Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bodashtart/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 February 2021 [1].

Bodashtart[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an ancient ruler of the Phoenician city of Sidon. All what we know about Bodashtart is from ancient epigraphical remains that he left as dedication to ancient gods and goddesses … ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note I'll be recusing from this one, I handled the GAN. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Iry-Hor[edit]

I know this has already been raised many times over in other cases, but isn't this article simply too short to reach FA ?Iry-Hor (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Arehistoric.ru and marine-antique.net reliable sources, and if so why/how ?
✓done. You're absolutely right. Eventhough the persons behind these sites are academics the websites themselves amount to blogs. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noted there is an harv error with Elayi, Josette (15 May 2018). The History of Phoenicia. ISD LLC. p. 234. ISBN 978-1-937040-82-6. , which points to nothing in the article, note the anchor: Elayi2018.
✓ done. Sorry for that, fixed ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is ref 6 not in the bibliography and only in the references ?
✓ done. I did not include websites there. I removed websites altogether. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • References are to be avoided in the lead, unless there are about a controversial statement likely to be challenged immediately by the reader (I think this is MOS).~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ done. Correct, I removed redundant refs. Kept refs for those statements that required verification.~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dubbed" could perhaps be changed with something more fitting ?
✓ done. can do without it too.
  • "credits for" is not correct because "credit" is the verb here, so it should be "credits with".
✓ done. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several references are not complete or incorrectly formatted. For example, the language (when not English) should be specified as per MOS, publisher and location should be provided in all cases.
✓ done. all cited books have now complete parameters. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bodashtart was a vassal of the Achaemenid king isn't it? If so then this is far from clear in the article, both in the lead and main text. If not, then why does it says so in the navbox at the bottom of the article (Rulers in the Achaemenid Empire) ?
✓ done. Indeed he was, I added this information. His reign could have spanned under two Persian kings. It is verrry difficult to pinpoint the regnal years and Josette Elayi was the one to tackle this gap and provide an updated chronology based on numismatic evidence coupled with other archaeological and extant literary and epigraphic sources. The chronology is on pages 22 and 31. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, could you provide translations of the inscriptions in the pictures ? Are they those given in the text ?
✓ done. One of them is fully translated (KAI16 mentioning Yatonmilk). The colored image is of CIS I 4, the one I explained in the body of the article that it was problematic to decipher. I will add some translations in the notes later. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change all links to academia.edu which is a commercial website and links aren't persistent. Instead provide JSTOR numbers whenever possible, e.g. for Zamora's paper.
✓ done. You're very right, sorry about that.~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt the article comprehensiveness. Just a cursory JSTOR reserach returns 42 articles on Bodashtart but in the article the references are nowhere near that number. Is there really no new info on him in these papers ?
✓ done. no new epigraphic finds, no new coins, no new interpretations till date. I ran another review of the sources. Most of the articles include a cursory mention of the king or cite sources that are already used here. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same remarks from Google Books. There are a lot more reliable sources out there, why not use them rather than online websites ? Iry-Hor (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done; I reviewed the google books sources. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thorough review @Iry-Hor:, I will fix the issues you pointed out. I am aware the article is short, I am sorry about that but this article summarizes everything we know about the subject, I will go over the JSTOR articles once more but nothing has been unearthed to add to the body of knowledge. Also please note that there are quite a lot of short FA-status articles; if this one does not cut it please let me know. 08:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Iry-Hor: can you please recheck? I think I got everything covered. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elias ZiadeThanks I think you covered it all convincingly. I will try to look around for more Bodarshtart and if I can't find anything not in the article, I will support, leaving the question of length in the hands of consensus. P.S: I don't receive notifications when you write { { Reply to| instead write { { u| and then the user wikiname (and without the space between the { and the u).Iry-Hor (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT : the lead needs a bit of improvement : as per MOS it must summarize all sections of the article. At the moment the main section of the article is represented by a single sentence of the lead about how he is known from epigraphic sources. Please expand a bit. In addition, the lead can include more useful info such as the identity of successor and predecessor etc. This will also contribute to making the article less short.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Iry-Hor I think I got it covered. Thank you for your patience. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the lead is now much better and the article slightly longer in consequence. Furthermore I could not find anything significant that wasn't already in the article so I now believe this to be a thorough rendering of what is known about Bodashtart. I thus support this nomination !Iry-Hor (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 16:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (incl. source review) by A. Parrot[edit]

