Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Palmyra/archive2

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2016 [1].

Palmyra

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra. This is the second nomination following a previous one that spent a month without any input by other users save for the Image review. The article is a GA, recieved a Peer review and a copy-edit. Plus, it was translated to Portuguese and Afrikaans and it is now a featured article in Portoguese, Afrikaans and Azerbijani Wikipedia pt:Palmira, af:Palmyra, az:Palmira.

Palmyra was a unique city and a melting pot between the East and the West. Its warrior queen Zenobia left a lasting romantic impression in the minds of classical writers and its ruins are (were) one of the best preserved from the Roman era. Sadly, a monstrous militia (ISIS) is destroying it piece by piece.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

Now Support, as points fixed - Fine Work! Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pity such a fine, and (sadly) topical, article received no comments last time! By the way, this got 256K desktop views in the last 90 days. I have I think edited it a few times. On a first look:
Lead: I might shorten para 3, but include a link to the short-lived Palmyrene Empire. No need to drop the next one.
Sections: My main comment is that the sequence of the sections, though in the conventional WP order, does not serve this subject, treated at this length, at all well for most readers. They mainly want information on the ruins, their recent destruction, and the culture that produced them. At the moment the main "Notable structures" section begins on the 16th screen down on my computer, which is just far too low.
- Taking them in turn:

Location and etymology - I'd split this, & put etymology at the end of the article. I'd add the "City layout", now many screens lower, to the current 1st para on "Location".

History - very long, and not the priority for most readers. Move lower. You might even split the section, keeping the pre-Muslim history higher, but the commendably full subsequent history much lower, as until ISIS this contributes very little to the fame of the city.

"People, language and society" then "Culture" - ok to follow location and layout. I'd then have "8.2 Cemeteries and 8.3 Notable structures " next, with the ISIS destruction just after. Excavations might go into the history section.

Government, Religion and Economy next, but the rulers table right at the bottom of the article. I even wonder if all the redlinked Al-Fadl dynasty should not be moved out to a dedicated list page. If that is done the House of Odaenathus might go below the relevant section in the history.

If not this, then something else needs to be done.

Thanks for taking the effort. I dont mind the rearranging of the sections but would like propose a similar arrangement. The etymology section (as I've seen in most articles) is always at the beginning. It is just too out of place to have it at the very end.
Para 3 of the lead is the shortest and probably summaries the reason why Palmyra is famous : Odaenathus wars and the rebellion of Zenobia. I feel strongly that it should remain.
I made the changes you asked but kept the etymology up. Im thinking about creating an article for the list of rulers. Hope this is adequate.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think that's much better! The removal of the rulers reduces the crude size somewhat, to 177K, which is a good thing also. I'll do a detailed read-through, but not today. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, this will have to wait for a few days. I am likely to support, & I'd encourage you to stick with the process, tedious though the referencing issues are. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some small copyedits for language. In the notes, I can't be bothered to hunt these down:
Palmyra as a polis is not extensive, and the earliest known reference is an inscription dated to 51 AD, written in Palmyrene and Greek, mentioning the "City of the Palmyrenes" in its Greeks section.
No evidence for Germanicus visiting Palmyra exist.
Although a mainstream view is that Palmyra benefited from Petra annexation,
The Mesopotamian Jewish population was deemed by the Palmyrenes as loyal to the Persians. - "regarded" better than deemed.
Richard Stoneman propose that the law regulated taxes imposed on goods destined
Let me know if the problems with these aren't obvious. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will support when remaining points sorted. Excellent article! Johnbod (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

Beginning, as is my custom here, by examining references and reference formatting:

Right off the bat, I have to note that you're doing some very nonstandard things with your reference formatting. In particular, I'm not certain what criteria you're using to include books in the bibliography; there are a considerable number of book-format works referenced but not included therein. Also, while things like sfn aren't required, there's no connect between the citations and bibliography entries. The net result makes it rather difficult to evaluate the referencing properly. Considerable editorial discretion is given to reference format choices, but this may actually rise to the level of MOS-noncompliance.
You format author names first last in citations but last, first in the bibliography. Regardless of choices within editorial discretion, you need to be consistent about the standards you enact.
As an apparent consequence of the referencing formatting choices, print sources that appear in the citations but not in the bibliography do not have a full bibliographic entry anywhere in the article. Murtonen 1989, for example, lacks a publisher or ISBN. Charnock 1859 lacks a publisher (and, ideally, an OCLC). And so on.
In what is currently citation 1, you italicize and wikilink CBS News. In citation 11, you do neither for BBC News. Italicization of web sources is a contentious topic in the MOS at this time, but here, especially, consistency needs to be applied.
You've fallen prey to what I'm increasingly deeming the "Google Books trap". Google Books does a terrible job at extracting bibliographic information from scholarly journals that it has indexed as if they were books. The material you have cited as "Space archaeology" by Shiruku Rōdo-gaku Kenkyū Sentā isn't a book at all, but a journal: Silk Roadology, the published proceedings of the Research Center for Silk Roadology. I don't have access to this material, so I can't even try to construct a proper citation, which would need the article title, author, and pagination, in addition to the volume (and issue, if assigned) of the journal. None of which can Google Books be trusted to accurately provide. I offer no opinion as to the reliability or academic rigor of this source at this time.

