Odaenathus king of Palmyra is a much celebrated figure in Roman history, credited with saving the Empire from the Persian monarch Shapur I. Sadly, we do not know how he looked like, but we do have portraits that are more likely to represent him than others. Some of those sculptures are lost, and we only have photos of them. This article traces every single possible depiction of the king, and clarify what portraits do not represent him despite being promoted as such more than the ones that might be actual depictions. The article is definitely for lovers of obscure artifacts and antiquities, and was copy-edited by a member of the copy-edit guild to guarantee its reading quality. This is the second attempt after the first one few months ago failed to attract more than one reviewer.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"besieged him in his capital Ctesiphon in 263". If you mention the siege, you should say what the result was.
The account of Odaenathus's life in the first paragraph is brief and unsatisfactory. I suggest that it would be better to provide a summary of the lead to Odaenathus for the portrait article.
"which is fitting of Shapur's description in the thirteenth Sibylline Oracle" This is ungrammatical. Maybe "which fits Shapur's description in the thirteenth Sibylline Oracle".
Thanks for your comments Dudley. The portrait is an issue as most portraits do not represent Odaenathus but are popularly held to be representations of him, which was the reason I wrote this article to clarify the matter. Therefore, the portraits that most likely represent Odaenathus are of bad quality because they are mostly clay Palmyrene tesserae (though tessera is a piece of mosaic, academics use the designation Palmyrene tessera to indicate a clay engraved token that allowed entry to temple feasts and important celebrations and occasions). The lead image is the best I found, unless Im gonna use the mosaic photo, which is tentatively identified as depicting Odaenathus but the figure in it has no royal attributes nor a name is mentioned nor a royal title. Actually, the most likely portrait of Odaenathus is available here, but I cant use it due to Wikipedia's rule of no "NonCommercial" photos (which is counterproductive tbh). I have dealt with your other comments, and expanded the overview section to be a short summary of his life.
"presided over Palmyra's apogee". This is unreferenced and controversial. Most historians would say that the apogee was under Zenobia.
changed
"Mosaic panels found in Palmyra might have a depiction of Odaenathus" I am not clear what the purpose is of this sentence. They might have a depiction of anyone.
re-worded
"Odaenathus belonged to an important Palmyrene family and became the ruler "ras" of Palmyra in the 240s." This is vague. What does "ras" mean? Was he appointed "ras" by the Roman emperor?
clarified
"After a successful campaign in 263, where Odaenathus besieged the Persian capital Ctesiphon,[5] and resulted in the eviction of the Persians out of the Roman provinces they conquered,[6] he assumed the title of King of Kings in 263 and declared his son Herodianus co-ruler." This is ungrammatical and clumsy. Maybe "In 263 Odaenathus besieged the Persian capital Ctesiphon[5] and evicted the Persians out of the Roman provinces they conquered.[6] In the same year he assumed the title of King of Kings and declared his son Herodianus co-ruler."
done
The more I read of this article the more doubtful I am that Wikipedia is the right place for it. It is too technical for a general readership, and it is very unlikely that specialists will come across it. Have you tried submitting it to a scholarly journal? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While not the easiest read, it is still a very descriptive article that does not satisfy the criteria of scholarly journals. I did not introduce any new insights, just provided what scholars had to say. Technical articles still belong to Wikipedia, but we need to make them easy to understand as much as possible without jeopardizing the quality and knowledge value of them, which is something I hope I managed to do.
"photos of it survive". I think you should say "photographs".
Done
"Alexander the Great of Macedon". I do not think you need "of Macedon".
Done
"This tessera is at the museum in Damascus". Should be "This tessera is in National Museum of Damascus. Similarly the next two tesserae should be described as "in Damascus Museum".
Done
"on macroscopic observations". What does this mean?
I added a wikilink. The guy counted on his eyesight to determine its marble
At the start of the article "the king of Palmyra from 260 to 267". This should be 260 to 267 CE (or AD). Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Support. Looks fine now. You might try submitting the article to the WikiJournal of Humanities at [2]. This accepts submission of Wikipedia articles and publishes them after peer review by experts. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks alot for your support, and for the suggestion.
