Talk:Anu/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 16:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

We meet again, Kato. Hope you're not fed up with me yet.

Oh no. I am far from fed up with you; I very much appreciate your help! Thank you for reviewing this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Overview

I have assessed the article at B now. Another excellent article.

1. Prose:

* According to this Earwig scan, the section on family is too closely paraphrased. Please rewrite.

I apologize, before I came along, a substantial portion of the article was directly copied and pasted from the site in question. I removed most of the plagiarized material and rephrased the part I kept. Apparently I did not do a good enough job rephrasing it. I will remedy this problem. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe I have now changed the wording enough to avoid a close paraphrase. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Perfect.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• The article reads fluently and makes for an interesting read. You should improve it by explaining names like Sargon of Akkad and Irkalla a bit more when you introduce them for the first time.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• You should somehow make the sections on family and family tree adjacent. Ideally.

I do not know how to do that, but I could perhaps move the family tree underneath the "Family" section. I do not really like the idea of having all that open space in the middle of the article, however. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, never mind that.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

2. MOS:

• The family tree should have some sort of short description.

* The lead should only have citations for controversial statements and information not found in the body of the article.

I apologize; the first paragraph of the lead was written by an anonymous user who has been helping me and I do not think he or she was aware of our policy regarding citations in the lead. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I moved the well-cited first paragraph of the lead into the body of the article and revised the lead to make it more of a summary. I believe this issue is now resolved. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It is. Good.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

3. References layout:

• No dead links—good.

*"Halloran 2009" doesn't link to any identifiable source.

I have added the source to the bibliography. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• There are a number of books mentioned with no ISBN.

I could only find one book source that lacked an ISBN that needed one, but I have now added it. There are several web and journal sources, which obviously do not have ISBNs. James 1963 does not appear to have an ISBN, perhaps because it was published two years before ISBNs were invented. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Then try to find an OCLC number instead. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

4. Reliable sources: In general, sources are excellent.

• The family tree doesn't mention any sources. You can put these in a caption-like format.

The family tree was here before I came. I have largely ignored it until now. I will try to find sources for it, or I may just remove it. At least part of it is now actually a part of this article, but rather an external template that has been inserted, which I suspect will make it hard to add sources. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the family tree. I think it oversimplifies the issue, since Anu's family varies drastically depending on the historical era. I also think the subject of his family is adequately addressed in the main body of the article, particularly in the "Family" section. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

* Isn't it better to use a more recent version of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica?

The original version of this article before I came along was just copied straight from the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is in the public domain and has been for several decades. The sentence that is cited to it is the only place left in the article where the original wording has been preserved. I will try to find a different source and rewrite the sentence using my own words. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The newest online version of the Encyclopaedia should also have an article on the subject.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The entry for Anu on the online Encyclopedia Britannica is surprisingly short and says very little. It does not mention that Anu's name means "sky." Nonetheless, I have found several other sources stating that it means sky and I believe they will do far better than the Britannica since they are both secondary sources written by scholars. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Excellent!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

5. Original research: None found.

6. Broadness: I've found this article useful.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

7. Focus: focused.

8. Neutral: yes.

9. Stable: There are some recent content disputes, but these have not altered and are unlikely to alter the article significantly.

10-11. Pics: File:Cuneiform_sumer_dingir.svg looks like the wrong copyright tag. Ideally, File:The_Mutiliation_of_Uranus_by_Saturn.jpg should have a USA tag as well, as has been done in the topic picture File:Ea_(Babilonian)_-_EnKi_(Sumerian).jpg.

If the copyright tag is wrong, which one should it have? It looks right to me, but I am certainly no legal expert by any means. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is strictly speaking not the uploader's own work, but rather a historical symbol. I'm not sure what tag that is, but we'll look it up. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The uploader created that particular image of it, though, and, since the image is not an exact, photographic reproduction of an ancient depiction of the symbol, legally speaking, I believe that means it is the uploader's own creation. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, no copyright issues anyway.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Detailed review per section

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. * You use both BC and BCE. Pick either one.

I am not a fan of the modern dating system; it is inconvenient because it starts roughly three fifths of the way through recorded human history, rather than at the beginning. Furthermore, even though the system is supposed to start with the year Jesus was born, it is off by at least four years, since Jesus could not have been born any later than 4 BC and he was probably actually born sometime between 8 BC and 4 BC. Given the choice between AD/BC and CE/BCE, however, I prefer AD/BC, because I think it is less pretentious. My view is that, if people want a secular dating system, then they should actually create a secular dating system, instead of just taking the Christian dating system, changing the name, and saying "Now it's secular!" --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's weird.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• You're using both An and Anu as names of the subject. Why is this?

"An" is the original Sumerian form of the name. "Anu" is the later Semiticized form of it. I believe this fact is explained in the article. I have been trying to use "An" when I am talking about Sumerian myths and "Anu" when I am talking about East Semitic myths. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Still, it would read much better if you'd choose one.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC).

