa, the king becomes frightened "
Can see this being an FA very soon. The Land 16:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed your issues with my latest edits, with the exception of the literature section. Many articles about notable people contain sections on literary works in which those figures have appeared. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'd significantly expand the mention of Nimrod, which is of encyclopedic value, and ditch the mention of the rather trivial comic. FAs need to avoid trivia. The Land 08:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the comic myself and supporting conditional on it not going back in ;) The Land 17:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - three columns of references probably isn't needed; two should be fine. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 00:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a stylistic preference; many FA's have three columns. This surely is not an issue that should deny the article FA status. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not opposing, but I am not very happy with the ToC organisation. There should be a separate discussion of what primary sources we have, when they were found, and how their respective date and status is evaluated, as well as some bits on the history of research on Sargon, who was involved, and how fixed our knowledge on Sargon is considered at present (any open debates?). Piecing together from the article body, we have the "Sargon legend", the Sumerian king list, the "Epic of the King of the Battle", the Chronicle of Early Kings, "The Neo-Assyrian Sargon text", and "another source (Nougayrol 169)". The article is also rather positive in many places. "Sargon's own daughter Enheduanna": it is by no means certain that she was his natural daughter. She was called his "daughter" sure enough, but this may as likely as not be just a court title. A dramatic account of Sargon's conquests is attributed to "Kramer, The Sumerians 61.; Van de Mieroop 64-66", which is fair enough, but it would not be superfluous to go into more detail as to what are our sources for this. Also missing is Sargon's Sumerian name (how does the "Sumerian Sargon Legend" spell Sargon?) The article is certainly fair, and I wouldn't expect more out of a Britannica article on Sargon, which is why I'm not opposing this FAC, but frankly the information given leaves me a bit unsatisfied. More issues: The article naively links to Azupiranu, an article on a "city". This is probably not really a city but a metaphor alluding that his mother tried to abort the fetus. At least speculations in this direction belong mentioned. Is the Akkadian form Šarukinu{{fact}} or Šarrukīnu? The bit on the parallel to Moses should mention Biblical scholars who maintain that the Moses birth story was in fact fashioned after the Sargon legend. We need more on the position of Sargon legend in the later Assyrian empire, and should probably treat later sources separately, just as we wouldn't use Matter of France material directly in a biography of Charlemagne. We need a clean report on what is known from inscriptions, what is known from 3rd millennium texts, and what is known from later Assyrian accounts. Please do not tell me to just {{sofixit}}. I would like to , but to address all the points just raised, I would have to sit down with the article for half a day at least. dab (�) 08:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me a source for your assertion regarding the identity of Enheduanna and Azupiranu. I have never seen them identified as anything other than Sargon's daughter and birth city, respectively, and would be interested in reading about the controversy. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not sure if I got this correctly. azupiranu means "saffron", and saffron was used for abortion, but the synthesis may be spurious, I have no reference for it at present in any case. dab (�) 18:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Moses/Sargon, my impression is that the scholars who maintain that Moses' story was cribbed from Sargon's were in the extreme minority. The prevalance of this motif in mythology around the world and the fact that there is no real way of telling which story, Moses or Sargon came first (the Sargon legend that has the castaway baby motif is from a Neo-Assyrian text that is later than or contemporaneous with much of the Torah) don't really lend themselves to such certainty.
With respect to the comments about organizing the sources, I see the point but I think that separating out the sources in this way would result in a long string of tiny sections as each source doesn't say very much. I have done my best to organize the material into a chronological narrative of Sargon's life and been very careful to identify which material comes from which source. The reader should be able to ascertain which items are from much later texts from reading the article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Šarukinu vs. Šarrukīnu is just a matter of pronunciation. The latter is more accurate, because it makes more of an attempt to capture the original pronunciation of his name, according to how Assyriologists have deciphered the Akkadian language.--Šarukinu 22:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it's a phonological difference. The cuneiform spellling apparently has no plene, so we need a reference to an Akkadian dictionary to establish kīnu "legitimate".
