Wikipedia:Peer review/Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II/archive1

Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because Onceinawhile and I believe it is close to meeting FA criteria. Your input would be very much appreciated. Thanks, el.ziade (talkallam) 21:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Unlimitedlead

I can take a look at this soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"...unearthed in 1855 in the "Phoenician Necropolis"...": What's the reason for the scare quotes?
"Eshmunazar II (Phoenician: 𐤀𐤔𐤌𐤍𐤏𐤆𐤓‎ ʾšmnʿzr, a theophoric name meaning 'Eshmun helps') was a Phoenician King of Sidon...": The detail on his name, especially in the lead, is unnecessary; instead, I would list his reign dates using the {{reigned|x|x}} template. Same for King Tabnit and Cambyses II.
"More than a dozen scholars across Europe and the United States rushed to translate the sarcophagus inscriptions": When? At the time of his discovery, or in modern times?

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Unlimitedlead Awesome thanks! I made the changes as suggested. Thank you for taking the time for this.el.ziade (talkallam) 15:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Eshmunazar II section is informative, but quite short. I suppose if he died at age fourteen, there is nothing we can do about it.
What is meant by "successor cultures"? I have never heard this phrase before?

I understand, it is however a term used to refer to a culture or civilization that arises after the decline or collapse of an earlier society and often builds upon or inherits aspects of the preceding culture. The successor culture may incorporate elements of the previous culture. The term is commonly used in archaeology and anthropology.el.ziade (talkallam) 22:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canaanite religion is linked twice, in "religious practices" and "deities".
Note 3 is unecessary as it repeats the claims made in the preceeding sentence.
You need to introduce Ernest Renan and call him by his full name; you cannot just mention his last name and expect readers to already know who he is or what he did.
"Cornelius Van Alen Van Dyck, an American missionary physician made it to the scene...": There should be a comma after "physician".
"...which was first published in The Journal of Commerce": When?

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the above, thanks again.el.ziade (talkallam) 22:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to introduce Renan in the body as well, not just in the lead. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead Done.
el.ziade (talkallam) 22:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"...they are written in the Phoenician language using the Phoenician alphabet": Is this phrase not redundant?

I don' believe so. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Translations of the sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II inscriptions...": Grammar issue here

rewritten el.ziade (talkallam) 12:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[86][82][83][84][87]: Why are so many citations needed?

removed redundant el.ziade (talkallam) 12:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"...Napoleon III, then-emperor of France...": A technicality- he was technically "Emperor of the French".

Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! el.ziade (talkallam) 12:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Onceinawhile

Some parts of the article I would like to improve:

We do not explain the trough inscription, or the other inscription on the sarcophagus which is just two letters. A picture of them is here at the top (3G, trough) and (3H, two letters). Comparing 3G to the 22-line lid inscription it can be seen that the trough text is identical to the first few lines of the lid inscription; this should be explained. Need to find a source which explains all this clearly (CIS 3 covers it, but I suspect we can find a more detailed version somewhere)

Turner did; I split the paragraph and included that the trough inscription is a fragmentary copy of the lid text, that breaks off a few letters after the lid lacuna. The group of two letters is also mentioned, image added. el.ziade (talkallam) 00:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turner is a great find on this - I have added more in addition to your text, with an annotated image to make it really clear. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are not consistent regarding whether we are discussing "inscription" or "inscriptions" throughout

I reviewed the lead and body to make the distinction, is this enough Onceinawhile? el.ziade (talkallam) 00:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The early transmission of the text to the various scholars who interpreted it should be clarified. CIS states that van Dyck's copy of the lid inscription was first published by the Albany Institute (Albany Institute (1855). Transactions of the Albany Institute. Webster and Skinners.) and shortly after on 15 April 1855 in the United States magazine of science, art, manufactures, agriculture, commerce and trade (currently in the bibliography only for the republication of Van Dyck's original letter, which I don't think initially included a copy).
Van Dyck did not mention or copy the other two inscriptions (trough and two-letter), which is probably one of the reasons why they receive so much less notice. It would be good to identify which scholar first described these.

I don't know how much added value finding out who first described them would bring to the article. Turner sure does mention them in his 1860 work. If you believe this necessary I will have another round of review. el.ziade (talkallam) 00:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elie, the reference to Turner 1860 is helpful - he states "In addition to and above all these materials for our study of this interesting monument is the rubbing, furnished by the Duc de Luynes to the Smithsonian Institution, of the inscription on the breast, and also of that around the head of the sarcophagus, of which latter no fac-simile or engraving has yet appeared". So it was simply not published in the initial spate of publications. I think it would be good to find out if the CIS publication, thirty years later, was the first – it would highlight the point that the lid inscription was the focus of almost all the research. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not specific to this article, but it would be ideal to deal with the redlinks by creating short articles for each of the three relevant protagonists in the early story: Alphonse Durighello, Aimé Péretié and Habib Abela Done Onceinawhile (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eugène-Melchior de Vogüé wrote an 1880 article on the details of the tomb, which a couple of additional diagrams which might be included: [1], replicated in CIS at [2]. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current images are more than enough. Vogue's description is too complicated for me to translate. I fear the attempt would do more harm than good. el.ziade (talkallam) 00:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile Thanks buddy, I will get to these shortly el.ziade (talkallam) 12:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, Unlimitedlead Can you provide any additional feedback? Do you believe it is ready for a nomination for Featured Article (FA)? el.ziade (talkallam) 11:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing PR as this has been nominated for an FAC. Z1720 (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]