I went with "Anu" since that is the title of the article. I kept the name "An" for the Sumerian sections of the "Mythology" portion, though. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Mm.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Is it possible to add years or periods to mythological works and the different civilizations you mention?

Mesopotamian mythological texts are often notoriously hard to date with any measure of exactitude, but sometimes very general dates can be determined. The civilizations mentioned can definitely be dated. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Then please do. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I will work on that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe I have now addressed this issue. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Family

• Wikilink Lagash.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• use or or and instead of "/" per MOS.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Mythology

• An was believed to be the highest and outermost of these domes, ... He was the dome, or he was in the dome?

Anu is both the god of the sky and the sky itself. He therefore is the dome; he does not just reside in it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

* Anu's father Alalu should be mentioned in the family section.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Anu attempted to flee, ... This sentence is too long and should be split off, (unless you're writing for a German audience!)

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Later influence

* the caption under the first picture mentions Saturn, which isn't mentioned in the body, and Uranus is spelled differently from the body.

Saturn is the later Roman name for Cronus and Uranus is the Latinized spelling of Ouranos. The Latin names were by far the better-known names in the western world throughout the early modern period and it was not until the twentieth century that the original Greek names started to be used more commonly than the Latin ones. Since the painting was painted in around 1560 by two Italians, its title uses the Latin names --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright, but can you add (Ouranus) in brackets? And Saturn should ideally be mentioned in the body to make the connection.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I added a note to the caption stating that Uranus and Saturn are the Latin names for Ouranos and Kronos respectively. I also added more explanation of who Kronos is and his significance in the myth of Ouranos to the body. I thought I explained who he was, but apparently I did not. I also switched to the Greek spelling Kronos rather than the Latinized Cronus for the sake of consistency with Ouranos, which is the Greek spelling. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• El is king,... is a very long quote which isn't required for the narrative. Better trim, paraphrase and quote some words.

It is a great quote, though. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Mm. I'll review the policy on this, but in general, long quotes are not encouraged on Wikipedia.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I can cut it if you would really like me to, but I would prefer to keep it. I will not try to fight policy or anything, though. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but BLOCKQUOTE it, please.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

April

Will check for broadness later. Waiting for your response first.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Halloran 2009 is missing from the bibliography. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: No it is not missing; it is right there. I just added it last night. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh. I see. I apologize. The date must have been wrong. Now I have fixed it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Katolophyromai. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• In the "later influences" section it is said that in Semitic religion "El and Baal ... ruled concurrently". This reflected An and Enlil in Mesopotamian theology. An identification with El is already stated in the article, though it should be deepened in the "later influences" section. I think that the identification of Enlil with Baal (Akkadian Bel) should be clarified too (cf. Britannica's Enlil entry).--2.37.140.36 (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Good points. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand why the Template:Infobox deity in use in this article has green bands, and I don't understand how to remove the color. I think it would be better in plain black word on white background, also given that the color green is inappropriate for Anu.--188.218.122.21 (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The green bands mean that Anu is a Mesopotamian deity. The infoboxes are specifically color-coded to tell the reader which culture the deity is from. All the Mesopotamian deities have dark green bands. All the Greek deities have light green bands. All the Levantine deities have purple bands. All the Hindu deities have orange bands. That is what the colors mean. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I strongly maintain that the colors should be kept, as a useful way of maintaining the distinction between deities of different cultures and to provide consistency for articles about deities from the same culture. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

188.218.122.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), what do you say? And do you have a registered account with a name?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to remain anonymous for now. Regarding the infobox, I would personally prefer simple black on white, since forcing a color in the infoboxes of all the deities of a given culture could result in inappropriate color associations, not to mention that many deities fit into more than one cultural setting. However, I won't challenge the color schemes in the infoboxes, especially if it has a consolidated usage and would require long discussions to change the status quo.--188.218.122.21 (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 5th

Great work finding sources and improving the article! There are a few remaining points: * centered in Draco: please add that it is a constellation.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• ...which becomes the driving force for the remaining portion of the epic. Not mentioned in the body. Please rewrite or remove.

I have removed it. It was not really important to the subject of the article anyway. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Anu is a former ruler of the gods, who was overthrown by his son Kumarbi, Some of the stories in the article are in the present tense, while others are in past tense. Some paragraphs have both. You need to choose one.
• The section title "Overview" is ambiguous--perhaps "role", "place", "position in Mesopotamian religion" is more specific.

I have combined it as part of the "Worship" section, since that is really what it seems to be about. The title "Overview" must be a leftover from before I started working here, because view has always been that the lead itself is an overview and that there is no need to have a second overview section titled as such. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• The Amoritegod Amurru was sometimes... and Later, during the Seleucid Empire, Anu...: are these in the right section? They don't appear to deal with family.

I have moved them to more apprpriate sections. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Inanna and Ebih...: please split or rewrite this sentence. It's too long.

