Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Antiochus XI Epiphanes/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 May 2019 [1].

Antiochus XI Epiphanes

edit
Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When Alexander the Great died, his generals split his empire, and the Hellenistic period started. The Seleucid empire is probably the most intriguing polity that rose out of Macedon, but its weakness was the civil wars between its princes. The last civil war began when two rival half-brothers, Antiochus VIII and Antiochus IX died in 96 and 95 BC respectively. For the next decade, Syria was split between six kings, five sons of Antiochus VIII and the son of the IX. This article is about Antiochus XI, the king who enjoyed the shortest reign, yet, like most members of his dynasty, his story is a pleasure to read, despite having only few coins and couple of short lines in the works of ancient historians mentioning him. I planned on bringing the articles of the six kings to FA, and, after almost a year and a half, this is the last article. It was copy-edited by a guild editor, and I made sure it satisfy the FA criteria. Cheers.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Done

FunkMonk

edit
  • I'll read soon, but as usual, some preliminary comments. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could link the people and terms mentioned in the image captions.
  • There are a bunch of duplinks.
  • No Wikiproject Syria tag? It even has a Greece tag, which seems less relevant...
Done. I left the links to Seleucus I. Its first mention, and in the last paragraph where the text is about the statement of Lucullus regarding the Armenian king's capture of the heirs of Seleucus. Readers might not know which Seleucus we are talking about if I remove the link
  • "The name Antiochus is of Greek etymology" Not sure if the term etymology can be used like that? But as I'm not a native English speaker myself, I'll ping Gog the Mild, who I suspect has a better grasp...
Hi FunkMonk. For some reason I didn't get the ping, but I was browsing this review anyway, looking for what I missed when I copy edited that others had picked up; always trying to improve. IMO, this is a perfectly acceptable usage. (Etymology can be used in two different ways; this is an example of the less common one.) One may prefer a plainer 'The name Antiochus is of Greek origin', but I feel that Attar-Aram Syria is looking to convey a little more subtle. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Maybe you also have a view on the "do not mention much details" sentence mentioned below... FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I missed that. *red face* Well picked up. You were correct, and the current formulation, "many details", is acceptable. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks! I was unsure about both, so good to get confirmation... FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seleucid dynasty should be linked at first mention in the article body.
Done
  • Link Cilicia in body?
Done
  • "On all jugate coins, Antiochus XI was portrayed in front of Philip I" How is it known which is which? They look pretty identical?
The name of Antiochus XI comes before that of Philip I
Maybe this could be clarified in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • "where his unattractive features and stoutness are emphasized" This seems incongruenct with "luxury and magnificence"? What underactive features are emphasised?
Mostly his fleshy features are emphasized. The king was depicted fat, or chubby lets say. Maybe today our perception of luxury and magnificence is shaped by the perfect Hollywood stars, but in the past, being fat, showing the effects of heavy eating and comfy life, is magnificence. Actually, even today in Mauritania for example, the fatter the girl, the better husband she gets
Could perhaps be clarified in the article, but only if the sources do. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source used does not mention this particularity. I will try to do some more research when I have more time as Im busy with exams now.
Oh well, it didnt take long. I added a note to explain the meaning of fatness
  • "but estimating the annual die usage average rate of the King suggests a reign of several months" Since you present a counterclaim to another claim, you should probably state who made the counterclaim too.
Done
  • "However, the historian Glanville Downey, observing Malalas' writing style" In what language?
Greek. Added
  • "do not mention much details" I think this should be "many details".[2]
Done
Thanks FunkMonk, your reviewes always made the articles better.

Support from Constantine

edit

Will start my review soon. Constantine ✍ 14:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • at the hands of his minister in 96 BC. Who was that minister? Either mention his name (and link if he has an article) or, if he is not important, simply omit this entirely.
  • (Optional) Before starting the analysis of the coinage, I would perhaps place an introductory statement, something like "Much of the speculation is based on numismatic evidence."
  • highlighting that the vow was fulfilled I would link here to the section below, to make clear just how the vow was fulfilled.
  • I would recommend adding a map, with at least Antioch, Mopsuestia and Tarsus highlighted (either reuse your maps from other articles, or use {{Location map+}}).