The same is true of Annales archéologiques Arabes Syriennes. This is actually material from Les Annales Archeologiques Arabes Syriennes, a journal published by the Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museums. I'm not convinced this was an Arabic-language publication, either (or, alternatively, that the cited volume is incorrect). I know that AAAS changed publication language several times, and relatively recent volumes exist in both Arabic and English, but as of volume 42, may have still been in French. Regardless, whatever is being cited here needs confirmation from a more accurate source.

Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner is a scholarly article republished in a book-form journal proceeding. This one does appear in the bibliography, but isn't formatted appropriately in either location. Among other issues, it needs to include the editors of the bound work.

At this point, I'm done attempting a thorough survey of the sources. Many, perhaps most of the sources used here lack a complete citation. At least two, and likely more, are cited in a factually incorrect manner because of mangling by Google Books. That is especially problematic for obscure and foreign-language sources as used here. Accordingly, I have no choice but to strongly oppose promotion on 2c and probably 1c grounds. No opinion on prose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OH WOW , strong oppose because of this!!!!!!!!!!!! imagine if the article lacked some sources, whats then ? delete the article ?!!!. I didnt expect that FA was a process to see if the sources are neat, tidy and packed in a pretty way. I thought this was about articles being informative and cited. This is a very shallow criteria to oppose !!! its not because the article isnt sourced but because the sources change the style of naming the authors !!!! Does it really matter to the reader !!!! He can click on the link and the book and page will appear in front of him, is he really going to care that the name order is changed between the cite and the biblio !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I dont think that the reader immediately jump in excitement to the bibliography section once they have clicked on the article. So it doesnt matter using the most reliable academic sources or comprehensiveness but the way the name of the author is given in the citation and the bibliography or the italicization of BBC and CNN!

Now, to tackle your issues :

I know for sure that I have the privilege of choosing my style of citation and since I've chosen a way that doesn't require a bibliography (templates) then I've decided to delete the bibliography all together
I provided every citation with full information to compensate the deletion of the bibliography so now every source have a complete citation.
As for the journals, they are now in an adequate format : (cite journal). So Space Archaeology is properly cited now
As for the Annales archéologiques Arabes Syriennes : you said a more accurate source. AAAS is one of the most reliable sources about Palmyra, you cant get more accurate than that. The issue cited is in Arabic and you dont need to doubt it. If you dont know for sure then you really shouldn't doubt that it is written in Arabic or not. I wrote the key word Qatna in Arabic so you can see that it is written in Arabic.قطنا but anyways, it is not needed as the next source also cover the subject so I deleted the AAAS.
This journal "The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Difussion of Useful Knowledge" from 1840 didnt normally mention the names of its authors so I cant have them.
This book for example : Local Etymology: A Derivative Dictionary of Geographical Names by Richard Stephen Charnock is from 1859 and have no ISBN. Many old books and journals have no ISBN or ISSN, how can I get you ones ?!!!!
Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner is now properly cited.
BBC and stuff are consistence now in regard to italicization. By the way, it wasnt me who italicized CBS. I didnt add that reference and the difference isnt because of intended italicization but because of the templates. the "cite news" template will give you an italicized publisher while the "cite web" template will give you a non italicized publisher. I cant even believe that this is a serious problem !!!!!
You cant oppose this on bases of 1C. The article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and stable
I just spent 7 continuous hours to make every citation full, hope this is appreciated and will make your strong opposition a normal one. If this way ^[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) is the only accepted way of citations and the citation templates are refused then Im gonna think about withdrawing the nomination because this is just a complete child play. Spending months writing and reading hundreds of books then getting the article refused because "the style of the citations isnt pretty to my eyes".--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Featured Article process is very demanding. It makes expectations not only of the quality of the prose and references, but that references are fully cited and presented in an internally-consistent manner (which, no, does not mandate short-form references). I realize that this isn't the "fun" part of article writing, but it is a well-established aspect of the Feature Article candidacy process. Please don't take it personally; my interest is in ensuring that the articles we highlight as our best work meet all of our criteria for that standard, even the ones that aren't exciting. Taking a moment to opine, I often wish that the GA criteria were more stringent, so that the leap in expectations between GA-quality work and FA-quality work were not so large as it is. But we work with the criteria we have.

Following up on your comments about AAAS: AAAS is, without question, a high-quality source. My suggestion that you might need to consult another source was not meant to imply that it was unacceptable, but that Google Books was giving you insufficient and possibly incorrect material. Specifically, as with several other references, this is a scholarly journal; citations to it need to be to the individual articles, not the journal as a whole.