It is not really that long, but I have gone ahead and split it into two sentences anyway just to appease you. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• University of California Publications in Semitic Philology has no ISBN number, and apparently no author either.

Huh. That is funny. I was sure I checked all the sources and I thought they had them. I will search for that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• the external link needs a brief description.

I removed the link since the website is already cited in the "Bibliography" and I see no need to link to it twice. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Greenberg's book does not qualify as a reliable source. Do you think it will be difficult to find other sources that are reliable to support the content?

Why does it not qualify? I do not see any problem with it. Is it self-published or something? --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, Sourcebooks is a popular publisher, without much editorial oversight. As for Gary Greenberg, he has no real academic credentials if you analyze his credentials well enough. Neither does he have any position in a university or research institute. Reviews of his works by scholars and reliable news outlets are not very charmed of him: [1][2] Please remove the content supported by his work, or find an alternative source that is reliable.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I have removed all material in the article that was cited to Greenberg, which comprised roughly half of the "Adapa myth" section. I do not know if I will be able to find any of the information that I removed elsewhere, but I will try to look. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• There are also three remaining points above, which I've underlined.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• I also looked at some sources to check whether the article is broad enough. It turns out you've got it mostly covered. I did find one source with speculations not mentioned in the article, but I'm not certain whether it is mainstream scholarly opinion, since it's cited only four times on Google scholar.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

From a quick glance, it seems to me that this article you have found is definitely not mainstream; it seems to be an Afrocentrist work claiming that the Sumerians were really sub-Saharan Africans, which is definitely not accurate. The Sumerians were Middle Easterners and their closest modern descendants are the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq. (The Sumerians did call themselves "black-headed ones," but that probably refers to their hair color, not their skin.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, i suspected it was African supremacist. "We were here all along". Right, lol.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I object to the elimination of Anu EB 1911 by Morris Jastrow Jr.. There are, of course, more recent sources to document the same things, however I find it has the merit to be at the same time brief and exhaustive. I personally do not think that old sources become necessarily obsolete. In many cases they are written better than newer ones.--188.218.122.21 (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Here on Wikipedia, we really need to use modern, up-to-date sources, especially in subjects such as the history of ancient Mesopotamia, both as a matter of policy and to ensure that all our sources reflect current scholarly views. In 1911, while our knowledge of the Babylonians and Assyrians was fairly extensive, we basically knew nothing about the Sumerians whatsoever, and some scholars still disputed whether they even existed at all. It has only been over the course of the last hundred years that Sumerian texts have begun to be deciphered. Even sources that are only a few decades old can be outdated on certain issues. For instance, thirty years ago, most scholars seriously thought that the sacred marriage rite (in which the priestess of Inanna was supposed to literally engage in ritualized sexual intercourse with the king as a method of reinforcing his right to rule) was a real Sumerian ritual. Nowadays, however, most scholars see the concept of a "sacred marriage" ritual as nothing more than a "historiographic myth" resulting from a bunch of sex-obsessed male scholars uncritically interpreting Sumerian literary texts with an intense Frazerian preoccupation for interpreting everything as some kind of ritual. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I rest my case...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 6th

There are 4 3 issues is one issue remaining that needs fixing, 2 pertaining to reliable sources, one to grammar and one to an isbn. After that, I'm ready to pass the article. See underlined items above.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Added OCLC number for the remaining source.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice editing! Please fix the last part (Some of the stories in the article are in the present tense, while others are in past tense. Some paragraphs have both. You need to choose one.), and we're good to go. If it is fixed today, i don't need to put the review on hold, so that would be great.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: All fixed. I believe you are ready to pass the article now, unless there is some other problem you have discovered? --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Having read the article once more, i felt the Anu/An problem isn't completely solved yet. So i just repeated in the Sumerian creation myth section that An is another name for Anu. I am okay with it now, though i would have preferred you'd only use Anu.

As a side note, you might be interested to know that there's a word for 'spiritual power' in ancient Indian Pali language anubhava. Coincidence?

I'm passing the article as GA now. If you're posting a DYK nomination, I'd propose the part on Adam and Eve's predecessors--sounds like a 10,000 hits for sure. Lastly, when available, you're always welcome to review one more of my humble GA's... Hairsplittingly yours.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Thank you so much for the review! I always appreciate all the effort you put into these. You are definitely one of the most meticulous reviewers I know of. Regarding your question about the word anubhava, I am no expert on Indic languages, but I do know that Asko Parpola is an Indologist who has argued that early Indic religion may have been influenced by that of the Sumerians. For instance, he compares the Hindu goddess Durga to the earlier Sumerian goddess Inanna, arguing that Durga may be derived from Inanna and that her name may be derived from one of Inanna's epithets. I do not know much about how widely accepted his proposals are, though. Obviously, India is not really my area of expertise. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the tip about Parpola!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.