Talk:Ptolemy IX Soter/GA2

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Last June I promoted this article to GA. I have no idea why. I made no comments and didn't even complete the checklist. I had a moment of complete confusion and waved it through without looking at it. Apologies for this aberration, and without prejudice to the article or the nominator I am reopening the question of the article's status. Pinging the nominator and others who have expressed an interest @Векочел, Attar-Aram syria, LouisAragon, and Cplakidas:

@Векочел: Can you confirm that you are available to address any concerns that may come up as part of this process? Thanks and apologies again to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Yes, I can work on this review. Векочел (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not my area of expertise, but just by glancing at the Greek and Italian articles, there is considerable room for expansion, so 3a definitely does not currently apply. On sourcing, the Tour Egypt source is clearly no WP:RS, and while I find livius.org a great resource, I would hesitate to base an entire article on it, especially since the references are not really to articles, but rather to collections of factoids. A good article should use scholarly literature, and that includes at least some critical examination of sources and some more general conclusions and views on the person and reign of Ptolemy, by expert scholars. That is completely absent right now. For me that fails 2b and 3b as well. Constantine ✍ 15:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be riddled with issues, from MOS:LEADSENTENCE to MOS:IMGLOC; the images have no alt text, the other monarchs mentioned have no regnal years, "c." is used instead of {{circa}}, the infobox is inconsistently laid out. The information on his life is very brief and is laid out in a choppy and disconnected way. I actually found more, and more accessible, information on Ptolemy IX in the article on Cleopatra Selene of Syria.

@Векочел: Having looked at this properly I am struggling not to consider it a prime candidate for a quick fail. (And I am painfully aware that I promoted it in the first place, quite obviously without actually looking at it!) Do you have any thoughts or comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Attar suggested I add more on the reasons behind Ptolemy IX's divorce from Cleopatra IV and his involvement in Seleucid Syria. Векочел (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support quick fail. This article at lease does not fulfil criteria 2b and 3. Constantine covered 2b, so I will summarize what should be used to expand the article:

There needs to be a full section about Ptolemy IX before ascending the throne. This needs to be more than two sentences like it is now. In this section, a background should be given explaining Ptolemaic politics, marriage customs and legitimacy of kings. The circumstances surrounding Ptolemy IX's marriage to Cleopatra IV should be explained in depth.
The will of Ptolemy VIII, what kind of motives he had when he made it, and the response of Cleopatra II, and that of Cleopatra III, should be explained.
The relation between Ptolemy IX and his mother needs to be expanded, alot.
The marriage to Selene, and the children, and the possible relation between those children and Ptolemy XII and his brother. Cant see much explaining in the current article.
The images of Ptolemy IX are not mentioned at all. The seals from Edfu need to be brought here, explained and hopefully photos of them provided.
There is no mention of the alliance between Ptolemy IX and Antiochus IX of Syria. The hostilities between Ptolemy IX and Antiochus VIII and the possible connection of Cleopatra IV's death. Not much on the campaign of Ptolemy IX in Palestine and his Gaza attack.
No word on Ptolemy IX's reign in Cyprus. No word on the possible abduction of Ptolemy's children by Pontus....

This is too much and Im still not done!. This article cant be saved by adding few sentences and copying material from Cleopatra Selene's article. This article needs to actually be written as it is a mere stub currently (in relation to the very rich political career of Ptolemy IX). This article can not be re-written in a week, and GA nominees should come ready, not be written during review. From my experience, such an article will take at least a month to be written using the necessary sources.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Attar-Aram syria: Are there any sources you suggest using to expand the article? Векочел (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Векочел, I believe you will end up having a bibliography of about 50 sources or more if you take the time to research this topic thoroughly and write the article after. For some main sources, I will provide their oclc, which means you can see which library have them (closer to your location, just enter your postcode or city/country). Not all sources are available online, and to write good and featured articles you will need to get your hands on sources that are not yet digitized.

For the war in Palestine: The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian conflict of 103-101 B.C.

For the children and marriages: Journal: Ancient Society. Published by Peeters Publishers. Volume 28. Article: Cleopatra V Tryphæna and the Genealogy of the Later Ptolemies

For the edfu seals: Hellenistic engraved gems

I hope those will be a good starting point, but you need to learn text mining, and finding sources. Normally, a general book will have a bibliography listing many specialized sources, and its really like a family tree. Read the general books, and get the titles of the sources in the bibliography and try to find them in libraries if they dont exist online.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Attar-Aram syria: Unfortunately, the nearest copy of 'Journal: Ancient Society. Published by Peeters Publishers. Volume 28. Article: Cleopatra V Tryphæna and the Genealogy of the Later Ptolemies' is well over 100 miles away from where I live. Векочел (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Векочел. Given that you haven't addressed any of the points I raised a week ago, or even commented on them, I am failing this

I hope that you are able to work on it and bring it back in shape to be looked at again. If you do, feel free to ping me to assess it again if you wish. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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