Much of the article is generally written to a high standard, but it could do with checking through to improve the prose. Spellings and grammar are correct and the text is well organised. Comments for improving the text are itemised below.
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
I found 23 instances of Ashurbanipal. Consider replacing the name to avoid overrepetition: (Lead: who had sided with Ashurbanipal/him); (Historical background: clearly in a subordinate position to Ashurbanipal/clearly subordinate to his brother; approved by Ashurbanipal/him; between Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin mention the names of both monarchs/ between the kings mention both their names; was plundered by Ashurbanipal/was plundered); (Reign and role: one of Ashurbanipal's younger brothers/a younger brother of the king; allied with Ashurbanipal/him); (Identification with Ashurbanipal: that Ashurbanipal either died, abdicated or was deposed in 631 BC. 631 BC is typically used as the year of his death/that his rule ended in 631 BC, the year of his death; If Ashurbanipal's reign had ended/ If it had ended; treat Ashurbanipal and Kandalanu/them).
The text is not yet concise. Examples of what I'd remove include: after both brothers had ascended to their respective thrones.; before they could be carried out; of troops and officials ; which would have been; With time,; towards the overbearing control his younger brother had over him ; executed, died accidentally or was killed in some other way (replace with killed); once popular; the names of.
Implemented most of your suggestions. For the last one you mention "killed in some other way...", it's still a bit longer than just "killed" to get the sentence to work. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ichthyovenator, I'll have another look at the prose after the comments below are addressed/discussed. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead section
Neo-Assyrian/Babylonian cuneiform - link only cuneiform.
Happy with the amendments made, but out of interest why is king of Babylonia not correct? Amitchell125 (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is correct in so far that the king of Babylon ruled Babylonia but the title (šar or šakkanakki Bābili) refers to the city and not the entire country (which would be šar or šakkanakkimātBābil, translating to "king of the land of Babylon"). "King of Babylon", "king of Babylonia" and "Babylonian king" could be used interchangeably but most other articles use "king of Babylon" so it's also for consistency here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...was clearly... - sentence needs to be cited to prevent this phrase sounding editorial.
Removed "clearly"; should be clear enough from the surrounding context that he was subordinate to Ashurbanipal. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added "chiefly Ashurbanipal's own annals"; Ashurbanipal's own account of what happened is the primary source for all this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
King Tiglath-Pileser III (r. 745–727 BC)… - Porter p. 78 gives 744.
The ancient Mesopotamians dated their rulers by full regnal years. Tiglath-Pileser deposed his predecessor Ashur-nirari V in 745 BC but as his first full regnal year was not until 744 BC, reading the Assyrian king list gives the impression that he began his rule in 744. Some modern historians prefer to date the kings this way (in this case 744), others date them by the point in time when they actually became kings (i. e. 745). Most other articles on WP date Tiglath-Pileser from 745 onwards; both dates can find support in academic literature but I prefer 745. Do I need another source that gives 745? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and thanks for your reply. This point might be noticed by others, so perhaps a concise note to make the regal date clearer might work. What do you think? Amitchell125 (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a note seems like a good idea. Will get back to this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After looking around, I can't find any sources that explicitly mention the discrepancy or the reasons for it (most just go with 745 or 744 without saying why) so I'm finding making a note a bit difficult. If you have an opinion on how to resolve this I'll go with that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3 (Porter) – the Google Books edition gives p. 28, is this correct?
Oops, you are right. Changed to p. 28 in the citation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of assuming the kingship himself, he decided to appoint a new vassal king, deciding upon Kandalanu. - can be reduced to ‘Instead of assuming the kingship himself, He appointed a new vassal king, Kandalanu.’.
Kandalanu's reign is poorly attested. - imo this is not needed as the following makes this information clear.
Yeah, fair enough. Removed this sentence. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t seem to verify any of the information in the first two sentences using ref 13 (Na’aman).
Na’aman (ref 13) quotes from Ashurbanipal's annals, which describes how he appointed new governors and officials in Babylonia after Shamash-shum-ukin's defeat, which demonstrates that the region was "once more incorporated the region into the Neo-Assyrian Empire". Na’aman also says that Kandalanu "was probably a Babylonian who had supported [Ashurbanipal] during the war against his brother" which serves as the citation for "or a Babylonian noble who had allied with him in the civil war". Na’aman also says Kandlanu was a nominal king, with true power in the hands of Assyrians, which serves to cite that he was appointed as "a new vassal king". The other source for this section (Ahmed) is used to cite the possibility that Kandalanu might have been Ashurbanipal's younger brother. If you feel more sourcing is needed here I can probably find more. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, let's leave it as it is. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...and few records survive of his reign… - the source says ‘nothing is known of his activities’, which doesn't seem to be the same thing.
Changed to "nothing is known of his actions and activities". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He probably lacked any true political and military power,… - why probably?
Because we have no idea how far his authority extended; if he was powerful we probably would have known but (as I think can be gleaned from the article) we have almost nothing to go on for Kandalanu. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but I think you need to explain why probably is correct, to avoid it sounding editorial. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the second and third paragraphs and moved the material of the third paragraph to before the second one, which means that the lack of sources is introduced before the "probably", which should make clear why it's there. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 14 (Frame) appears to be only p. 304, not pp. 303-304.
Looks like you're right; amended to 304 and (see below) 195. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...he might even have been simple-minded. - I can’t see where this is mentioned in Ref 14 (Frame).
Yeah, it was on page 195 which I forgot to cite. Added and expanded a bit on what it says. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m unclear how the page cited in Ref 15 (Na’aman) verifies the last paragraph.
Yes, the citation is wrong. I've added the correct source which verifies the info (though I had to remove some portions - I'm sure they're true as well but I cannot track down the source that was used). Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Identification with Ashurbanipal
... it is generally agreed … - by whom?
Changed to "his rule must have ended in 631 BC" which fits better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most importantly,… - according to whom?
Removed "most importantly"; it should be clear from the surrounding context that this is an important reason either way. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...nearly a century later – consider removing this and amending an inscription to ‘ alter inscription’.
I think "nearly a century later" is necessary to illustrate that this is far from a contemporary source. I presume you meant later inscription but I feel like it is good to give a specific timespan here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To get the attested lengths of the reigns of his successors Ashur-etil-ilani and Sinsharishkun to match, it is generally agreed that… - agreed by whom?
You mentioned this twice (same as the first point here); so this one's also been addressed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn’t find a reference to the above comment in Reade (ref 17), only the last year of Ash.’s rule.
Yeah, this part is more backed up by Na’aman (which is cited later), added an extra citation to Na’aman here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the image (link) specifies that the stone/tablet is from the reign of Marduk-balassu-iqbi in the 9th century BC, so it precedes Kandalanu. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange, I sent you the wrong link—but see here, in which Kandalanu is named as part of the information about the tablet. Apologies. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; Kandlanu is briefly mentioned on the same page as the image is used in the source so that's probably why his name pops up on the page on commons. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article written in 1928 here useful (even as part of a Further reading section)?
I found this article kind of hard to follow along with but it mostly seems to be more pointing out that the regnal years of Ashurbanipal and Kandalanu do not match and how they can't be the same person. I'm not sure what parts could be added to the article (and if all of it is up-to-date since it's from 1928) but I've added it to a new further reading section. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm placing the article on hold until 21 August. Please feel free to ping me with any queries or comments. Apologies in advance for misreading the sources, which were quite tricky to tackle. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
_(14576514968).jpg){kind=link}