Publishers should generally not be abbreviated. For the Bryce source, Oxford University Press, not OUP. And definitely not "OUP Oxford", even if that's what Google Books claims in its sidebar.
The Arbeitman source is not correctly cited. Yoël L. Arbeitman is the editor of the book, not its author. Each section is an independent article with its own title and author. Arbeitman needs to be moved to |editor and the article title and author indicated with |chapter and |author. In this case, "The etymologies of Tadmor and Palmyra" by M. O'Connor (at least for anything citing pages between 235 and 254, inclusive). Ideally, the citation would provide the full pagination of the cited article within the larger source, but citing exclusively to the referenced page is probably acceptable under the MOS, and I won't quibble. Pedantically, the publisher is styled as Peeters, not Peeters Publishers.
Brill, not BRILL, in the Murtonen source. This is one part of a very large multivolume work. The full set of sub-subtitles here is unwieldy, and can probably be safely omitted, but adding |volume=13 is probably warranted. Murtonen is correctly identified as the author here; whether you also indicate J.H. Hospers as editor is probably discretionary. Use this tool to convert the ISBN to a properly formatted ISBN-13.
For works like Charnock, that predate the establishment of the ISBN system, it is possible to provide an OCLC number, which can be found via WorldCat search. There is some art to using WorldCat, as individual printings often receive different OCLC numbers (and sometimes, due to errors, the same printing may have more than one OCLC number assigned). When you can unambiguously identify an OCLC number, and no ISBN exists, it's helpful to include it, because it makes it easier for readers to access the work. I will note that OCLC numbers are sometimes assigned to e-copies of books. Established precedent indicates that when you are working from a faithful reproduction of the print source (as full Google Books scans [usually] are), you can cite the original format of the work; that you are working from an archive doesn't change what you're actually referencing. In any case, always use OCLC numbers, not OCoLC numbers. Accordingly, to get things started, Charnock is OCLC 4696115.
In the Le Strange source, "A.D.", not "A. D.", and "to", not "To". Cosimo is a print-on-demand publisher and so its works would often not be deemed reliable sources; in this case, however, this is a reprint of a work now in the public domain, so you're fine in that sense. The publisher needs to show the actual imprint it was published under, Cosimo Classics, and not the parent company. Finally, you should add the original date of publication, 1890, using |origyear.
The BBC article, "Syria uncovers 'largest church'" has an explicit date: 14 November 2008. Because you provide these dates (when available) for other web sources, you need to be consistent.
Convert the ISBN for Stoneman.
There are still problems with the Izumi source that you have styled as Space Archaeology. Because you split the author name into the |last and |first fields, it displays in last, first order. Personally, I prefer that. But elsewhere you've used |author and forced names to appear in first last order. You need to be consistent, whichever you choose. More importantly, this journal is not called Space Archaeology, despite what Google Books is telling you (that's basically the cover story of this issue). I don't really blame you for getting tripped up by this. Situations like this got me in the past, too. Google Books is very, very bad at dealing with digitized journals. Very bad. The journal is actually styled as Silk Roadology. Scholarly journals do not need their publisher specified.
Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner is still not okay. You need to indicate that those three individuals are the editors of the work (use the editor fields). The title of the work should be the title of the book: Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 29 March–3 April 2004, Freie Universität, Berlin. Use author and chapter fields to specify the individual article and its author. Finally, this is a multi-volume work, so you should indicate that you are referencing |volume=1
For Dirven: again, Brill, and ISBN conversion.
For Young, Google Books malformed the date range in the title by converting an unspaced endash to a spaced hyphen, because Google hates typography, or something. That part of the title should read 31 BC–AD 305.
For Smith II, Oxford University Press, not OUP USA.
The "'Imitation Greeks'" source is problematic. This isn't actually a book published by ProQuest (they aren't really a publisher; they are a microform reproduction distributor). What this actually is is a doctoral dissertation by Nathanael John Andrade. Material such as this is sort of in a gray area regarding WP:RS, as noted in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If you can replace this with a higher-quality source, that might be ideal. If consensus here is that it is acceptable to retain, you'll need to reformat it with {{cite thesis}} and include the relevant bibliographic information.
Some days I hate Google Books. I don't know what they did with the source you cite as Hillers and Cussini, but the cover and copyright page make clear that Eleonora Cussini is the sole editor of the work. As in several other cases, restyle the publisher and convert the ISBN. Also, this is another case where the chapters are individual articles with their own authorship. Page 55 is part of "The City of the Dead" by Michal Gawlikowski.

And here I'm stopping again. I've gone through the first 25 of 389 references. Some of these are problems are nitpicking concerns over styling. But several are significant problems with the accuracy and completeness of citations. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt take it personally but a strong oppose without giving me directions on how to fix the problems (since Im a noob here, I didnt even know that there are editor and original year parameters) made me upset (and my insomnia didnt help me to stay calm). Now when I read back, i can see that I was rude and overreacted. apologies.

