Jump to content

Talk:Ptolemy IX Soter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 5, 2018Good article nomineeListed
March 25, 2019Good article reassessmentDelisted

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ptolemy IX Lathyros/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 11:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
  3. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Comment Result
    Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has left no comments here Neutral Undetermined

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Neutral Undetermined The reviewer has left no comments here

Discussion

[edit]

Individual reassessment

[edit]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ptolemy IX Lathyros/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Last June I promoted this article to GA. I have no idea why. I made no comments and didn't even complete the checklist. I had a moment of complete confusion and waved it through without looking at it. Apologies for this aberration, and without prejudice to the article or the nominator I am reopening the question of the article's status. Pinging the nominator and others who have expressed an interest @Векочел, Attar-Aram syria, LouisAragon, and Cplakidas:

@Векочел: Can you confirm that you are available to address any concerns that may come up as part of this process? Thanks and apologies again to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Yes, I can work on this review. Векочел (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not my area of expertise, but just by glancing at the Greek and Italian articles, there is considerable room for expansion, so 3a definitely does not currently apply. On sourcing, the Tour Egypt source is clearly no WP:RS, and while I find livius.org a great resource, I would hesitate to base an entire article on it, especially since the references are not really to articles, but rather to collections of factoids. A good article should use scholarly literature, and that includes at least some critical examination of sources and some more general conclusions and views on the person and reign of Ptolemy, by expert scholars. That is completely absent right now. For me that fails 2b and 3b as well. Constantine 15:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be riddled with issues, from MOS:LEADSENTENCE to MOS:IMGLOC; the images have no alt text, the other monarchs mentioned have no regnal years, "c." is used instead of {{circa}}, the infobox is inconsistently laid out. The information on his life is very brief and is laid out in a choppy and disconnected way. I actually found more, and more accessible, information on Ptolemy IX in the article on Cleopatra Selene of Syria.
@Векочел: Having looked at this properly I am struggling not to consider it a prime candidate for a quick fail. (And I am painfully aware that I promoted it in the first place, quite obviously without actually looking at it!) Do you have any thoughts or comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Attar suggested I add more on the reasons behind Ptolemy IX's divorce from Cleopatra IV and his involvement in Seleucid Syria. Векочел (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support quick fail. This article at lease does not fulfil criteria 2b and 3. Constantine covered 2b, so I will summarize what should be used to expand the article:

  • There needs to be a full section about Ptolemy IX before ascending the throne. This needs to be more than two sentences like it is now. In this section, a background should be given explaining Ptolemaic politics, marriage customs and legitimacy of kings. The circumstances surrounding Ptolemy IX's marriage to Cleopatra IV should be explained in depth.
  • The will of Ptolemy VIII, what kind of motives he had when he made it, and the response of Cleopatra II, and that of Cleopatra III, should be explained.
  • The relation between Ptolemy IX and his mother needs to be expanded, alot.
  • The marriage to Selene, and the children, and the possible relation between those children and Ptolemy XII and his brother. Cant see much explaining in the current article.
  • The images of Ptolemy IX are not mentioned at all. The seals from Edfu need to be brought here, explained and hopefully photos of them provided.
  • There is no mention of the alliance between Ptolemy IX and Antiochus IX of Syria. The hostilities between Ptolemy IX and Antiochus VIII and the possible connection of Cleopatra IV's death. Not much on the campaign of Ptolemy IX in Palestine and his Gaza attack.
  • No word on Ptolemy IX's reign in Cyprus. No word on the possible abduction of Ptolemy's children by Pontus....

This is too much and Im still not done!. This article cant be saved by adding few sentences and copying material from Cleopatra Selene's article. This article needs to actually be written as it is a mere stub currently (in relation to the very rich political career of Ptolemy IX). This article can not be re-written in a week, and GA nominees should come ready, not be written during review. From my experience, such an article will take at least a month to be written using the necessary sources.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Attar-Aram syria: Are there any sources you suggest using to expand the article? Векочел (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Векочел, I believe you will end up having a bibliography of about 50 sources or more if you take the time to research this topic thoroughly and write the article after. For some main sources, I will provide their oclc, which means you can see which library have them (closer to your location, just enter your postcode or city/country). Not all sources are available online, and to write good and featured articles you will need to get your hands on sources that are not yet digitized.
For the war in Palestine: The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian conflict of 103-101 B.C.
For the children and marriages: Journal: Ancient Society. Published by Peeters Publishers. Volume 28. Article: Cleopatra V Tryphæna and the Genealogy of the Later Ptolemies
For the edfu seals: Hellenistic engraved gems
I hope those will be a good starting point, but you need to learn text mining, and finding sources. Normally, a general book will have a bibliography listing many specialized sources, and its really like a family tree. Read the general books, and get the titles of the sources in the bibliography and try to find them in libraries if they dont exist online.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Attar-Aram syria: Unfortunately, the nearest copy of 'Journal: Ancient Society. Published by Peeters Publishers. Volume 28. Article: Cleopatra V Tryphæna and the Genealogy of the Later Ptolemies' is well over 100 miles away from where I live. Векочел (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Векочел. Given that you haven't addressed any of the points I raised a week ago, or even commented on them, I am failing this
I hope that you are able to work on it and bring it back in shape to be looked at again. If you do, feel free to ping me to assess it again if you wish. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ptolemy I Soter which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]