  • Support - Wikipedia needs more FA's about ancient Bet-Nahrain ("Mesopotamia")--Šarukinu 22:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Could there be a link in the article to a cunieform webfont (in a box like at the top of Japanese language for example)? I really like the map and the family tree, by the way.--Estrellador* 20:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although I believe that the article could benefit from some expansion. I listed on talk page some points that could be mentioned. As it is, the article is head and shoulders above the level of our pages about ancient Mesopotamia (look at Umma, for instance). --Ghirla-трёп- 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good and instresting article. Kyriakos 04:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, fixes needed. Quotations are not italicized (WP:MOS#Italics) and the author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be given. The lead should be a compelling, stand-alone summary of the article. The article opens with three stubby sentences one after the other, with no connections:
    • The "Sargon legend" is a Sumerian text purportedly describing Sargon's life. The extant versions are incomplete. The surviving fragments name Sargon's father as La'ibum.
  • "In literature is a section of one sentence. Either the section should be expanded, or the sentence could be incorporated elsewhere.
  • Date and number ranges (not only in the text, but including footnote page ranges and dates in references) are separated by endashes, not hyphens (see WP:DASH).
  • All websources should have a last access date and specify publisher.
  • Informal, unencyclopedic prose, sample: The name of Sargon's primary wife Tashlultum and those of a number of his children are known to us.
  • Vague statement begging for a citation: Two other sons, Ibarum and Abaish-Takal, are mentioned in some sources.
  • Prose: After coming to power in Kish, Sargon soon attacked Uruk, ... Soon after coming to power in Kish, Sargon attacked Uruk ???

The above are samples only, indicating the need for someone to audit throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the majority of these issues have been addressed now. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are solo years linked ? (WP:MOSNUM) Ibid should not be used in Wiki as it is dynamic; text can move or be inserted, changing footnotes. (See WP:FN and WP:CITE. Endashes on date and page ranges have not been corrected, per WP:DASH; the article still uses hyphens for dashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who introduced ibid. to this article, & only because I couldn't think of a better short version of the book's title that would work for this article. Do you have a suggestion for a better way to cite this source? (BTW, complaining about hyphens vs. en/em dahses is getting a bit nit-picking, don't you think?) -- llywrch 02:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need to shorten it, but why isn't Oppenheim in the Reference list anyway? No, I don't think expecting FAs to comply with criterion 2 (WP:MOS) is nitpicking. If FAs don't have to comply with our Manual of Style and WP:WIAFA, why do we bother to have them ? Let's just pass FAs the same way GAs are passed, because one person says so. Further, my oppose wasn't based only on criterion 2; I will strike my oppose once all issues, including 2—MOS, are resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In point of fact, there are no more ibids. The citations are now uniform. With regard to hyphens vs. en/em dashes, I do believe that is nitpicking and I have no intention of going through and coding endashes throughout the article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, citations look good now. If you'll note the full commentary above, my Oppose was not (and still is not) based on dashes. A thorough audit of the prose is needed, and I gave examples only. For example, looking at the current text, one finds:
  • Stories of Sargon's reign and might may have influenced the body of folklore later incorporated into the Bible.