Yoël and Charnock fixed
OUP and BRILL fixed
I replaces the cosimo la-Strange with the original one
BBC date for the church fixed
last name/first name problem fixed
Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner fixed
Young and ISBN's fixed
Andrade took his PHD thanks to this thesis and got it printed as a legitimate book by Cambridge university press Syrian Identity in the Greco-Roman World. But anyway, I replaced the thesis with other sources.
Hillers fixed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well. A belated welcome to FAC, then! My apologies for not recognizing that you were new to this process, which can sometimes very much be a trial-by-fire. I'll certainly have more material to address when I get a few minutes to review further. The goal, as always, is better articles. As a drive-by comment, there's absolutely no problem with citing Andrade from the Cambridge University Press book, just a problem with citing the Andrade thesis directly. But if other sources serve just as well, that works too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by an IP

"The Palmyrenes were primarily a mix of Amorites, Arameans and Arabs,[2]" The lead should ideally be devoid of any inline citation. The information cited is something that should be discussed in the main prose, where the inline citation should go.
"In 1929, the French began moving villagers into the new village of Tadmur." Is there a way to avoid this repetition?
"its incorporation into the Roman Empire in the first century." AD? Such as this, "By the third century AD"
"Palmyra was a prosperous metropolis and regional center" is there something missing? center for?
"Before 273 it enjoyed autonomy for much of its existence." Is this a date? Sorry, not an aficionado.
"In 260 the Palmyrene king Odaenathus defeated the Persian emperor Shapur I. He fought" I suppose "he" refers to the king Odaenathus?

Fixed. As for the citation in the lead: We have a problem with Assyrian nationalists who go around and remove the word Arab from every article about a historic Fertile crescent civilization before Islam. Thats why the reference is important or the word Arab will be removed by one of them. It is encouraged to have citations in the lead for any information that can be disputed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations.
For the regional center: nothing is missing, it was a center of its own region.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Al Ameer son

I contributed to this article not too long ago (added a bit of content to the "Arab caliphate" section and otherwise made some copyedits here and there). I've already commended the nominator for his efforts and I do so again. With what has been happening to Palmyra lately, many people who don't know much about the city but hear about its ongoing destruction on the news will come here to learn about the site. I'm glad someone has devoted their efforts at improving their learning experience.

That being said, having read the entire article, it clearly meets criterion 1a, 1b and 1d. There has not been any real edit warring, but whenever Palmyra is in the news cycle, the article attracts some unnecessary additions made in good faith, but overall it meets 1e. From the outset, the article appears to meet 1c, but I cannot say for sure yet because I haven't gone through all the sources. I will verify a sample of citations throughout the article and anything that seems extraordinary, and from that I can confidently make a conclusion regarding 1c soon.
The lead is a bit too long, but not totally overwhelming. I think it could be shortened and maybe even restructured a bit to be less a summary of the entire history from the Neolithic period until the present day and more a summary of the article, i.e. the site and its major ruins, the parts of its history most relevant to the ruins and its role as an ancient power (including the city's distinct ancient culture and civilization). Currently, the lead focuses too much on history. The current structure of the article, after Johnbod's suggestion, is fine. The citations format is consistent.
There is excellent usage of pictures in the article and it appears any issues with the images were addressed in Nikkimaria's image review in the first FAC.
The article is lengthier than the average FA, but deservedly so due to the sheer amount of information on Palmyra's ruins, history and culture. The article does not go into unnecessary detail, although the lead might. Then again, this is just my opinion.

As of right now, I can say with confidence that the article meets criteria 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2b, 2c, 3 and 4. I await the nominator's response to my suggestion on shortening and possibly restructuring the lead. I will give my take on 1c soon, although I'm pretty confident that the nominator, who has been researching the subject and has been working on the article for so long, has been diligent in adding material that correctly reflects the many and diverse sources he has used. --Al Ameer (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes, now, the political history isnt the focus of the lead. I will be thankful if you have any specific suggestion (i.e specific sentence to be deleted and another to be written).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is much better now, in my opinion. I just made a few copyedits to it as well. After the changes you've made, I think the following fragment could be removed: "The city was governed by a senate", unless you think this line is critical to the lead. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the first line is grammatically correct: "is an ancient Semitic city in present Homs Governorate, Syria". Shouldn't it be "in present-day Homs Governorate"? If a copyeditor or reviewer previously copyedited the article, it wouldn't hurt to ping him or her and ask if they could take a look at the revised lead and see if they could make further improvements. You could also ask someone who has never read or edited the article before to do the same thing, but that would likely be a longer process since they might not make any comments about the lead without reading through the article first. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Senate part deleted. It was the copy editor who wrote (present). I added (day). No new sentences were added, I just deleted some, so the lead didnt change grammatically and pinging the copy editor wont be necessary.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support After a few days of looking through various citations to see if the sources matched up with the text (for verification's sake), I am confident that this article meets criteria 1c. As I noted above, I also believe it meets all the other FA criteria as well. This is a highly informative, beautifully written, and well-sourced article that should grace Wikipedia's home page in the very near future. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Al-Ameer.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support by FunkMonk

Support - I GA reviewed this article, and I can see it has been significantly improved since then, and now lives up to the FA criteria. Would be interesting to see if Squeamish Ossifrage is satisfied with the changes done since his review, though. I think every effort should be made to help the nominator get this article promoted instead of archived, as it is his first nomination (and English is not his first language), but also due to the high importance of the subject, and its current, dire situation. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Midnightblueowl

