Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II/archive1

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 September 2023 [1].

Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II

Nominator(s): el.ziade (talkallam), Onceinawhile (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II, a Phoenician King of Sidon from the 6th century BC. It was unearthed in 1855 in an ancient necropolis near Sidon, Lebanon. The sarcophagus is notable for its long Phoenician inscriptions, which provide insights into the king's identity, lineage, and achievements, including his involvement in the conquest of Egypt. The sarcophagus is of Egyptian manufacture. Its discovery sparked enthusiasm for archaeological research in the Levant. el.ziade (talkallam) 18:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I'm not too keen on the numerous stubby sections, nor that they often comprise one- or two-sentence paragraphs. Someone with this script installed will be along shortly to point out that in your references, you lack page ranges for several book chapters, articles, hyphenation, omitting some publisher locations etc. To the degree of this depth. You're free, of course, to wikilawyer about whether the FAC guidelines actually mandate these things. But consistency is the un/written rule. Perhaps some florid language? "...rushed to translate", for example, jumps out in the lead.
For the rest of it, eh bien, je l'approuve presque. This is the kind of article that actually makes this an encyclopedia. A thorough investigation of extant scholarship has been brought to FAC with merely stylistic concerns with it to be raised. This is a landmark in the history of these pages. Bloody well done. Fantastic stuff. And looking at its history, a prime example of collaboration between editors. Almost tempted to support it RIGHT NOW. SN54129 18:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have almost wholly been resolved, so pleased to support this article's promotion. SN54129 16:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 Thank you for your note and amazing kind words. I will be reviewing the sources shortly. Thank you el.ziade (talkallam) 21:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

image review

working (t · c) buidhe 02:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I usually don't comment on FACs I GA reviewed, but I reviewed this article with FAC in mind, and I wouldn't want to see it stall, so here it is. The reviewer above also seems to have mostly approved it. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: I imagine the reviewer above can probably speak for himself. And, indeed, has done :p SN54129 16:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod @Mirokado @Casliber @A. Parrot @Nikkimaria @Iry-Hor @Simon Burchell @Ermenrich @Al Ameer son @PizzaKing13 @RomanDeckert @Carlstak hope you are all well! If you have a few spare minutes can you please take a look at this article? It would be a shame for this nomination to be closed for lack of input. Thank you each and all. 😘 el.ziade (talkallam) 15:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PizzaKing13 @JJNito197@Gerda Arendt el.ziade (talkallam) 15:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild Could you please keep it open for a few more days, I pinged a few editors who have reviewed my FA noms earlier. Is there anywhere else where I can enlist more help? el.ziade (talkallam) 15:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That's an impressive set of quality reviewers, I would imagine that they will set the nomination straight. My boilerplate for finding reviewers is:

Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process.

Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent FAC reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super! Thank you for the resources. I will enlist any number I can. Among those I pinged are subject matter experts or operate in a related field. And on a personal note, I would love to review articles but it is terribly intimidating to me to point out areas for improvement that others would disagree with. I tend to be super systematic at the expense of other attributes that more appreciated by other editors. My latest unpleasant altercation was on a DYK nomination where the nominator reverted my edits and didn’t appreciate the incidental findings I noted (those not affecting the DYK review), during my DYK review. I’ll get to spreading the word more widely. el.ziade (talkallam) 17:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping at @Gog the Mild el.ziade (talkallam) 17:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado

I have installed noto-sans-phoenician-fonts (in the current openSUSE Tumbleweed rolling release) and the Phoenician script is displaying nicely. I am pleased to see the note about rendering support at the bottom of the infobox.

I'm a bit busy reviewing TRAPPIST-1 at present, but I hope to have a look at this next. In the meantime:

~~Please correct the archive date and status errors. If you are not seeing these, you can follow the instructions in Help:CS1 errors to enable them. -- Mirokado (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
Done, thanks for the tools el.ziade (talkallam) 06:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Luynes 1856: there is still a CS1 error |website= ignored.~~
@Mirokado I think I fixed de Luyne's CS1 error. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is OK now. -- Mirokado (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using {{lang|phn|...}} instead of {{script|Phnx|...}} (two occurrences) so that the Phoenician text is highlighted as in the later table if a user has configured language highlighting. -- Mirokado (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done thanks! el.ziade (talkallam) 05:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
§Modern discovery:
- "The sarcophagus was found...": since this sentence is (quite correctly) describing the site at the time of discovery in the past tense, any reference to the time of its building needs to step further back in time, thus, for example: "It had originally been protected by a vault, of which some stones remained in place." -- Mirokado (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the maps from Renan's 1864 Mission de Phénicie in §Removal to the Louvre belong in §Modern Discovery, since it is here that we describe the disposition of the sarcophagus and the diagrams help the reader to visualise the site. -- Mirokado (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
§Inscriptions: "The Egyptian-style sarcophagus is free of hieroglyphs": The phrase "X is free of Y" has a connotation of "X is better without Y", so something like "The Egyptian-style sarcophagus has no hieroglyphs; however, there are Phoenician ..." would be better (avoiding repetition of "has"). -- Mirokado (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
§Inscriptions, final paragraph
For anyone following, Compart's Unicode pages are a good way to see what scripts are being used: just paste a letter into the search box.
- It looks as if we are comparing the Phoenician of these inscriptions with Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (linked in Aramaic language). "As in Aramaic" is too vague, particularly when the two examples of prepositions have only Hebrew script with no lang template. We need examples in the Phoenician from these inscriptions and in the correctly-labelled Aramaic-with-Hebrew-script. If you think that ends up as too much detail, it would be OK to have just the example of one preposition in both languages. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~§English translation of the lid inscription: wl Bul. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~§Notes: notes 3 and 4 are missing an English translation. -- Mirokado (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
Thank you – my fault, I added those notes recently in response to other comments below. I have now added translations. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. {{trans-fr}} adds single quotes around the translation, so I have removed the extra quotes. ~~Can you update note 6 to use the same format with the lang template?~~ -- Mirokado (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thank you. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from casliber

(Awoken from eternal slumber) - ok will take a look soon...

Comments from Carlstak

I read the entire article and made some copy edits. A most interesting read. Well done, Elias Ziade. Carlstak (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlstak I'm very pleased you liked it :) el.ziade (talkallam) 14:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carlstak, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Support I wholeheartedly support the nomination. It's a well-written article—Elias Ziade has done a great job. Good to see on WP. Carlstak (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

Thank you for the invitation! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lead

The first sentence is very long, and I'd like "modern Lebanon" a bit sooner, before the clause about the naming of the metropole ;)
I'd like to know sooner who Eshmunazar was, and what function made him get such a sarcophagus (before wanting to know how that piece of art traveled from owner to owner after the discovery).
I'd also prefer the word "Phoenician" somewhat sooner.

That's all, interesting reading, - thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I agree with Gerda's points. I had the same thought about knowing sooner "who Eshmunazar was, and what function made him get such a sarcophagus" when I was reading the article last night. I wanted to respond to Gog the Mild after I saw his query today, and rather hurriedly sent a reply in between beers at lunch.;-) Carlstak (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I still support the nomination. Carlstak (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gerda! I was also going to mention the first sentence. I think that "(dubbed Nécropole Phénicienne by French Semitic philologist and biblical scholar Ernest Renan)" can be removed here: it is tangential to the subject, makes that sentence too complicated and appears verbatim in §Modern discovery. -- Mirokado (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very pertinent points. You're absolutely right, I should have considered the reader. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt@Carlstak Thank you both. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the changes, I support this for FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt <3 el.ziade (talkallam) 10:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from A. Parrot

I'm extremely busy this month and am not sure if I'll have time to do a full review, but these points struck me when looking through it. A. Parrot (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason to emphasize that Renan dubbed the Sidon burial sites "Nécropole Phénicienne" in the lead. For that matter, considering that it just means "Phoenician necropolis", an obviously applicable description (and one that wouldn't be unique to Sidon as opposed to other Phoenician cities), I don't see why it needs to be mentioned at all.

The article inconsistently refers to scholars by surname only ("Turner" on the first reference to William Wadden Turner) or by full name ("Joseph-Léandre Bargès" on the first reference to him).

The page range of the Versluys footnote seems awfully expansive; seem like you only need to cite page 14.

The reference to the third Egyptian sarcophagus, the one presumed to have belonged to Amoashtart, feels rather offhand. Can anything more be said about it? For that matter, my first skim of the article missed the link to the article on the Tabnit sarcophagus; you might mention it and the presumed Amoashtart sarcophagus in the lead.

Thank you for your insightful feedback. I fixed the points above and I appreciate your point about the reference to the third Egyptian sarcophagus. The mention does indeed seem offhand, unfortunately, I don't have additional material to provide further elaboration on this point. Classical historian Elayi, for instance, speculates that the sarcophagus could belong to the queen mother based on her standing and her son's inscription. However, this speculation lacks material evidence. I will include a link to the article on the Tabnit sarcophagus in the lead. Thanks again. el.ziade (talkallam) 22:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elie, I have done some more research into the third sarcophagus following A Parrot’s comment. I will make some edits to address it – I have a few ideas, including a new parent article for all three sarcophagi (as a sister article to Egyptian Stelae in the Levant) and a mention in the lede of Kelly’s statement that these are the only three Egyptian sarcophagi ever found outside Egypt. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile I love this guy. el.ziade (talkallam) 22:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed this with a series of small edits to the body and lede - apologies for the delay while working on our related project at User:Elias Ziade/sandbox2. Having reviewed the sources, there are no appropriately detailed sources to justify an article on Egyptian Sarcophagi in the Levant, but the upcoming article at Royal Necropolis of Ayaʿa should do the trick.