I can't decipher what that sentence is trying to say; a prose audit is needed throughout, as well as adjusting still numerous instances of faulty dashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the prose of the sentence is quite clear. The reference is to stories of Sargon's reign, meaning the period of his rule, and might, meaning his power. What is unclear? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ps, fixed the dashes myself with the help of Brighterorange. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the section heading, "Wars in the north west and east" supposed to have a comma? The text doesn't discuss north west and east, so it's hard to tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source for the Chart of the Royal House of Akkad ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing: thanks for fixing the north west and east section heading. I've looked at the comment from the GAC reviewer numerous times, trying to figure out why that phrase was singled out in the GA pass and no one else had mentioned it in three weeks, while I couldn't decipher its meaning. Regarding the sentence mentioned above: it references a "body" of literature, but the next sentence then gives only the example that scholars speculate that Sargon may have been Nimrod, leaving unclear if there is more to the entire "body" mentioned. If there is more to this speculation, could it be discussed in more detail or expanded to include a few more words so the reader knows there's more than one speculative example? Not knowing what is meant by "body of folklore" made me wonder about 1b (comprehensive). Also, recasting the sentence to avoid "might may" will be less of a tongue- and brain-twister. I'm also wondering if you planned to review my other comments above, so I can strike my Oppose. It started as an "oppose for now", as I expected these items to be easily resolvable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is clear what the "body of folklore" that went into the creation of the Bible means. I don't know how to clarify that statement. Obviously we don't know every piece of folklore on which the Biblical author or authors relied. Nimrod, as the article makes clear, is a larger-than-life figure in both the bible and the midrashic traditions that grew up around it, and may have been based on Sargon. I honestly don't understand what you're objecting to there. With respect to the "might may" sentence, I again think the meaning is clear. You are welcome to change it if you wish but I do not believe that the sentence violates any rule of English and therefore should not stand in the way of FA. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, as far as I can tell, all of the issues you raised have been addressed. Please identify any remaining issues you have. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments A couple of points:
    • In the section "Origins and Rise to Power", you reference a source by its abbreviation "ABC" Which source is that? Assyrian And Babylonian Chronicles? I know a little about the subject, & the abbreviation is unfamiliar to even me.
    • I see a number of citations of Samuel Noah Kramer, but none to his long-time rival & equally respected academic Thorkild Jacobsen. I own a copy of his edition of the Sumerian king list if you need help addressing this point. -- llywrch 18:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "ABC" is Grayson's Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. I have fixed the ref. I would greatly appreciate if you could add information from Jacobsen's work, as I do not have access to it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • After reading it for the first time in many months, I found that Jacobsen's work did not have much to contribute -- although I added it. So I tried to make up this deficit by adding from the translations in my copy of ANET -- which I hope stengthens this article. -- llywrch 02:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you support the article for FA now? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't know I had supported or objected to this article. My intent in commenting (& in making some edits) was just to help make it better. -- llywrch 06:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good article. Avala 16:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are MOS issues here, but I'll support in the expectation that they'll be fixed. Mostly well-written and researched.
    • I'm getting black-diamond question marks for the cuneiform at the top, both in the real text and the edit box. Is it my Mac OSX? Not a pretty sight.
    • "c. 2334 BC–2279 BC"—No, read MOS on dashes and spacing.
    • I see "seventh" and "7th"—normally, you'd spell out single-digit numbers.
    • "To help limit the chance of revolt"—Remove "help", yes?
    • "(r. 556–539 BC)"—what does "r." mean? Should this abbreviation be included at MOSNUM? Again, a spaced en dash is required where there are spaces within either or both items.
    • I can't see one caption that is a real sentence, so please remove the periods. (See MOS.)
    • Sandy's "might may" sentence: "Stories of Sargon's reign and might may have influenced the body of folklore later incorporated into the Bible." It's OK, but why not "Stories of Sargon's powerful reign may have influenced the body of folklore that was later incorporated into the Bible." Tony 04:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ack, on the date dashes. When Briangotts declined to fix the dashes, I contacted Brighterorange (who is testing a script), but his script chokes on BC dates, and I failed to correct them adequately manually. I think I've fixed them now to conform to WP:DASH. I incorporated Tony's suggested wording on that one sentence, and am striking my oppose; there were still a few small pending issues on my list (above), but I don't have time to keep following this FAC right now, and it generally looks quite good now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "A number of" is too wordy and sometimes redundant. "Several" could be used instead. "He captured Uruk and dismantled its famous walls." - the word "famous" is too subjective. Epbr123 10:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sargon_of_Akkad&oldid=1078806344"