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 SandyGeorgia 10:58, 18 August 2010 [1].

Acra (fortress)[edit]

Acra (fortress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): • Astynax talk 05:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC), Poliocretes[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because editor Poliocretes and I have improved the article following its GA review and a subsequent peer review and copyedit. We feel that it does a good job of summarizing the current published material on this archaeological feature and hope that it is of sufficient quality to be accepted as a FA or moved further toward that goal. • Astynax talk 05:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to add Poliocretes as co-nom? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've manually added Poliocretes as co-nominator, as I know s/he also wants to move the article forward. I didn't notice where to do that when I nominated last night. Thanks. • Astynax talk 16:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the ((subscription)) template to the Feldman reference which includes a link. This is also available in printed form from some libraries. • Astynax talk 16:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. I've gone over the references and made changes per your comments. The book and line number shown in ref 45 is correct, though the linked Tuft's Perseus system does not accept/display every line number. I changed that in the footnote, but left the actual line number next to the quotation. • Astynax talk 01:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Chaosdruid - I ran it through the dash script and fixed a few of them :¬)

Reply: Thank you. Following are changes I've made and comments:
  • Links
  1. Redlinks: These show for well-known academics who are notable in English publications, some of whom have articles on other Wikipedias, and for whom English articles can reasonably be expected to be forthcoming. Some are glaring omissions. I didn't see this listed as a FA criterion, but they can easily be removed if necessary.
  2. Repeated links: I've fixed the repeated links.
  3. Redirects: I've changed these to direct links.
  • Refs: I've reordered those so that the refs appear in numerical order
  • Commas: This may mostly be style, as you suggest. I use commas to separate items in lists, between multiple adjectives, before a quotation which is the object of a non-quoted verb, to delimit parenthetic and introductory phrases, to separate a dependent clause from a preceding independent clause, to separate independent clauses joined by a conjunction(s), and before/after an inserted nominative. None of those uses raise MOS issues.
  1. "advancement, and this led" —The comma is used to separate independent clauses joined by a conjunction
  2. "Though the city had fallen, the Acra and its inhabitants still held out, and they appealed to the Seleucid emperor for assistance when Maccabaeus began a siege of the fortress." —The first comma is used to separate an introductory phrase, and the second comma separates two independent clauses joined by a conjunction. You are correct that the sentence is awkward, perhaps because of too many phrases, and I have edited it.
  3. "Spared from capitulation, the Acra persisted as a Seleucid stronghold for 20 more years, weathering several Hasmonean attempts to oust the Greek garrison." —In this case, "weathering..." is parenthetic, describing how the stronghold persisted. But I've changed it slightly and replaced the comma with the phrase "during which" which describes the preceding "more than 20 years".
  • Date ranges:
  1. "in 323 BCE, Judea was" —"Following Alexander the Great's death in 323 BCE, Judea was contested..." seems to be a correct usage. The comma restricts 323 BCE to defining the year Alexander died and keeps it from being confused as a date for "Judea" being contested. This isn't defining a range of dates, but rather is a marker for the beginning of a period.
  2. "had in 170 and 169 BCE twice" —This refers to 2 separate events and not a range. I have moved the two dates into a parenthetic phrase to make that clearer.
• Astynax talk 20:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although traditionally accepted as having been simply a citadel, this has been challenged in recent years. - looks funny as "challenged" - I think "questioned" might be a better verb - or this view has been challenged.. Yes, I like your suggestion.
The Greek term "Akra" - foreign word in italics not quotes (?) I'd also link the "Greek" to Ancient Greek, which is what it is, not Greek language which covers modern - a different kettle of fish.
barracks-like rooms and a huge cistern - I'd link "cistern" - I keep thinking of toilets.... and shouldn't it be "barrack-like"?
The Seleucid supression of Jewish religious life... - I'd wondering whether "oppression" is a better verb here, as it is more of a conscious act (?) point conceded
This has been identified as the "be'er haqar" or "bor heqer" - italics not quotes?

