Talk:Enlil/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 08:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Earwig's tool turns up no copying except a days-old blog post at aratta.wordpress.com that is obviously copying from this article, and a blog post from this past May that was copying from the then-current version of the article.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The article isn't obviously lacking any major aspects of the topic, but I feel obligated to raise a question just the same. The article is less than half the length of Enki, which you've substantially improved lately, and a quarter the length of Inanna, which, as a GA that you wrote on a major Mesopotamian deity, is the closest point of comparison. The decline in Enlil's importance after the Kassite period would explain why there's less to say about him than about them, but it's surprising that the disparity is that large. If the source material isn't there, you obviously can't add anything, but I feel that I should ask.

The ironic thing I have found about Sumerian deities is that the most "important" deities in the pantheon ironically seem to have attracted the least number of distinct rituals and appear in the fewest number of myths. Anu is in a similar sort of predicament; he was, in theory, the original head of the pantheon before Enlil, but he is nonetheless a shadowy figure who rarely appears in myths. It probably is not fair to compare Enlil with Inanna or Enki, since the two of them were overwhelmingly the most popular deities in the pantheon and they both appear in an absurdly disproportionally large number of myths. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To make a specific suggestion for what you might look for, are there any distinctive features of Enlil's cult other than his temple and the relationship with rulers? Major Egyptian deities usually have a few rituals unique to them; are none attested for Enlil?

I, unfortunately, cannot find any information about rituals that are distinct to Enlil alone (though I have found plenty of information about rituals distinct to Inanna, Dumuzid the Shepherd, and Enki). Nonetheless, I have now added some information about how Enlil was worshipped, even though most other Sumerian deities was also frequently worshipped in this manner. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some more minor points where a reader might be left curious:

~~The statement that "the number 50 was sacred to him" is vague. Were there numerological tables that linked various numbers to various gods? Did people give him offerings in sets of 50?~~

I have added a brief sentence explaining the Sumerian numerological system. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The mighty and firmly established gods" is a bit of an Easter egg link, one that can confuse the reader. I suggest changing the passage to "…as a member of 'the mighty and firmly established gods', the Anunnaki."

The source cited does not refer to them using the name "Anunnaki" and, specifically speaking, they are a group of Hittite deities who were identified with the Anunnaki, which is the why the link leads to the "Hurrian and Hittite" section of the Anunnaki article. I link there because that is the place with the most relevant information about them. Technically, if there were an article titled "karuileš šiuneš," that would probably be the best place to link to. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It feels odd that Enlil wasn't connected with a planet because he embodied the whole sky, but then he was connected with a specific constellation. (Planets are more distinct from the sky than constellations are because they wander around rather than being part of the backdrop, but it still feels a little odd.) Given that you're taking these facts from different sources, they probably don't explain the seeming contradiction, but you might at least acknowledge the disjunction by putting a "however" at the start of the sentence about Boötes.

You assumed correctly. I have now inserted the word "however" as you have requested. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of most of the myths is pretty clearly stated or implied in the article, but in the case of Enlil and Ninlil I feel like there's some mythic significance that I'm missing. Does the story exist solely to provide a genealogy for the gods whom Enlil fathered, or does it express something about his character that might be more explicitly stated?

I have now added a new paragraph explaining the myth of Enlil and Ninlil's social, religious, and historical significance. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions a few mythological figures without saying who they are. Imdugud and Nunbarshegunu feel like they need to be identified; Adad, Gerra, and Sharra may not, given that they play a clear role in the story as gods who fail where Ninlil succeeds, and their other characteristics aren't relevant here.

I have added explanation of who Nunbarshegunu and Imdugud are. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last but, for legal purposes, most important point: the copyright on the photo of the Nergal relief. The PD-Art tag applies only to strictly two-dimensional images, not reliefs. (Here is the relevant page on Commons.) I've fallen afoul of this problem myself, uploading something that I thought fell under the tag but later realized didn't. It's infuriating that photos that are effectively copying millennia-old works of art are unusable to Wikipedia, but those are the rules. Wherever you got the image, find its copyright status. If it's not under a Wikipedia-compatible license, I'm afraid you'll have to delete it. A. Parrot (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how the relief could not qualify as public domain. Sure, it might technically be "three-dimensional" because parts of it are higher or lower than others, but the whole reason why the PD-Art tag does not apply to three-dimensional pieces of art is because you could photograph a three-dimensional artwork from different sides and different angles and choosing which angle to photograph it from is an artistic choice, but, in this case, there is no other side or angle you could possibly choose to photograph it from; the image is only on one side. In terms of the photography and creative choices involved in making the image, it functions as a two-dimensional piece of art. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my objections, which I still think are completely valid, I have gone ahead and removed the image of Nergal from the article. I could not find any mention of copyright agreements on the site where I found it, so I suppose this means I will have to assume it is copyrighted. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know how you feel, but according to the Commons page (in this section), even a relief as shallow as a coin (!) is considered too three-dimensional to qualify for the tag.

@A. Parrot: I believe I have now fully addressed all of the criticisms you have brought up so far. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Congratulations. A. Parrot (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for helping me. I really appreciate it! --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]