Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Qatna/archive1

Qatna

Qatna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Qatna/archive1

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an ancient city in modern Syria named Qatna which, for a period of 400 years, was in control of half of Syria. The city's palace and royal grave presented us with magnificent artifacts that shed light on the extensive human contact in 1600 BC as they included pieces made with materials imported from as far as modern Sweden.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Brief comments: I hope that I can kickstart this review and get other reviewers interested in providing more detailed comments, because it is, in my view, an important and interesting article, well worth the time. These opening, minor points relate to the lead which is the only part of the text I've read in detail:

• "By the 15th century BC, Qatna lost its hegemony and came under the authority of Mitanni, then changing hands between the former and Egypt until being conquered by the Hittites in the 14th century BC" – this reads rather clumsily and needs rewriting for grammar and clarity, probably as two sentences.
• "Following its destruction, the city was abandoned." You've said that the Hittites "conquered" it, but not that they "destroyed" it. Did they? I see references to subsequent destructions and re-occupations, which suggests numerous rebuilds, though these are not mentioned. A little clarification would help.
• "The artifacts of Qatna show high-quality workmanship, while its religion was complex and based on many cults in which ancestor worship played an important role." What follows "while" is a non-sequitur, having nothing to do with the earlier statement, so the serntence needs reconsideration.

I hope to return later – I'm certainly looking forward to reading more of this fascinating history. Brianboulton (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, I edited the lede, hope it looks good now.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the non-lead maps

• Region map should still be scaled up. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• File:Qatna's_landmarks.png: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Same with File:Third_Mari.png
• File:Qatna_chronology.jpg: why have this as an image rather than a table?
• File:Sitting_god_Qatna_Louvre_AO3992.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work. Same with File:Louvres-antiquites-moyen-orient-p1020197.jpg, File:Antakya_Arkeoloji_Muzesi_1250344_nevit.jpg, File:Sphinx_dedicated_to_Ita_daugther_of_Amenemhat_II-AO_13075-IMG_1030-white.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I will work on your comments asap. Note:File:Qatna's_landmarks.png already have a source.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, File:Qatna_chronology.jpg is more suitable. A table will take more space and increase the size of the article. About the other pictures, Is it okay now?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• Hi, I'll soon review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• At first glance "Known kings of Qatna are:" could need a citation.
• You should provide conversions for all meau~srements.
• " at least 80 rooms", "at least twenty rooms". Be consistent in whether you write numbers with letters or not.
• "5 meters" Be consistent in whether you say m or meters.
• "and remains of both sexes and different ages" I would add "people" or "bodies" somewhere in the sentence.
• "reaching 18 m tall and 60 to 90 m wide" I would say "in height" and "in width".
• "Investigations of Qatna's fortifications were not carried hindering the" Carried out?

Done. Thanks for those comments, waiting for more.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• "perhaps the center of a king of prince" Or?
• "that was used for ideological reasons as it was meant to echo Gilgamesh's deeds" Interesting, how is this known?
• "son Yasmah-Adad to lead them leadership" Seems something is wrong here.
• "but Mari sources are silent" Mariote?
• "for his relations which Mari were never hostile." Since/because/as instead of for?
• "Mari, who was at war with Eshnunna" Which was at war? "Who" would indicate a person.
• "participation of Yamhad, who was hegemonic" Which was.