Otherwise looking pretty good...Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Following are replies to the points which you've made:
  • I think "questioned" is a bit too polite, but your point is well-taken. I've used "this view has been called into question".
  • I've italicized Akra and inserted [[ancient Greek]] in the lead as suggested.
  • Barracks is used both in singular and plural form to denote a single structure, but I've changed it to singular as I agree it looks better when hyphenated. Cistern has now been wikilinked as suggested.
  • I think "supression" is a better, more coldly legalistic term. From the Selucid perspective, it did not begin as a move to oppress anyone, but rather to integrate the various cultures within their empire under the hellenist umbrella. Only later when when this encountered resistance, did it become oppressive and worse.
  • I've italicized "be'er haqar" and "bor heqer".
Thank you for your edits and comments. • Astynax talk 17:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the author is William Sanday (d. 1920). However, I believe you meant to indicate that he was "assisted by" Paul Waterhouse, M.A., F.R.I.B.A. (d. 19 December 1924), which is also certainly correct, rather than Peter Waterhouse. Thank you for going over the images. The permissions for the image were adjusted using the templates you suggested. • Astynax talk 03:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I fubar'ed transcribing the intended Waterhouse here. It is unclear which of two is the actual creator of the image; it is presumably Waterhouse, since he was the architect. I also support the article's promotion -- I found it interesting, informative, and fairy comprehensive. Magic♪piano 22:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. Doesn't MoS insist on numerals for centuries? I might be wrong, though.
  2. "It was destroyed during this struggle by Simon Maccabeus."—Maccabeus was the struggler or the destroyer?
  3. Is this a dangling participle? "Although traditionally accepted as having been simply a citadel, this view has been called into question in recent years." And the last three words come under "chronological vagueness" at MoS, I think.
  4. Personally, I find a red link glowing out of a lead unfortunate. You couldn't start a stub with a few sentences and a reference, could you?
  5. Major Gripe: in order to.
  6. The referent for "itself" is unclear. Oh, I suppose it's OK, but that last sentence is long and complex (so many alternative terms); and then we're hit with "later" quarter ... hard for non-experts. And it's kind of longish, that sentence; I'd split it after "Baris".

That's just the lead. I see other little things at random below (three-year rule, "however" hanging at the end of a sentence, "it demanded" where "it" could mean a few things). But the feeling I get is that you two nominators are worth investing in as future FA writers—the writing has the makings of something excellent, if you could knuckle down in certain ways. Two big issues are poor relationships between clauses, and fuzzy back-references; neither is made easier by a tendency to write rather long sentences. Right now, I'd recommend bringing in someone new to run through it, using their strategic distance from the text. Consider sifting through edit histories/summaries of similar topics that are already FAs. Tony (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thank you. Following are changes I've made and comments:
  1. I've changed centuries to use numerals.
  2. Simon Maccabeus was both the struggler and the destroyer. As you found it ambiguous, I've changed the sentence.
  3. The sentence beginning with "Although traditionally accepted" has been rewritten to be less awkward.
  4. I was unable to find English-language references giving enough information for much of a stub for the redlinked archaeologist. Perhaps Poliocretes has access to something which could be a bit more than a list of his publications. In the meantime, the redlink is removed (a redlink for him occurs on down in the article).
  5. The words "in order" have been removed.
  6. I've made an attempt to simplify the long sentence at the end of the lead.
  7. The 3 specific items in the body which you mentioned have been addressed.
Right now I'm a bit rushed, but will look over your comments later when I have a bit more time. • Astynax talk 18:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked another editor to go over the article, though I am unsure whether s/he will have the time to do so. Unfortunately, the issues you are detecting were not brought up during the previous PR and GAR processes. I've made a few minor edits in an attempt to address the points you have made, but as you suggested, I may be too close to the writing. • Astynax talk 16:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query Nice read, thanks for doing this. I've made a few small tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki. I would have hoped for a little more information about Seleucid fortification styles of that era. I don't know much about the Seleucids, so it would have been interesting to see some more detail there as context. As it is I don't know whether their designs had diverged from other parts of the Hellenistic world, and how diverse are the surviving Seleucid fortresses in size, layout or design. Of course it is possible that no historian has yet looked into this, but if someone has it would be worth a paragraph in the article. ϢereSpielChequers 17:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: There have been several excavations which have uncovered fortifications from the Seleucid era (including Dura Europos, Nippur, Hippo/Susita, Icaros, Lagash, Jebel Khalid, Bactra). There were even fortresses constructed around Jerusalem, such as that at Nikopolis (Emmaus), which may have helped protect supply lines to the Acra. I agree that it would be interesting to have some mention of characteristics, comparisons or innovations of Seleucid fortress design. But I don't recall coming across any overview that I could use as a source. I will look again at the materials I have. Perhaps Poliocretes may recall something which could be used to add information along those lines. • Astynax talk 07:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources should not be a problem, but is this really the place? The Seleucids are indeed fascinating and I would personaly love to see a Seleucid Fortifications article, but there's very little we could write on the Acra page which could be linked directly to this specific fortification. We hardly know what this citadel looked like, there's bound to be a lot of conjecture in there. I will add another sentence or two to the last section about construction methods, though. There's a nice tie-in with a certain passage in one of the Maccabees books. Poliocretes (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After you consult your sources it may be that Seleucid fortifications were so diverse that all we can say about this specific fort is that "Seleucid fortification styles are very diverse and we don't know what this fort may have looked like" or perhaps we will find sources that would support something along the lines of all surviving Seleucid fortifications from this era had the following common features, and as a result xxx has speculated that the the Acra would probably have looked somewhat like ***** or *****. But I would hope that a Seleucid fortress would have some coverage from the perspective of specialists on Seleucid history and technology. I suppose I was thinking in terms of Maiden_Castle,_Dorset#First_hill_fort when I raised this, though I'm not really expecting more than a sentence or two. Seleucid Fortifications would as you say be a separate article. ϢereSpielChequers 14:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I have only seen a few English-language articles from Tuvia Sagiv regarding the Temple Mount platform itself, and they did not refer to the Acra. • Astynax talk 07:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sagiv's theories don't receive much support. His relocation of the Antonia and Temple aren't widely cited. When they are, it is usually disparagingly. And as Astynax says, he says nothing direct about the Acra. Poliocretes (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I have been asked to copyedit, which I will do. Two questions about the introduction:

Kablammo (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:Thank you. The majority of English-language sources which I have seen do not capitalize acra where it does not refer to a specific structure or group of structures. The Seleucid Acra was the "destroyed fortification" which gave its name to the later quarter in Jerusalem. • Astynax talk 07:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I have only quickly scanned the rest of the article, which seems very good. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the points you've raised:
  • I've changed "Seleucid Jerusalem" to "Jerusalem" as you've suggested, and changed the word seam to "masonry joint" in the lead. The article describes a) what is known of the history of this structure, and b) a debate about its location which is not conclusively resolved due to no current access for further excavation.
  • I've clarified that Jason was appointed to High Priest of Israel as suggested.
  • I have specified that it was Antiochus who ousted Jason from the High Priesthood.
Thank you for the review. Perhaps Kablammo's fresh eyes will be able to better clarify than my attempts. • Astynax talk 07:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with explanation of what i've done to the lead, and a further request to fix one point of referencing:
Thanks. I've taken a hatchet to para 2 of the lead Para to try and have it make more sense. The para began "The traditional view of scholars that the Acra was simply a citadel is no longer widely accepted." But this 'traditional view' is not clearly expounded in the body text. So the sentence could just be deleted. Second sentence was OK, but the third read "This began to change in the light of new excavations which commenced in the late 1960s." Unfortunately, there was no unambiguous "This". It seemed to refer to the "traditional view" in the first sentence, and not relate to the second sentence, but I am recommending in any case that the first sentence simply be deleted. Either way, the current formulation of the third sentence didn't work. As I know nothing of the acra, I may have introduced errors - feel free to fix. On another matter, there is no citation for the argument in the final section regarding Tsafrir's proposed location (the text beginning "Yoram Tsafrir has attempted to place the Acra...") hamiltonstone (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I agree that your edit reads better. Although the statement regarding Tsafrir is supported by the reference later in the paragraph, I have added an English-language reference which refers to the same theory. • Astynax talk 02:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see - your revision has the potential to be a little confusing, as the reference you cite actually predates the only Tasafrir reference in the bibliography. It would seem strange for someone to report another's results before the other had actually published them. In general, where an article says something as direct as "Yoram Tsafrir has attempted to place...", the citation really should be to a publication by Tsafrir. Otherwise, take the name out and refer to the scholars whose works are cited, or put it in the passive voice. Is there a reason the work in Tsafrir puts forward this theory is not cited? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Footnote 39 refers to an article by Tsafrir in which he restates his argument for this location. Discussion of this theory began earlier, and this was not the first place he had published it—I've found a reference to it being in his 1975 article "The Location of the Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem" in Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City, 1968-1974. (pp. 85–86.), but do not have access to that reference. As I said, Mazar, who directed the dig in the area from 1968-1974, noted the theory (which he rejected). • Astynax talk 06:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Tsafrir's 1980 Hebrew language reference is in fact a translated and updated version of an article he had already published as Tsafrir, Y., ‘The location of the Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem’, Revue Biblique 82 (1975) 501-21.
Thanks. Maybe leave a note to that effect on the article talk page for future reference. I'm happy with the referencing as it is now arranged. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Hamiltonstone only went through the lead, but Tony was concerned about the entire article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a skim of the rest, which generally did not present issues as much as did the lead. I do have this one though:
  • Third sentence of the background: "The Jewish population of Jerusalem had aided Antiochus during his siege of the Baris." The what? A Baris has been mentioned in the lead, but the reader has absolutely no idea what this is, or indeed where it is. Only much later in the article does it become clear that it was in Jerusalem, and indeed might be the same site / thing as the Acra itself. The sentence should at least say something like "The Jewish population of Jerusalem had aided Antiochus during his siege of the Ptolemaic ruler's fortress in Jerusalem, the Baris."
gotta go for now. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The sentence goes on past where you ended the quotation. The full sentence is, "The Jewish population of Jerusalem had aided Antiochus during his siege of the Baris, the fortified base of Jerusalem's Egyptian garrison." So it explains that it was in Jerusalem and its function, although not the exact location—for which there is even less archaeological confirmation than the Akra. • Astynax talk 04:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did I do that? My very bad. Anyway, to Sandy - i've read through the whole article. The language is in places slightly idiosyncratic, but i found that to be engaging, and the article does appear to be precise and interesting. I remain a support.


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