So now that image we found on Flickr has finally come to good use! I'll review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey FunkMonk! Yes, that photo opened the door for this article, was a very nice find
Link names of places and people in captions?
Mention museums in all captions for artifacts?
There are some duplinks.
Done- Gallienus is linked in the overview section, and in the "In the Damascus and Palmyra museums" section, there is another link to that page when I mention the Gallienic model. I dont think many readers will understand what its meant with the Gallienic model if I dont link it to Gallienus because we have no page on the Gallienic style of portraits
Link Palmyrene kingdom, Vaballathus, Herodianus, Hairan, and Heracles too in captions? FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
"Odaenathus belonged to an important Palmyrene family and was elected as "ras" (lord) of Palmyra by the city's council in the 240s." Quite a few names and term here that are not linked at first mention in the article body. I wonder if ras should link to anyone, would Rais be misleading?
As far as I read, no scholar compared it with the Arabic rais. It is translated as lord, and for me this indicates some kind of monarchical power (specially that Odaenathus was gifted a throne when he was ras by a city notable. Today in Arabic you can use rais to indicate a captain of a ship, so Im not sure its wise to link ras to rais
"As a Roman city on the borders with Persia, Palmyra was affected by the constant war between the two empires,[3] which culminated in 260 with the defeat and capture of the Roman emperor Valerian by the Persian Sasanian emperor Shapur I" Here Roman is only linked at second mention, and could Shapur I be linked?
Done
"assumed the title of King of Kings" King of Kings also has an article, wonder if it is relevant.
linked
"Germanic raiders" Link?
Done
"A few small clay tesserae" Link term?
We have no article for Palmyrene tesserae which are banquets tokens (invitation cards) and not the same as a mosaic tessera
It seems most of the intro is a repeat of the overview section, more so than a summary about the subject itself, which are the portraits? I wonder if it could be more balanced?
Intro expanded and re-written
"Depicting a "strong, severe personality"" According to who? Such direct quotes should probably get in text attribution.
Deleted
"and the Istanbul specimen is 40 centimetres" Isn't specimen more properly used for biological examples?
changed
"Ingholt concluded that the heads should be dated to 250, and represent Odaenathus I" Represented?
Done
Any info on where and when the Copenhagen and Istanbul heads were found?
Sadly no. Ingholt does not know, and it is probably that this will never be known as they were excavated before the age of academic archaeology when documenting the provenance of finds was not of importance
"Three head sculptures were excavated from a hexagonal tomb in Palmyra's northern necropolis by its head of antiquities, Khaled al-As'ad" Dates?
Done
Having read a few of the first examples, it is unclear to me when and by who each was claimed to depict Odaenathus, maybe it could be stated clearer for each of them?
Here is a problem as I start with explaining about the piece and how it was found before mentioing which shcolars identified it with Odaenathus. It is clear however in each section, though normally at the end of it
It is also a bit difficult to figure out where to look for when these claims were doubted, and where one overall section begins and ends. Maybe this would become clearer if you could make more top level sections so that for example limestone portraits are broken more clearly away from Marble portraits with a line, so that the conclusion section is more easily seen as belonging within the former section? Then also the Tesserae portraits could begin after a line as their own section, etc.? In that regard, the "Portraits" top level section is perhaps redundant, since the article is already called Portraits of Odaenathus?
Done
"drawing on exclusively on macroscopic" First on is unnecessary.
Done
"found a material indicating the presence" Not sure if the a is necessary.
Deleted
"Mosaic of the tiger hunt" You put this title in italics and with capitals in the article body, shouldn't it be in the caption too?
Done
"the tigers are Panthera tigris virgata and were once common in the region" maybe ", which were once common"?
Done
Yu link Hellenistic at the last instead of first mention.
fixed
"he most likely portraits are two marble heads depicting a man in a royal diadem, and an eastern royal tiara, in addition to Palmyrene tesserae of a bearded king wearing a diadem." I think this could maybe also be made clearer in their individual sections?
re-worded
Support - nice to see an article from you strictly about art also! I think the new section layout makes the article much easier to navigate. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All images appear to be free and correctly licensed. However, I am seeing sandwiching in the "In the Damascus and Palmyra museums" (see MOS:IMAGELOC). buidhe 03:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the Damascus and Palmyra museums is a short section and thats the problem as its photos will push into the next one. If I dont sandwich, the photos of the Limestone sculptures section will push to the marble section, and so I believe that this single case of sandwiching is justified.