Comments: I have quite a bit of experience with writing about archaeological subjects here at Wikipedia and thus I am gratified to see that such a lot of admirable work has been paid to this article. However, I have some concerns about the Etymology section. For instance, why is there no link to Pliny the Elder when he is mentioned? Why are citations 3 and 7 placed next to each other when both are citing the same article; surely they should be merged? Why is there a single, solitary citation appearing in the lede; is this really necessary? Generally speaking, I think that this article could probably do with a good prose review before being taken to FAC, and for that reason am ~~Opposed~~ at present. I also wonder if a different citation system would benefit this article, given that a number of key sources are used repeatedly as references (see for instance the citation system used in the recent archaeology-themed FA, Mortimer Wheeler, and my GA at Coldrum Long Barrow, which is much cleaner and more user friendly). Moreover, I am very worried at what seems to be an over-reliance on Google Books as a way of finding references in this article. I do certainly appreciate that not everyone has access to university resources and all of the books and articles that they can provide, but really Google Books is too selective in what it offers to be truly reliable for something like this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1- the article was already copy edited by the copy-edit guild. It was also read thoroughly (specially the prose which was edited multiple times) by Jonbod, Al-Ameer son and Dudley Miles (in his peer review). How many prose read should this article get before it is just too much?. Another prose read will mean that this is the fourth time. This could go on forever and a line must be drawn at some point

2- Pliny was linked, I cant remember how the link was removed. Its easy to link it again and the source 3 was removed

3- The citation in the lead: We have a problem with Assyrian nationalists who go around and remove the word Arab from every article about a historic Fertile crescent civilization before Islam. Thats why the reference is important or the word Arab will be removed by one of them (look at the article history before I rewrote it). It is encouraged to have citations in the lead for any information that can be disputed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations.

4- I prefer this citation style in my articles as it can get you to the page in the source. It is not a criteria to follow a certain style

5- There is really no need to worry about google books. They are added for the sole reason of giving you a chance to read the source. I already have a large collection in my university library and I could have not provided any links to google books but I thought (and still convinced) that those links are helpful for users who want to inspect the source. All the recent academic books written on Palmyra were used. So no selectivity and Palmyra isnt a controversial subject to be afraid that the whole truth isnt present. Do you like me to delete the links to google books ?? this way only the name of the source will remain and it wont look like there is a reliance on a library called google books.

I dont think that you noticed that I used many old middle eastern sources that has no preview on google books. Yet, I added a link to google so that the reader can see that this book exist. Obviously, I didnt read those sources on google.

I have edited the article to address the real problems you mentioned.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I still don't think that the prose is up to full FA quality just yet. There are many, many sentences that I feel could be improved. For instance, the article refers to "by the end of the millennium Arameans were mentioned as inhabiting the area" but no statement is given as to where this was "mentioned". Names like Albert Schultens and Hadrian are dropped without explaining who they were. Wording such as "as an alteration (supported by Schultens)," could be improved considerably. I'm still opposed at this juncture, but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate all the hard work that has gone into this, and I would be willing to change my opposition to a support if I see these prose problems cleaned up. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you need to point the prose problem considering that 5 other experienced editors read the article and didnt see those problems. Throwing a random note doesnt help as those problems that you found werent considered problems for others. You need to be specific about what you think is wrong so you need to do a pros check yourself since a "problem" to you isnt a problem to another. There is no set of rules to count on, when trying to discover what you consider a problem, so you need to be more clear as other editors cant figure out what you would consider a problem.

Schultens and Hadrian need explanations ? this would most definitely be a distraction. The article is about Palmyra not about Schultens. The names are linked for people who dont know them. We cant explain about Hirohito (for example) in an article about a different subject.

The Arameans were mentioned by the Assyrians which is an information clearly written in the section Palmyra#Early_period. This section came in before the population section but I had to change its place due to Jonbod earlier review.

"as an alteration (supported by Schultens)". How can it get any more clearer ? I even wrote a note (note 3) which explain the alternation and it read like this : According to Schultens, the Romans altered the name from "Tadmor" to "Talmura", and afterward to "Palmura" (from the Latin word "palma", meaning palm),[2] in reference to the palm trees. Then the name reached its final form "Palmyra".[7].

I ask you to do a prose check and point the problems you see since other editors didnt find them and I cant be in your mind to see what you see as a problem cause I find everything clear for now, and so did the people in pt:Palmira, af:Palmyra, az:Palmira who promoted the article to FA. --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to be a little more specific. I have tidied up the prose in a few places where I felt that improvements could be made. However, there are other instances where I feel that a rewrite is certainly desirable For instance, take the following sentence: "It is generally believed that "Palmyra" derives from "Tadmor" as an alteration (supported by Schultens),[note 3][4] or a translation of "Tadmor" (assuming that it meant palm), and derived from the Greek word for palm "Palame" (supported by Jean Starcky).[2][5]" That could clearly be improved. At present, it is quite clunky, what with the three uses of brackets and the use of terms like "supported by Jean Starcky". For me, it is the odd sentence such as this one which hold he article back from truly reaching FA quality. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for this User:Midnightblueowl. Dudly Miles already conducted a full review of the article after you asked for one. He pointed whatever he felt "wrong" and so did the other reviewers. Now the ball is on your side. I edited the sentence which you felt needed improvements. I'll be waiting for you to point whatever you consider need improvements.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Others, such as Jean Starcky, considers" should be "Others, such as Jean Starcky, consider". There are a few other prose issues in this paragraph still. It's not a major thing, but for me it holds back the article from being FA. I'm happy to lend a hand and deal with these issues myself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks User:Midnightblueowl.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out my opposition to this page's nomination. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