The main thing that seems to be missing from such a short article is context. There may not be much to say about Bodashtart specifically, but the article should say more about the political context in which he lived, especially because there's no parent article about Phoenicia in the Persian period, just a section in a larger article (History of Phoenicia#Persian period (539–332 BC)). When the article was nominated, it didn't mention that Bodashtart was a vassal of the Achaemenid Empire. Now it does, but only in the lead, and no other details are given. According to the History of Phoenicia article, Sidon was one of four kingdoms into which the Phoenician portion of the empire was divided; is that accurate? Do you have any more information about it? I know information about that may be sparse, too, but I think you'll need to scrape together whatever information you can find. A. Parrot (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion A. Parrot I'll get to it. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A. Parrot Please take a look now. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elie plus: It's a definite improvement. I think the paragraph about the interaction with Assyria goes into a bit too much detail, considering that those events were a century and a half before Bodashtart's own time, but given that these events were the prelude to the rise of Eshmunazar's dynasty, I think only slight trimming is needed there. A. Parrot (talk)

Other points:

  • The footnotes should probably go after the numbered citations rather than before them. (I also prefer to label those notes as "Note 1", etc., rather than with letters. It's a personal preference, but the eyes of experienced Wikipedia readers slide over normal citations because they're so ubiquitous, and I think it's a good idea to make footnotes as distinct from citations as possible.) A. Parrot (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the lead section needs some splitting of sentences and reworking of punctuation. I suggest putting it this way: The first of Bodashtart's inscriptions, honoring the goddess Astarte, was excavated in Sidon in 1858 and donated to the Louvre. The temple of Eshmun podium inscriptions were discovered between 1900 and 1922 and are classified into two groups. The inscriptions of the first group, known as KAI 15, commemorate building activities in the temple and attribute the works to Bodashtart. A. Parrot (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Yatonmilk is called "Prince Yatonmilk", the title should be capitalized, but I think "prince" can just be removed. A. Parrot (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the lead is pretty basic information for a monarch, and the name of his predecessor and the length of his reign might instead go at the beginning. The article has already established that Yatonmilk was Bodashtart's proclaimed heir, but if you want to say Yatonmilk succeeded Bodashtart, or that scholars assume that he did so without actually being certain, please specify that. A. Parrot (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ I moved the succession part up; the bit of info about Yatonmilk actually ruling or not is cursory. I prefer to elaborate on that in the body and keep it off the lead. Please tell me if this is okay.~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was Bodashtart's reign originally dated to the fifth century? What is it about the evidence that caused scholars to reassess that dating? A. Parrot (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was, understandably, a lot of confusion in attempting to bracket the reign of Phoenician kings. Dunand for example wrongfully surmised that there were two Bodashtarts. It is only by taking into account the wealth of numismatic evidence left by sidoniam mints under the Achaeminids, historical accounts and archaeological finds that scholars were able to piece together an approximative timeline. Previous dates were based on the epigraphic sources solely, by comparing linguistic trends and the way the Phoenician script evolved (the style of the letters). Expanding on this will mislead the readers, I'd rather not include previous conjectures that are not as well researched as Elayi's. Elayi's work in 2006 is generally considered a keystone of the study of Phoenicia under the Persians.~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way of concisely explaining Elayi's reasoning? A. Parrot (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I included a small passage, is this enough A. Parrot? ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…associate him with the reign of his father" is vague. A. Parrot (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ done, indeed it is superfluous and unnecessary. What is meant is that he may have been a co-regent since he is mentioned in the inscriptions. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A. Parrot your input is invaluable; I am much happier with the article. Please let me know how to proceed.~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elie plus: I'm leaning toward supporting. I've left one last question above about the article text, and tomorrow I'll do a source review. A. Parrot (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Some of the book titles link to Worldcat, which isn't standard. ISBN links lead to websites with general identifying information about the book in question, including Worldcat, and linked book titles normally lead to sites where it's possible to view at least part of the book. If there's no place online to do that, it's fine to leave the title unlinked.
✓ I replaced them with google books. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason why the Bryce link leads to the Arabic version of Google Books?