That's all from me. I did a few minor copyedits here and there, but the article, as usual, reads well. I am afraid that the casual reader will be a bit overwhelmed with numismatic information, but I understand its necessity, and much of the discussion is in the footnotes, so I don't really see a WP:SS problem. Not really my area of expertise, but it certainly appears to be a thoroughly researched article, again as usual. Constantine ✍ 08:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your effort Constantine :)
Looks good. Happy to support, once again well done! Constantine ✍ 13:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

edit
  • I have made some minor copy edits which you will want to check.
  • "a period characterized by the constant civil war". Grammatically you should say either "a period characterized by constant civil war" or "a period characterized by the constant civil wars".
  • "and a quick succession in Antioch, the capital of Syria, of Antiochus IX" You can't use "succession" in that way. It is, by definition, an instantaneous event. A minimum change would be to 'and the succession, in Antioch, the capital of Syria, of Antiochus IX'. (Note the additional comma.) Or do you mean 'the successive successions'? Plus that entire sentence is confused. I remember noticing that when I copy edited; I meant to come back when I had read the rest of the article and actually understood what it was trying to say. I forgot to; sorry. Could we try and come up with something now which is a little more comprehensible? Maybe breaking it into several shorter sentences?
  • "Antiochus XI declared himself king together with his twin brother Philip I." Do you mean 'jointly with'?
  • "but the numismatic evidence proves otherwise, as the earliest coins show both brothers ruling jointly". Can I suggest "proves" -> 'suggests'. I don't see how it can be proven; it is possible, however improbable, that a very early coin of Antiochus XI ruling alone will be discovered tomorrow.
  • "tryphé": I believe that this is a foreign word, and should be in italics at each mention. Could it also be linked at first mention.
  • "when evidence of a coin struck by him in Antioch was published" This seems an odd formulation. Possibly "evidence" -> 'an account'?
  • "Philip I kept the royal title but remained in the city which was his base". Why "but"? Would 'and' fit better? Or 'while remaining'? "but" seems to beg a question.
  • "estimating the annual die usage average rate" I think that you mean 'estimating the average annual die usage rate'?
  • "with Antiochus XI leading the army in the field" Suggestion only, "army" -> 'armies'.
Done for all the points above. Gog, I re-wrote the "quick succession" paragraph. What do you think now?
  • I think that it is fine. You have polished out the only real rough spot I could find.
  • Optional: IMO much or all of notes 2, 3, and 5 would be better in the text. However, I realise that tastes on this differ and so this is a suggestion only.
I also doubted if they should be in the text, but decided to keep them in the notes after Constantine pointed that "much of the discussion is in the footnotes, so I don't really see a WP:SS problem." Specially note 2 is problematic if it was integrated into the text, as it is not about the biography of Antiochus XI and more about the general Hellenestic practices regarding gem cutting
  • Fair enough.

Solid work. Makes comprehensible a very confusing period.

Thanks Gog, and specially for the copy-edits

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another fine article on the period. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Spotchecks: I have carried out a smple of spotchecks for verifiability. Mostly these check out but there are a few minor issues:
  • Ref 2: Downey 2015, p. 68: ARTICLE: "The capital of Syria, Antioch, was named after Antiochus, father of Seleucus I, the founder of the Seleucid dynasty;" SOURCE: The source appears to ascribe the founding of the Seleucid dynasty to the gods Zeus and Apollo.
The reference is used to support the statement that Antioch was named after Seleucus I's father. Seleucus I being the founder of the dynasty is something I did not think needs a citation (Downey is telling the account of John Malalas regarding the holy founders of the dynasty, but its a common knowledge that it was Seleucus I who founded that dynasty, not Greek deities). To avoid any problems, I changed the sentence, and wrote that Seleucus I was the founder of the city.
  • Ref 38: Wright 2011 p. 46: ARTICLE: "Drawing his legitimacy from his father, Antiochus XI appeared on his coinage with an exaggerated hawked nose, in the likeness of Antiochus VIII". SOURCE checks out, but p. refce should probably be pp. 45–46
Done
  • Ref 45: Rigsby 1996 p. 466: ARTICLE: " Eusebius' statement is doubtful because in 86 BC, Rome conferred inviolability upon the cult of Isis and Sarapis in Mopsuestia, which is proven by an inscription from the city." SOURCE does not refer to Eusebius' statement, which is probably contained on the page before the preview and the page refce should reflect this.
Actually, the previous page, 465, does not mention anything about Antiochus XI or Eusebius. Page 466 indeed mention Eusebius, but not in the main text. In note 23 in page 466 we can read: "The statement in the Armenian translation of Eus. Chron. (123 Karst) that Antiochus and Philip now destroyed the city in retribution for Seleucus is weak testimony in its own right, and now contradicted by the Roman grant of 86 B.C."
  • Links to sources are all working, per the external link checker tool
  • Formatting:
  • Josephus 1833 is listed as a source but is not cited
Deleted
  • Downey 2015 requires "Press" not "Pres".
Corrected
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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Antiochus_XI_Epiphanes/archive1&oldid=897989310"