"Palmyra changed hands between the different empires that ruled the area, becoming a subject of the Roman Empire in the first century AD." For clarity I suggest something like "Palmyra changed hands on a number of occasions between different empires, before becoming a subject of the Roman Empire in the first century AD."
"Among them is the Temple of Bel, on a tell which was the site of an earlier temple (known as the Hellenistic temple).[19] However, excavation supports the theory that the temple was originally located on the southern bank;" This is confusing. First you say that there was an earlier temple on the site, then that it was elsewhere.

Now you are saying " Among them is the Temple of Bel, on a tell which was the site of an earlier temple (known as the Hellenistic temple).[18] However, excavation supports the theory that the tell was originally located on the southern bank" This is even more confusing. A tell is a hill built up by successive occupation layers - it cannot move from the south to the north bank. I am still not clear what you mean. Is it that the Hellenistic temple on the north bank did not really exist, or that there was another even earlier temple on a tell on the south bank? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have rearranged some of the People, language and society section. Change anything you are not happy with. I have bundled refs at the end of the section and they need sorting out. In the version before my revision there were three refs for "but after the invasion by Timur it was a small village until the relocation in 1932" - far too many for a simple statement and they are not obviously relevant.
Temples section. There are links to further information on the temples of Bel and Baalhamon, but Bel is not mentioned below and Baalhamon is spelled differently.

I fixed and did what you noted. I meant that the tell and the temple above it were south of the wadi; for clarity I changed the sentence to give this meaning. As for the temples section, Baal-Hamon is a different deity from Baal-Shamin. Since the temple of Bel and the temple of Baalshamin have their own articles I felt that its enough to give links to those articles, to avoid inflating the article of Palmyra with unecessary explanations.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The newcomers were assimilated by the earlier inhabitants, spoke their language" This is unclear. Were the newcomers the Arabs? Were they assimilated by the Arameans and did they speak Aramaic? If they learnt the language you should say "learned" rather than "spoke".
"Before 274 AD, Palmyrenes spoke a dialect of Aramaic and used the Palmyrene alphabet." You mention in a note that Aramaic is last used in an inscription of 274, but nevertheless languages spoken do not change suddenly in one year. I think it would be better to say "Until the late third century".
In the next paragraph you state that Palmyrenes were a mixture of different peoples until 273 - cities are almost always a mixture of different peoples and they do not suddenly stop being so unless there is mass ethnic cleansing. You say below that tribal identity lost its meaning in the third century, which suggests a gradual process.
Note 11 "E.g. by the second century, Palmyrene goddess Al-lāt was portrayed in the style of the Greek goddess Athena" I assume BC, but you should make this clear.
"Palmyrene bust reliefs, unlike Roman sculptures, are rudimentary portraits; although many reflect high quality individuality, their details vary little across figures of similar age and gender" I am not clear what you are saying here. if they are rudimentary portraits which vary little, how can they reflect individuality?
"Towers were replaced by funerary temples as above ground tombs after 128, which is the date of the most recent tower" This is puzzling and again you are using over-exact dates. 128 BC or AD, and the fact that that is the most recent known date does not mean there was a sudden change then. "as above ground tombs" is clumsy and superfluous.
Public buildings section. You only give a date for the agora and the Temple of Baal-hamon. An approximate date for the other buildings would be helpful.
In the temples section, I do not think your practice is correct. You should cover the most important temples for readers who do not want to follow links, not leave them out because they are covered in other articles. This applies particularly to the Temple of Bel, which is mentioned several times elsewhere 'Further information' is for more information about topics covered briefly, not to refer readers to topics omitted. If you are concerned about excessive length, you could create an article on Palmyra temples and refer readers to it for further information.
"a tessera depicting the sanctuary was excavated" This can't be right. A tessera is an individual cube in a mosaic.
"Further information: Great Colonnade at Palmyra" You do not give details about this. If it is not important enough to be in the article, it should not be in 'Further information'. (It could be in 'See also').
"The shrine might have been connected to the royal family as it is the only tomb inside the city's walls" You say this was built in the third century - BC or AD? Did not the Roman prohibition on tombs inside towns apply?
"to provide a costume barrier" What is a costume barrier?

Fixed. The Arabs are the newcomers. I clarified everything you pointed. I added small paragraphs for the temples and colonnade. Athena-Allat is AD actually. For the reliefs; I didnt write this paragraph as it was added by Jonbod. Some Palmyrene reliefs reveal individuality but the majority do not and I clarified this. The senate of Palmyra wasnt excavated extensively and no date exist. The Tarif court and Triclinium were part of the Agor complex and built at the same time and I clarified this.

For the tessera: the sources about Palmyra use this word and some of them were written by the excavators :

What is your suggestion on the tessera subject ?