✓ Localization because of the .com.lb suffix, I removed the last two. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Cambridge Ancient History link is dead, and I can't tell what volume it is—neither Volume 11 nor Volume 2 (if these are mistyped Roman numerals) seem to refer to this period in history.
✓ This one I had copied from another wikipedia page. I reviewed the source and the passage is actually is in another volume. I replaced the links and modified the book title. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason to use a source as old as Yates?
✓ Not really but I was hoping to show that the findings have not changed since. I have two citations for verification, if this is not okay let me know. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most significant development in the study of Bodashtart seems to be Elayi's redating and revision of the interpretation of the evidence. Her 2006 paper seems to be treating these interpretations as novel, or at least not yet universally accepted. I'd like to see confirmation from more recent sources that her reinterpretation is now widely accepted, but the sources that might do that aren't accessible to me.
  • Elayi is a recognized pioneer; her work is cited multiple times in recent publications. Study of the Achaemenid period (550-330 scr) has undergone nothing short of a revival around the turn of the twenty-first century, among both European and American scholars. All aspects of the empire have received academic attention: archaeology, numismatics, iconography—to name just a few. Some foundational works on the period have paved the way for more focused studies (c.g., contributions by Amélie Kuhrt [eg, 2007] and Pierre Briant [eg., 2002]). Regional studies of the Achaemenid period have also emerged with greater frequency. For example, Elspeth Dusinberre (2003) explored the world of Achaemenid Sardis, and prolific contributions by Josette Elayi (e.g., Elayi 2018) and Alain Elayi focused on Phoenicia proper, while this author’s work on Achaemenid Phoenicia attempted to sketch the social history of the region.–V. Jigulov in López-Ruiz, Carolina; Doak, Brian R. (2019-07-29). The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-005838-8..
  • The same timeline is adopted here: Page 103 It was ruled by the so-called dynasty of Eshmunazor, now clearly dated to the second quarter till the end of the 6th or the beginning of the 5th century BC (Elayi and Elayi 2004 593-611). Sidon was given Dor and Jaffa, as a reward for military deeds in the service of the Persians; this event seems to have inaugurated privileged relations with the Persian king,...� and on Page 108 {{Cite book|last=Steiner|first=Margreet L.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5H4fAgAAQBAJ%7Ctitle=The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: C. 8000-332 BCE|last2=Killebrew|first2=Ann E.|date=2014|publisher=OUP Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-921297-2|language=en}
  • Here also p.114 Sader, Hélène (2019-11-23). The History and Archaeology of Phoenicia. SBL Press. ISBN 978-0-88414-406-9.
  • Janzen, David (2017-05-18). Chronicles and the Politics of Davidic Restoration: A Quiet Revolution. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0-567-67549-1.
  • and here p.230 (by Elayi again) <ref>Elayi, Josette (2018-05-15). The History of Phoenicia. ISD LLC. ISBN 978-1-937040-82-6.
  • Boyes, Philip J. (2012). ""The King of the Sidonians": Phoenician Ideologies and the Myth of the Kingdom of Tyre-Sidon". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. doi:10.5615/bullamerschoorie.365.0033.
  • Chronology section here: AMADASI GUZZO, Maria Giulia (2012). "SIDON ET SES SANCTUAIRES". Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale. 106: 5–18. ISSN 0373-6032.
  • The arguments for the early dating of the start of the Eshmunazar dynasty to the third quarter of the sixth century (Elayi 2004, 25–27), which has gained widespread acceptance (though see Jigoulov 2010, 50–56), rely largely on paleographical and archaeological evidence, including, critically, the presumption that new occupation at sites such as Dor, Jaffa, and parts of the Sharon Plain dates on archaeological grounds to circa 530 ... in Nitschke, Jessica L.; Martin, S. Rebecca; Shalev, Yiftah (2011-09-01). "BETWEEN CARMEL AND THE SEA: Tel Dor: The Late Periods". Near Eastern Archaeology. 74 (3): 132–154. doi:10.5615/neareastarch.74.3.0132. ISSN 1094-2076. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 31 (as of the time I made this edit) has a problem. I don't see how page 12 is relevant to the sentence this citation supports, and page 5 doesn't support the last part of that sentence. Should this citation list another page instead of 12? A. Parrot (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Sorry about that, i fixed it. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A. Parrot Thank you for the above. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A. Parrot (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Esculenta[edit]

I have no knowledge of the subject matter, so my review will be focussed on FA criteria a layman can assess (prose, formatting, MOS compliance). Here's some comments on the lead to start off: Esculenta (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • there’s 4 citations after the first sentence of the lead: are these necessary? Are these facts so contentious that they are “likely to be challenged” (per MOS:LEADCITE)?