I fixed the sandwiching myself, as long as the issue does not reoccur, the image review can be considered passed. (t · c) buidhe 21:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a source review and I'm going to add this to the urgents list for another comprehensive review. Also @Buidhe: over the image concerns, are you satisfied? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed a surprising number of faulty hyphens to WP:ENDASHes ... there may be more. External images belong in external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the hyphens. As for the external images, I disagree. They do not belong in external links, they are not an extra thing a reader can look at, but essential for the article. If they belong in the external links, then why does the Template:External media exist?. Those images are very important for understanding what the article is talking about as I describe the features of each portrait which will require the reader to open the link and see the image. Putting these images in the external links will reduce the possibility that a reader will see them or understand fully what is being explained in the text
Oppose, external links do not belong in articles. WP:LAYOUT, sections which contain material outside Wikipedia (including "Further reading" and "External links") should come after sections that contain Wikipedia material. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict after you signed post) Could you please sign your posts? Otherwise, when the Coords read through the FAC, it is difficult to know who said what. Thanks for the explanation on the external images, as I see you discuss each case in text and are subject to the exemption accordingly. There has been a serious problem in medical content with the use of external media in articles in inappropriate ways, and my concern was that we not set up a precedent. I have struck my oppose for this instance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy. I normally do not sign because I use the colour Green for my comments. I shall be more careful next time.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no prob :) So now that you understand my concern about precedents, let's look at each image separately.
Why is the image of B2727/9127 needed? It isn't specifically discussed in text, and it's not clear (to me) that it differs significantly from the Wikipedia Commons image of B2726.
I mention that there was 3 identical heads found. Providing and image of B2727/9127 will help the readers to compare and see the similarities--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the image is not discussed and the template is ruining the layot as it is pushing the template of the Benaki portrait down, I moved this to external links.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the Benaki Museum portrait is the 36361 mentioned in text? Can that info be added to the external image?
Why do we need five external images from the l'Institut Français d'Archéologie du Proche-Orient ?
The website does not gather the five images of the portrait (which is lost, and only these photos of it exist) in one place. The readers, if they open image 1 from the external media, will see a frontal photo, but will not easily find the remaining photos, which are important since the features of the portrait from all angles are explained in the section. For example, on top of the portrait there is a hole that was used to attach a crown (a tiara probably) to the turban, and for that you need to check photo 5.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, that he ruled with imperial consent
All information are cited. For example, the imperial consent part: "Odaenathus was made the effective ruler of the Roman East by Gallienus, the son and successor of Valerian, who appointed Odaenathus a Corrector totius orientis (righter of the entire East)"
How are you ordering multiple works by the same author?
Chronologically- No idea why I have so many mistakes now. Fixed
Butcher 1996: why not cite this to the book itself, rather than a book review?
Its Butcher's commentary that is cited and not the book he is reviewing
de Blois: can you verify that the given series name is correct?
Fortin: is the given publisher for the original or the translation?
The translation, as it is the work cited
Double-check that all non-English publications include language
Done. The article Varia Tadmorea (1976) by Ingholt is in English despite the French title of the whole work
Kollwitz includes a location but most other sources don't
Fixed
What makes Michałowski a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kazimierz Michałowski is a reputed scholar and head of the Polish excavation team in Palmyra (was). The work cited is the archaeological report of that year. Any academic work about Palmyra have to use what Michałowski wrote
Starting to read through. Looks good at first glance. I did a hyphen run but they seem to have been fixed. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A stronger image at the top would be good.