I would say a mosaic but you could say tesserae (plural of tessera).

costume barrier as in a border to watch the merchandise entering the city or leaving it. As for the tomb : Palmyra always had more independence than normal Roman cities. The building no.86 is a tomb so obviously the city had the ability to break Roman law.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"when Puzur-Ishtar the Tadmorean agreed to a contract at an Assyrian trading colony in Kultepe" I would add in brackets after Tadmorean (Palmyrene). It is easy to forget that you said Tadmor is an alternative name in the etymology section.
"In 217 BC, a Palmyrene force led by Zabdibel joined the army of King Antiochus III in the Battle of Raphia which ended in a Seleucid defeat.[" I would say by Ptolemaic Egypt. Did Palmyra stay Seleucid or the Ptolemaics gain temporary control?

Changed tessera to "mosaic piece". Done for Tadmoraen, and as for Raphia : Palmyra wasnt mentioned in the records of the battle. Only Zabdibel was mentioned and scholars concluded that he was a Palmyrene because that name was only found in Palmyra. We really dont know the situation of Palmyra back then and no source discuss it (I tried to look in my university's library as you asked this question in your last peer review but got nothing). Normally, Palmyra is part of Coele-Syria which would mean that it belonged to Egypt during the Syrian Wars but no scholar ever noted or discussed that. They do, however, consider Palmyra with the Seleucids from the beginning and since Palmyrene auxiliary served with the Seleucids and No Egyptian record exist about Palmyra during that era and the concept of Coele-Syria is very fluid in its geographic definition then probably Palmyra was not occupied by Egypt as those wars aimed at Coele-Syria which is an area that has different indications and a term that wasnt used by the Ptolemaic kingdom (hence, maybe they didnt consider Palmyra part of the region). We will never know as no source discuss it.

"Toward the end of the second century, Palmyra began a steady transition from a traditional Greek city-state to a monarchy;[178] urban development diminished after the city's building projects peaked.[179] The Severan ascension to the imperial throne in Rome played a major role in Palmyra's transition:" I find this and the following comments confusing. You say a transition to a monarchy, but the earliest recorded lord of the city is apparently 60 years later. Then you insert the apparently irrelevant truism that a decline in building projects leads to a decline in urban development. Then you say that the rise of the Severan dynasty assisted Palmyra's transition to a monarchy, and emperors stationed troops there and encouraged a transition to Roman institutions. None of this sounds like encouraging an independent Palmyrene monarchy. Later it appears that the election of a lord was a reaction to Roman weakness in the face of the Persian threat in the middle of the third century rather than the culmination of a long term trend.

The militarization of the city is what led to the monarchy. It was the steady centralization of power that led to monarchy. This centralization and militarization began with the Severans and their policy. The emperors obviously didnt have in mind to turn Palmyra into a rival but stationing the troops in Palmyra and the wars they engaged with the Parthians leading to damage for the Palmyrene trade led Palmyra to strengthen itself and its military. The Palmyrene troops began to protect the Empire instead of trade and it was inevitable that a strong general will someday turn those troops into a power base and end the semi-democracy of Palmyra (Odaenathus was this guy). I moved the sentence about urban development to the preceding paragraph. Now the transition paragraph discuss those changes without distractions. The election of Odaenathus was a direct reaction but the circumstances allowing this election and allowing an strong army to exist started with the Severans and their wars

The Camridge History is directly attributing the rise of the monarchy to those factors. In page 512, the section is titled : From city to principality and it talks about Palmyra's transition into a monarchy. In the preceding pages, it speak about the Severan wars and the Sassanid's caused instabilities, and then open in page 512 with a direct connection between those wars and Palmyra's transition when it say : In this less favorable economic climate, the political situation at Palmyra changed and then continues to describe the Palmyrene transition to a monarchy

"The nature of those deities is left to theory as only names are known," "left to theory" sounds a bit odd to me. Perhaps "is uncertain".