✓ Omission error. The facts are referenced in the body. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • only one of the four transliterations is given in the lead; why this one and not the others?
✓ It's the most common; if you think I should add them all let me know but personally I think it will encumber the lead.~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think they all need to be added, but I get no sense from the article body which is the most commonly used transliteration, or if any were used more often historically and are not used anymore. Esculenta (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yatonmilk should be linked earlier
✓ indeed, done. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • can the 1-sentence “paragraph” in the lead be combined with another?
✓ I think I have this covered now ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Temple of Eshmun” is variably capitalized in the article
✓ done, thank you for pointing this out. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”honoring the goddess Astarte” link?
✓ sentence matched with the body. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The temple of Eshmun podium inscriptions were discovered” -> "The temple containing the Eshman ..."? also grammar (the temple … were)
explanation: the temple is known from earlier times. The inscriptions of the podium were discovered at a later time. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”commemorate building activities in the temple and attribute the works to Bodashtart.” The word “works” evokes the the phrase “creative work” or “work of art”; is that what is meant here? Would the singular “work” be better?
✓ it escaped me, english is not my first language :S ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”were found on podium restoration blocks” the phrase “restoration block” does not appear later in the article; is this the same thing as “ashlar stones”?
✓ added in body for clarity. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Three of Bodashtart's Eshmun temple inscriptions are left in situ” Is there any meaning lost replacing the Latin with the more accessible “in place”? If so, consider linking the phrase.
✓ changed in the lead, the first instace of in situ in the body is linked ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”to supply the temple on his seventh regnal year.” Again, is anything lost by using the simpler “on the seventh year of his reign.”? If so, regnal year could be linked.
✓ done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”A last inscription found on the bank” In what sense was it “last”? Last one discovered?\
✓ done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”the bank of the Bostrenos river” Capital R because it's part of a proper noun? Why does this link to Awali (river)? (Bostrenos is not mentioned in the target article)
✓ Bostrenos is the classical name of the river and it fits the article better. 'River' capitalized ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My point about the link is that if a reader of this article wants to find out more information about the Bostrenos River, when they click on the target link, it takes then to Awali (river), where it doesn't even mention the word "Bostrenos", and now they're confused, thinking the wrong link was put in or something. Esculenta (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Bodashtart is believed to have reigned for at least seven years” Yet the infobox gives his reign as ten years.
clarification: Most of the inscriptions are not dated. There is an inscription from his first and seventh regnal years; the rest are thought to be from a later date. The two don't conflict and are quoted directly from sources. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review Esculenta. Please check again. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing review: Esculenta (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ”and included inscribed Tyrian seals and stamps” no idea what a Tyrian seal is; stamp is a word with several meanings, what is meant here?
✓ Wikilinked Tyrian, seals, and stamps. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I figured out later it's the adjectival form of "Tyre", but this should be linked earlier (see next note too)
✓ Noted ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jal el-Bahr north of Tyre - link?
✓ I could have removed Jal el Bajr, it is a seaside neighborhood of Tyre but I kept it to differenciate it from el Buss site. I explained that it's a neighborhood . ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Phoenician inscriptions discovered by Dunand” why doesn’t this person get their first name included, like the others mentioned in the article?
✓ Expanded ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Elayi used all of the currently available documentation” should remove the work “currently”, as this refers to an event that happened in the past
✓ Done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”…were the first dated coins in Antiquity.” don’t think last word needs capitalization
✓ Done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Elayi placed the reigns of the descendants of Eshmunazar I between the middle and the end of the sixth century; according to her work Bodashtart reigned from c.525 BC to c.515 BC.[16][17][18][19]” I don’t understand how the sourcing for this sentence can work. Two citations are for Elayi’s works in 2006 and 2018; the final citation (Lipiński 1995) was published before Elayi’s citations, so what part of the sentence is it supporting?