@A. Parrot: I would be grateful if you could confirm that these edits have addressed your excellent observation about the importance of properly explaining the relationship with the Tabnit and Amoashtart sarcophagi. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all my points have been addressed. A. Parrot (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot@Onceinawhile Thank you both, sorry was away. el.ziade (talkallam) 10:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Iry-Hor

I am back from vacations and just saw this beauty. Thank for pinging me on this article that is looking amazing. I am especially impressed by the "English translation of the lid inscription" section. This is very good work. I will post a few detailed comments here soon.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't see anything to add to this article, how come the other reviewers find things to comment on ? Perhaps on ref formats and the like ? Anyhow, to me this is a shining example of good work and of the depth of Wikipedia. I was mesmerized imagining the story of the sarcophagus from Egypt to the Levantine coast following ancient events. Congratulations ! I know my review is short but it still counts as one vote: I gladly support this nomination. I wish all articles were that good !Iry-Hor (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iry-Hor Thank you for your words of encouragement :) el.ziade (talkallam) 09:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Reviewing this version, spot-check on request. Some sources don't display pagenumbers even though they are multipage. #35 needs a space. There is a lot of century-old sources here, is this normal? Probably also the reason why the identifiers vary from one citation to the other? Otherwise the sources look reliable to me and formatting is mostly consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus thank you for your feedback. The sources without page numbers were intentional, as the entire cited work provides support for the discussed points. However, I will consider adding page numbers for clarity where necessary. The missing space in ref 35 is probably caused by the footnote template glitch. el.ziade (talkallam) 20:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example, #15 doesn't seem to need an all-pages like citation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi el.ziade, any further come back on this. If you are sticking with citing entire works, you need to be confident that every page of every such case is necessary to support the prose it is attached to. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild @Jo-Jo Eumerus I added pages where missing and/or explanations. el.ziade (talkallam) 10:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, is that enough to call it? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Some general comments

The lid inscription was of great significance upon its discovery as it was the first Phoenician language inscription to be discovered in Phoenicia proper, the most detailed Phoenician text ever found anywhere up to that point, and is today the second longest extant Phoenician inscription, after the Karatepe bilingual inscription. These superlatives need to be cited, IMO. See comment below Onceinawhile (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 1860–61 date range needs to be expanded to the full years as per MOS:DATERANGE
I agree with A. Parrot that there is no need to give the French name for the necropolis at all.

If it's not bothersome, let's keep it in the body. el.ziade (talkallam) 10:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link necropolis, Lebanon (I don't think that that country is well-known enough to invoke WP:OL, Dorchester on first use.
under the Ottoman rule over Lebanon This reads oddly to me. Rephrase and consider hiding the link behind a pipe.
Why did Habib Ayela think he had a claim to the sarcophagus? Added explanation with source Onceinawhile (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you mean loaded rather than boarded
lifting it to the military corvette. The corvette commander The reader already knows that the ship belongs to the French navy. And use some synonyms instead of corvette so often.
How much did the sarcophagus weigh?

I don't have this info el.ziade (talkallam) 10:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what is the trough? Is it the underside of the lid?

the trough is hollowed out sarcophagus body. el.ziade (talkallam) 10:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English-language titles (and translations of titles) should be consistent, not a mix of title and sentence cases
I do not believe that it is necessary to link places of publication--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Sturmvogel 66: great observations and questions which we will address. The only one I disagree with is the first, as these superlatives are all cited in the article body under Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II#Significance of the inscription. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guys im so sorry I have not responded to you all. Im getting married Thursday. I’ll get back to you the soonest. el.ziade (talkallam) 20:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I am inclined to accept that as an excuse for a delay. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2023

@Gog the Mild and Elias Ziade: when it promotes, instead of a bronze star, how about confetti? :) SN54129 12:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129 you cracked me up lol. @Sturmvogel 66 I believe I covered everything, please let me know if there's anything I missed. @Gog the Mild you're an icon :) , thank you for your patience. el.ziade (talkallam) 10:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few changes, including the correct name of the corvette. Feel free to revert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.