Done

More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Taxation was an important source of revenue for Palmyra." I would say to the Palmyran government - you say above that the caravan trade was most important to the economny as a whole.
" where a tax law dating to 137 was discovered" BC or AD?
"Antiquities scholar Andrew M. Smith II" "Antiquities scholar" sounds old fashioned. Maybe "Classlcist" for an assistant professor of classics.
"The oasis had about 1,000 hectares (2,500 acres) of irrigable land,[376] surrounded by the countryside.[377]" This is not quite right. The citation for the second half of the sentence just says that agricultural land was insufficient to support the city. Presumably it was surrounded by desert rather than countryside.
"Palmyra was a minor trading center until the Timurid destruction" I would repeat the date here to remind readers.
"Palmyra's main trade route ran east to the Euphrates, where it connected to the Silk Road.[381] The route then ran south along the river toward the port of Charax Spasinu on the Persian Gulf, where Palmyrene ships traveled back and forth to India." I think you need to state when this applies. The article on Charax Spasinu states that it was a major port in late antiquity. You say below during the Roman Empire - so the first 4 centuries AD?
"For its domestic market Palmyra imported slaves, prostitutes, olive oil, dyed goods, myrrh and perfume" But above you say agricultural products as well.
I wonder whether the section on destruction by ISIL would go better at the end after 'Excavation'. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done for all. the products mentioned arent the only ones that Palmyra imported. They are just examples. I reworded the sentence to give the meaning. The tax law is AD. I fixed the part about the countrysides to match the source.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is nearly there - a few more queries.
"Benjamin of Tudela recorded the existence of 2,000 Jews in the city during the twelfth century." This does not belong in a paragraph about a period a thousand years earlier. I suggest moving it to after "mainly inhabited by the Kalb tribe".
"according to traditional scholarship, the Palmyrenes' Greek practices were a superficial layer over a local essence". The source says "scholars have often construed" - this is not the same as "according to traditional scholarship". Also you are implying an alternative view, but you do not give Andrade's alternative.
"After the Roman destruction of the city, Palmyra was ruled directly by Rome,[319] and its following states (including the Burids and Ayyubids),[248][320] or by subordinate Bedouin chiefs—primarily the Fadl family, who governed for the Mamluks." This is confusing. Presumably "its following states" means the states which followed Rome, but they are dynasties rather than states. Perhaps "and afterwards by Moslem dynasties".
"The royal army was under the leadership of the monarch aided by generals" This is stated as a general description of the army, but it presumably only applied in the mid-third century?
"In 1902, Gertrude Bell visited the city and wrote extensive letters.[" I doubt that this is worth mentioning. The source does not say she wrote about or worked in Palmyra. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cleared the royal army part and rewarded the sentence about traditional scholarship. I understood (and I could be wrong) that Andrade's view is similar to Millar; that is a fusion between greek culture and oriental one instead of a Greek layer over an oriental one. Since Millar is an A-list historian, I thought mentioning him is enough. If you see that there are differences between Andrade and Millar's views please tell me so I can fix it

I removed Benjamin of Tudela sentence. As for the states, I think its tricky, The Byzantine empire was Rome but it wasnt Rome at the same time. Yes, they are the eastern Roman empire but they are always distinguished from proper Rome. Even if we let go of the Byzantine detail, we still have the Moslims states, the Hamdanids were a dynasty under the Abbasid Caliphate but the Ottomans were their own state not simply a dynasty, so were the Mamluks but the Fadl were a dynasty under the Mamluks. I will wait for your reply on this matter and if you still believe that dynasties is better than states then I will replace states with moslims dynasties

Gertrude Bell part was inserted by an IP or a user, cant remember. I didnt like it but it had a source and I hate edit wars so I kept it. Now its removed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noted your note about the tell of Bel's temple. I mean that the diversion of the wadi's bed made the tell on its northern bank when the Palmyrenes modified the bed. So its not like the tell physically moved, but the wadi used to flow north of the tell then the Palmyrenes modified the wadi's bed to make it flow to the south of the tell. Can you give me a clearer formula to write ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not sure about the Greek culture issue. Andrade says that scholars have interpreted Roman and Greek influence on Palmyra as superficial and argues against it. Ball says the opposite: speaking more generally about the Near East, he says that scholars see Roman and Greek influence as dominant and argues against that view. I suggest contrasting their views without saying which is mainstream.

For "and its following states (including the Burids and Ayyubids),[245][317] or by subordinate Bedouin chiefs—primarily the Fadl family, who governed for the Mamluks" how about "and then by a succession of other rulers, including the Burids and Ayyubids,[245][317] and subordinate Bedouin chiefs—primarily the Fadl family, who governed for the Mamluks".

Done, I eliminated the names of scholars all together.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: I haven't exactly read a lot of it, but I can tell it looks pretty nice. I might do a full review or whatnot if I have the time, but how come most of the "Destruction by ISIL" section is a bulleted list? In this article it's completely the opposite and it would look more appealing if the section underwent some major changes. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I'll give it a read soon. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry for the long response. I cannot really detect any major issue, but I'm not sure if I can support because I am far from being familiar with this sort of subject. Judging from many other editors supporting this article it seems more than ready though. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- this has been open a very long time but we seem to be close to consensus to promote. Squeamish Ossifrage, are you able to revisit your opposition now? Also has anyone conducted a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, given this is the nominators first FAC? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Al Ameer son made a full source content review.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment I know almost nothing about Middle Eastern topics, so I shall not comment on whether this article deserves promotion or not. In my opinion, the nominator of this article should have demonstrated to address sufficient efforts to fix prose issues or other arrears that were pointed out by the opposing editor (ie. Squeamish Ossifrage), After which, if the opposing editor does not get back to the discussion, which appears to be hanging in the open, the nominator should then try to drop a reminder message or two on his/her talk page that the concerns have been addressed thus far. And if, after which the opposing editor does not respond, I think the FAC coordinators would then need to make a discretionary judgement on whether the "oppose" still stands. I have checked Squeamish Ossifrage's contributions page, and that his last edit on 29 October 2015. I don't think it is fair to the nominator, if he had made sufficient efforts to fix the concerns of the opposing editor, but the opposing editor appears to be AWOL/MIA at this point of time and this article fails this FAC as a result. Mr Tan (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2016 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Smith 2007, p. 1.

[1] Smith 2007, p. 1.

[1]