Thanks for your comments Johnbod. Sadly, most portraits which we have a good image for here on Wikipedia do not represent Odaenathus but are popularly held to be representations of him, which the article clarify. The photos of portraits that most likely represent Odaenathus are of bad quality because they are mostly clay Palmyrene tesserae. The lead image is the best I found, unless Im gonna use the mosaic photo, which is tentatively identified as depicting Odaenathus but the figure in it has no royal attributes nor a name is mentioned nor a royal title. Actually, the most likely portrait of Odaenathus is available here, but I cant use it due to Wikipedia's rule of no "NonCommercial" photos.
The "Overview" is rather repetitious of the lead.
At first the lead was much shorter, but I had to expand during the review. This led to the overview section being similar to the first paragraph of the lead, but it is much more detailed
Pretty unclear: "The theory about Odaenathus I's existence was abandoned in 1985, when an inscription was published by the archaeologist Michael Gawlikowski which demonstrated that Odaenathus I was identical to King Odaenathus.[32]
Clarified
The archaeologist Klaus Parlasca rejected Ingholt's hypothesis, and considered the two heads fragments of a funeral kline (sarcophagus lid)."
- Which bits of "Ingholt's hypothesis" - the dating or the subject?
the function- I calrified it
Read down to the marbles. More later. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want to add anything else, Johnbod? We really need to wrap this on up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes. You seem to have enough supports, and I was heading that way, so please don't wait for me, Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.
Thanks for taking the time Mike
Several limestone head portraits from Palmyra were identified by several twentieth-century scholars as depicting Odaenathus, based on several criteria, such as the size of the portrait and the presence of a wreath. The latter element, however, was not special in Palmyrene portraits, as priests were also depicted with wreaths. Further research on the limestone portraits indicates that these pieces were funerary objects depicting private citizens. This is from the lead. I think it could be improved as a summary of the "Limestone sculptures" section of the article: it only summarizes the first two sections.
Im sorry but I could not figure out how to improve it as I tried to make it comprehensively covering the limestone section in total so I did not mention individual pieces. Can you maybe give me some clues on how it can be improved?
It says "these pieces were funerary objects", but that has not been asserted for 36361 or C1519, has it? That's the only point that bothered me. In fact, now I look again, you never say C1519 was considered by anyone to be a portrait of Odaenathus -- am I missing where you say it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, C1519 is the Damascus portrait, so Kollwitz proposed its Odaenathus. It is the Palmyra piece (Inv. B 2186-CD 134,62) that was not identified by anyone, but Equini Schneider consider both portraits the result of the same workshop and modelled on the Gallinic model. I guess I can move the info about B 2186-CD 134,62 to a note? As for 36361, my answer is below
If Schneider thought that C1519 and B 2186-CD 134,62 were both products of the same workshop, did they also express an opinion as to whether they were individual portraits or just both taken from the same model? C1519 obviously has to be included, but I want to understand a little better how the sources get us to B 2186-CD 134,62 being considered a possible portrait of Odaenathus. I can see that if B 2186-CD 134,62 is considered to be of the same person that C1519 depicts, then Parlasca's opinion can be applied to both heads, but I don't yet see where B 2186-CD 134,62 gets into the picture. If Schneider thinks they just from the same standard model, why would we conclude they are the same person? And if we can use Schneider's opinion in this way, I'd mention it in the body of the article, not just in a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Schneider spoke of how similar C1519 and B 2186 are, and how they were apparently made by the same workshop based on the same artistic model. She did not conclude that they represent the same person. Maybe I should have left B 2186 out. The thing to do now is deciding whether to delete the sentences about B 2186 or put them in a note to clarify that C1519 have a sibling (kind of)
Based on what you've told me the sources say, I think B 2186 should be left out, though you could put in a note from C1519 saying that B 2186 is a similar head, thought by Schneider to be from the same workshop. Without an explicit opinion either that it is a portrait of Odaenathus or that it and C1519 are the same person, I think including it as a candidate portrait is a step too far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Moved to a note and the section adjusted to be about the Damascus portrait
A separate point about this paragraph: you present the refutation of the arguments that these portraits were of Odaenathus as definitive, but I know that academic arguments are not easily killed. Are the refutations cited considered by scholars to be definitive? Or are they merely the most recent published arguments? E.g. Kollwitz and Parlasca disagree on one of the sculpted heads; are we sure Parlasca's opinion is accepted? If not, I think we should be less definite in the language -- e.g. "More recent research" and "these pieces were probably..." and so on. And there's no counter-argument given for the image in the Benaki museum.