✓ It's a leftover from when I split passages and rearranged the article. The passage in question deals with the succession of Bodashtart, sorry about that. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”and its coastal cities including, Sidon.” remove comma
✓ Done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”In 705, the Sidonian king Luli joined with the Egyptians and Judah” -> joined forces?
✓ Done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link tribute, sarcophagus
✓ Done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”immediately after their conquest of the Levant.” what is the Levant?
✓ I liked it: Historical area stretching from the coast of the eastern Mediterranean it includes Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Palestine and most of Turkey south-east of the middle Euphrates. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”began an extensive program of monumental constructions” phrasing is awkward… does “monumental constructions” mean “construction of monuments”?
:✓ Clarified~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”placed on restoration ashlar restoration stones” fix double word
✓ Done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the section “Epigraphic sources” I noticed a tendency to join phrase together with semicolons, sometimes resulting in long, hard-to-digest sentences. Please consider shortening these for better flow.
✓ Did my best ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link regent; somewhere the word “epigraphy” or "epigraphist" should be linked too
✓ Done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • according to WP:SEEALSO, this section "should not repeat links that appear in the article's body"
✓ Done, didn't know that :S ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • what language are the inscriptions in?
✓ Done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m finding it difficult to understand what is being given in the notes. For example,
  • Note 1: “Yatonmilk is styled by Bodashtart as BN ṢDQ” what does “styled” mean in this context? Is it Style (sociolinguistics)?
✓ Sorry about that, I replaced it with " was referred to by BDSTRT as" does this do it? ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2: Some French text is given, which I presume are the words of Amadasi Guzzo (2012), then an English translation of this. Is information supplied to support this “others posit that the text records the dedication of the Sharon plain to the temple of said goddess.” I’m wondering why the original text and translation are supplied in the first place. I frequently write articles that use foreign-language sources, and it has not occurred to me to include the source as well as the original text and a translation in a note.
Comment I believe that it's very important to include the translations, these are not accessible to the general public and can be very informative. I would have added all the original texts in their original Phoenician script, a Latinized transliteration, And a translation in english in a table format but that would encumber the article. If we can keep this I'd really appreciate it. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”King of Sidon built this SRN of the land” what is SRN?
Comment Like many ancient terms the meaning of this word is still obscure until more epigraphic sources emerge. There are a number of ways to read this term because the Phoenicians did not write vowels (it could be read as Sarn / Saron/ Saran / Sarin / Soron / Soran etc.) ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 3: “mlk bdʿštrt mlk ṣdnm bn bn mlk” what language is this? Whatever language this is has a translation into French in the note … but no English translation. I don’t understand the point.
Comment it is the Latinized transliteration of the original text. My target population is not just regular readers. Plenty of users can read ancient Phoenician and assimilate the meaning based on Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac. I believe having these, can add to the general knowledge especially when they are sourced from leading scholars like Milik. The English translation is in the article body. Other wikipedia articles containing texts translated for extinct languages include the text in its original form, a transliteration and a translation. I could have added all of these in a table but it would have been really redundant and unsightly especially that the article is about the king and not his inscriptions. Despite this, the original text and Milik's original language translation provide much needed info and add to what little we know about the king and his reign. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • citation formatting comments:
  • several page ranges that should use “pp.” are instead using “p.”
✓ Done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • there’s no need to add “– via JSTOR” after every JSTOR identifier (same with “via Archaeology & History in Lebanon”, “via Open edition journals”, “via Persee”)
✓ Alright ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dussaud, René (1923) needs language specified
✓ Done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • missing page range for Xella, Paolo; López, José-Ángel Zamora (2005b)
✓ Done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • is it “Zamora, José Ángel” or “Zamora, José-Ángel”?
✓ He has a dash in Most publications ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Esculenta Thank you so much. I am looking forward for your deliberation. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Esculenta, did you have anything to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My commentary is completed; I'm really not confident enough about topic material to be able to offer my support on anything but prose, but I hope that the suggestions were useful nonetheless. Esculenta (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, don't feel pressure to oppose or support, the commentary is always helpful. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • I'll have a look at this soon, my dad was coincidentally born in Sidon... FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link all terms at first mention in article body (now even Sidon is only linked in the intro).
✓ I believe I have this covered now ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems Sidon itself is still not linked outside the intro?
  • Link more terms in image captions.
✓ done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most other featured articles have the notes before the references, now it's pretty hard to find them as they are last in the article.
✓ done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraphs in the intro look a bit short and fragmentary, could some of them be grouped together?
✓ FunkMonk I tried my best I suck at this. If you can help please do :S ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better! FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems odd that his predecessors name links to an article about his sarcophagus? Perhaps a stub article about him could be made?
✓ FunkMonk Oh you have no idea, I'm working on a draft and the article will be anything but a stub. I will keep the link as is for now. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the basis of recent numismatic, historical and archaeological evidence." What is meant by "recent"? It's better to be specific; this article will possibly exist for a long time, and "recent" will mean little.
✓ done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "included recently excavated inscribed Tyrian seals and stamps,[6][7][8][9] newly discovered Phoenician inscriptions in Sidon" Likewise, recently and newly has little meaning.
✓ done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sidon, which was a flourishing and independent city-state" Perhaps add "Phoenician" (with link)?
✓ done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed Sennacherib, whose FAC I just reviewed, is part of this article. I wonder if the nominator, Ichthyovenator, has noticed this coincidence.
Now that is a coincidence! A nice little cameo :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a disconnect between the Chronology and Epigraphic sources sections, since Bodashtart isn't mentioned in the middle Historical context section. Is there a way to mention him there, like state when the first records about him are from or something?
✓ done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any info on the circumstances of him getting the throne? For example, you don't mention his predecessor until the last section, while it would make sense to say something like "he inherited the throne from his cousin, Eshmunazar II" or similar, already in an earlier section for context.
✓ Totally right ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bodashtart carried out an extensive expansion and restoration project of the Temple of Eshmun and left some 30 dedicatory inscriptions at the temple site" During his reign? And when?
comment: when is a tough question. Only two inscriptions are dated on his first and seventh year of his reign. The dedicatory inscriptions of the temple are not dated and belong to two distinct periods. All the inscriptions date from his reign since he is mentioned as living so I will omit adding this. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where it still is today" Still is redundant.
✓ done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Polish biblical scholar JT Milik" Why not spell out all names?
✓ done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This inscription is dated in his seventh year of his reign" On the inscription itself? Could be worded clearer.
✓ You're right, very perceptive of you <3~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bostrenos River also needs a link outside the intro.
✓ done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and are classified into two groups:" I think this terminology could also be used in the article body, that is, introducing the text about the inscriptions by defining them as two groups.
✓ done ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this FunkMonk ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think you did a good job with the sources at hand, the length shouldn't be an issue, we also have the FA Abuwtiyuw, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you FunkMonk :D ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review this.

  • "also transliterated Bodʿaštort, meaning "from the hand of Astarte" ". Should that comma be a semi colon?
comment, I'd rather keep it like this (check Ahmose I _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "c. 525–515 BC" should be r. c. 525 – c. 515 BC. Why no 'c.' in the infobox?
✓ Done _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the grandson of king Eshmunazar I". "k" → 'K'.
✓ Done _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link hinterland.
✓ Done in header and body, thanks _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first of Bodashtart's inscriptions". First in what sense? (I assume that it is not known that it was the first ever inscribed.)
✓ Done; I changed it to " the earliest discovered" _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link podium.
✓ Done in header and body_Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The last discovered inscription found on the bank of the Bostrenos River". Suggest 'The most recently discovered inscription as of 2020 was found on the bank of the Bostrenos River' or similar.
✓ Done _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "credits the king with the building of". "k" → 'K'.
✓ Done _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to supply the temple on his seventh year of his reign". Should "on" be 'in'? Or possibly 'on the seventh anniversary of the start of his reign'?
✓ Replaced with in, will keep it simple _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid one sentence paragraphs.
Still to be addressed.
Does this do it ? _Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three of Bodashtart's Eshmun temple inscriptions are left in place" → 'Three of Bodashtart's Eshmun temple inscriptions have been left in place'.
✓ Done, was debating whether to use "were" instead but it implies finality of their location. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "other than what has emerged from his dedicatory inscriptions.". Suggest 'other than what has been learned from his dedicatory inscriptions.'
✓ Done _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has been much treated in the literature". Suggest "treated" → 'discussed'.