Re-worded. No other scholar I know about touched on Vlizos' hypothesis regarding the Benaki's portrait. However, since Vlizos himself referred to the Copenhagen portrait and concluded that it is very similar to the Benaki one, then the criticism of the Copenhagen piece goes for the Benaki one
OK on the rewording. So the argument against the Benaki portrait is that Vlizos, who suggests it's a portrait of Odaenathus or someone in his family, mentions the resemblance to the Copenhagen portrait, but that portrait is thought by scholars to be funerary and not of Odaenathus, hence nor is the Benaki portrait? I can see this is a plausible argument but I think we can't put this in the article without a source; it would be synthesis. But that leaves the Benaki portrait without an explicit refutation. Could we get around this by pointing out that Vlizos made the case for the Benaki portrait at a time when the Copenhagen portrait was still thought to be of Odaenathus (assuming that's the case, as it seems it must be)? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think we have a synthesis for the Benaki piece. Vlizos made his argument in 2001 based solely on the similarity with the Copenhagen piece which was attributed to Odaenathus family by Ingholt in 1976. Parlasca already made the argument for a funerary function in 1985. Since then, Balty, Equini Schneider (1992), and Gawlikowski disagreed with identifying these limestone portraits with Odaenathus, and these are the "big names", i.e. experts in Palmyrene sculptures. So when Vlizos made his arguments, the doubts about the Copenhagen portrait were already there. Gawlikowski, knowing that many such oversized limestone heads with thick necks are around, wrote that they, including these at Istanbul and Copenhagen, were connected to funeral practices such as sarcophagus lids. Therefore, while no direct refutation was aimed at the Benaki portrait, it was subsumed under the category of sarcophagus lids' heads by Gawlikowski. I cant see a synthesis here because the Benaki portrait is not mentioned in the conclusion section, but the general judgement of Gawlikowski regarding this type of portraits is. So whether there is, or there isnt, a direct refutation of the Benaki portrait is irrelevant, because Gawlikowski made a general judgement based on certain features, applying to any portrait that bear those features, which is what is mentioned in the conclusion section
OK, that seems reasonable, but is the Benaki head thought to be part of a sarcophagus lid then? I don't see any reference to the characteristics Gawlikowski mentions, such as a thick neck. I agree if we make that connection we have enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence about the neck and the back of the portrait. You can see a photo of the neckhere, page 212
I'd retitle the "Overview" section "Background" -- it's not an overview of the article; it's background information for understanding the article.
Done
I think it's best to avoid "noted" or "noting" when giving archaeologists' opinions; to note something implies that it is unquestionably true, not an opinion. The article uses "note" in several places; some are clearly factual, but a few seem to be opinions:
Müller, noting the Copenhagen head's moving posture...
Frederik Poulsen noted that the wreath on the Copenhagen head is reminiscent of...
Gawlikowski suggested that the heads depicted three men from the same family, and noted that their excavation from a tomb, and their remarkable resemblance to the portraits in Copenhagen and Istanbul, confirm that the latter two were also funerary, and not honorary, objects
The authors of the RTP noted a beard -- the next sentence says Gawlikowski disputed that there was a beard, so this is definitely an opinion
Gawlikowski considered it likely that the portrait depicts Odaenathus, noting that the lack of a tiara (which made Balty hesitatant in his identification as Odaenathus) is offset by the royal diadem
Gawlikowski disagreed, noting that the face is youthful
Done for all above
The sculpture has a minimum of individuality with the lack of articulation in the modelling of the face, the expressive vacuity of the eyes, and the rigid, stylized treatment of the facial hair. What follows "with" uses "the" for the three characteristics listed, which sounds wrong because these characteristics have not been previously mentioned. Suggest "The sculpture has a minimum of individuality: the modelling of the face lacks articulation, the eyes are expressionless, and the facial hair is rigid and stylized".