✓ I think in French and write in English, sorry :S_Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the dates of the inscriptions of this dynasty were raised on the basis of". I think that 'established', or 'estimated' may work better than "raised" here.
✓ inscriptions of this dynasty have been dated back to an earlier period _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "addressing the dates of reign of these Sidonian kings" → 'addressing the dates of the reigns of these Sidonian kings'.
✓ Done _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first dated coins in antiquity". Does this mean that they were the first coins to bear dates, or the first to be dated in modern times?
Still to be addressed.
I thought I had it covered but my browser reloaded lol _Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as Phoenicia's chief city, and the Phoenician kings began an extensive program of mass-scale construction projects". Just checking that you do mean all of the Phoenician kings, as the examples you then give are only from Sidon.
✓ Replaced with Sidonian kings for clarity TY_Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who carved his name eponymous inscriptions". This doesn't seem to be grammatical. (Possibly delete "name?)
✓ redundant from previous edit. TY_Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first of the inscriptions". See above, re use of "first".
✓ Done _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sidonian king carried out an extensive expansion and restoration project". "k" → 'K'.
✓ Done _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ashlar restoration stones" is something of an Easter egg. Suggest linking just "ashlar".
✓ Done _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and assign him a share of credit with the construction project". "with" → 'for'.
comment: "credit" here is a verb therefore I used with. When "credit" is a noun "for" is used. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"credit" here is not used as a verb. ("assign" is the verb. Think about it, how can there be "a share of" a verb?)
Sorry I thought you were referring to another instance. I reviewed all the "credit" instances and fixed them. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "that mention both the king and his heir Yatonmilk." "k" → 'K'.
✓ Done _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in situ". This needs a lang template, not just italics.
✓ Done _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the rest were transported and are exhibited in the Louvre". Suggest "transported" → 'removed'.
✓ Done _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Polish biblical scholar JT Milik" → 'According to the Polish biblical scholar JT Milik'.
✓ Done _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Milik quotation/translation should be a block quote. And who is the translator?
✓ Done, Milik translated it himself to French_Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant into English. You say "the Polish biblical scholar Milik ... ; he interpreted the inscription thus:", but he didn't; and we aren't told who did.
You're right. It's a verbatim translation that's very faithful to Milik's original. I sourced it from an AUB doctorate thesis (not accessible online). I removed this one and replaced it with Torrey's and added referral tags for other translations in the notes section. Please note that both Milik and Torrey don't get it completely right. The best possible translation is a synthesis of both because Milik made a mistake when he misread 'sr qds' as 'sd qds' which impacted his last two words (what should have been read as sacred/holy prince/lord became holy territory). _Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • "The king Bodashtart and his legitimate heir Yatonmilk, king of the Sidonians, grandson of king Eshmunazar, king of the Sidonians, built this temple to his god Eshmun, the Sacred Prince". Where does this translation, into English, come from?
✓ Original in French by Dussaud, added an english source.
You have a formatting issue with Thomas/cite 42. I don't have access to page 143 of Thomas to verify the reference. Would it be possible for you to scan or photograph that page and email it to me? Thanks.
Please follow this link for the requested page. PS: I'm not done with your review, just took a break. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are, as I suspected, issues with this. You have not faithfully copied the text from the source into the article. See MOS:SIC "the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. Where there is good reason to change the wording, bracket the changed text". Could you adjust the text so that it matches the source.
Can you please recheck? I thought I did typed it as is, I reviewed it now. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is so easy to type what you think the source ought to say. Looks good now.
  • I assumed that you had. No worries. There is no rush. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

_Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A good little article. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some responses to your responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild You have very sharp eyes! I am much happier with the article now, thank you. Please let me know of any remaining issues. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have done a fine job here, and I am happy if I have helped to add a little FAC polish. And thanks for being so positive throughout - too many nominators get perturbed when a reviewer starts poking at their lovingly crafted articles. Supporting. Re sharp eyes, other reviewers do the same for my noms, where I can let a distressing amount of slop get past. I may give you a shout one day and ask you to return the favour by pointing out all of the errors in one of my articles. Good luck with this, but I am sure that it will be fine. Gog the Mild (talk)
I'll be happy to do that. Thanks mate :) _Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:04, 3 February 2021 (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/Bodashtart/archive1&oldid=1008174261"