Done
Both portraits are influenced by a standard artistic model, which (given the massive, square skull) may have been the Gallienic model for the Damascus portrait; the model was modified to incorporate features typical of Palmyrene portraiture I don't understand this. Why does a massive square skull imply that Gallienus was the model? And it took me a minute to work out what was meant by "Gallienic model"; it might be better to rephrase to say "Gallienus" specifically.
Gallienus always appeared with a massive square skull (and there was no unified model for Roman royal portraits as was the case in, for example, Egypt, so a single emperor can create a new model), so maybe Gallienus was the model for the Palmyrene piece- I rephrased the sentence
I think I follow you, but I think it could be a little clearer. How about "Both portraits are influenced by a standard artistic model. The massive square skull is similar to the model used for Emperor Gallienus' portraits, so Gallienus' model may have been modified to incorporate features typical of Palmyrene portraiture." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
re-worded
The layout of the images on the right edge is quite confusing. B2726/9163 is positioned in the "In the Damascus and Palmyra museums" section, so it was a while till I noticed that it's actually from the hexagonal tomb. I amended the caption to make that unambiguous, but you could also move the "External image" templates to the left of each paragraph, which would make it easier to keep the images with the sections they relate to.
Im also unhappy with this, and it wasnt the case, but the photos had to be moved to the right during this FAC because sometimes Wikipedia is a backward bureaucracy that follows rules (in this case: no sandwiching of text between images) literally, on the account of good delivery of information and its clarity. Thats why I cant place the templates on the left
A pity there's no better layout, but striking since this does seem to be the best we can do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume no pictures of C1519 or B 459/1662 are available? Or of the Panel of Bellerophon?
The Panel of Bellerophon exist online, but the link will not take you to the required page and you need to scroll down.Here is the Bellerophon- page 1298. As for C1519 and B 459/1662, I have scans of them from academic books, but I cant upload them because of copyrights. They are not available online
Acquired by the Xydi family in 1989, it was moved to the museum a decade later. The head was acquired commercially and no information about its exact excavation location in Syria is known: unless the Xydi family is notable in some way, I'd suggest "The head was acquired commercially in 1989, and no information about its exact excavation location in Syria is known; it was moved to the museum a decade later."
Changed
How was the tiara portrait lost? I think this article should give the fate of the piece if it can be sourced.
No one knows. Despite the excavations in the 1940s, the results were published only in 2005. I think the confusion of WW2 is to blame. For now, we only have those photos, but the piece might show up one day, no one knows
Struck, since it's accurate as it stands, but if any details are known (e.g. when it was realized that it was lost) that would be worth putting in a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
another headdress piece that slipped under the turban's rim: I don't know what "slipped under the turban's rim" means.
The rim surrounded the tiara and constituted an elevated border of it.This photomight help imagining how it would have looked (it depicts the portrait from above where the rim of the turban can be seen elevated from the surface of the head where the tiara originally rested
I think "another headdress piece that would have been framed by the turban's elevated rim" would be clearer, if I understand what you're saying. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
changed
The major reference for Palmyrene tesserae is the Recueil des Tessères de Palmyre (RTP): the source you give for this is fine, but I'd suggest also citing the RTP itself at this point, since a curious reader may want to look for that source.
Did you miss this one? Just a suggestion but I think it would help the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Missed it yes. I added a citation
similar in style to the portrait of Herodianus on the lead token: is Herodianus' token in the RTP? If so I'd give the RTP number here.
It is not considered a tessera and is not included in the RTP
Suggest saying "Caspian tiger", which seems to be an uncontroversial name, rather than Panthera tigris virgata; in addition to being easier for a reader to understand, it appears that the separation of the species is debatable so the scientific name may not last.
Done
Is there a transcription for the full inscription on the Tiger Hunt mosaic?
dydṭs ' bd // psps d'hw // wbnwhy MR- Transation: Diodotos made this floor, him and his sons MR.Source page 1300
Several of the citations appear to be to chapters in books, but don't have page numbers for the chapters. I don't think it's compulsory but it's certainly a convenience for the reader, so you might consider adding them. The ones I see are:
Most of the above are fairly minor points and I think can be easily addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:35, 25 July 2020 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.