Talk:Anunnaki/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) 12:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

GA review

Introduction and limitations

Before starting this review, I'd like to state I have little knowledge about the subject, as I am mostly involved with Buddhist articles on Wikipedia. I am interested in myths and ancient wisdom though. I used to be a fan of the topic, and loved The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell. this book introduced me to Buddhism, in fact.

Overview

I have assessed the article at B. I am giving you a general overview, which is a first impression. Details will follow, which may still change some of the criteria reviewed.

1a. Prose:

• May need a little tweaking. Well-written text though.
• Please add an approximate time period to each section. E.g. when is the "Third Dynasty of Ur"? How much later were "Later Akkadian texts..."? When was the ....the Old Babylonian Period...?

I did this this morning. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• According to this Earwig scan, two websites have much similar content. But they probably copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way around.

I wrote pretty much the whole article myself and I can definitely say that I did not plagiarize any material from anywhere. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I understood that.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

1b. MOS: Follows MOS guidelines, except for a few details.

What are the details that the article does not follow?

--Katolophyromai (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Right now, there is nothing left.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

2a. References layout: Looks good. And not a single dead link, congratulations.

2b. Reliable sources: Sources are reliable.

2c. Original research: Haven’t seen any, but there may be some mild forms of synthesis.

3a. Broadness: Due to high level of pseudoscience on this topic, Google Scholar, as well as other scholarly search sites, are almost completely spammed. But I have found a few sources not in this article, although nothing essential yet that has not been covered.

3b. Focus: Article stays focused.

4. Neutral: Article is neutral.

5. Stable: article is stable.

6. Pics: Some of the pics have no tag telling that they are allowed in the USA.

I have added tags to the Commons pages for the images. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, great.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Detailed review per section

I will now start a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries.

• There are many duplicate wikilinks in the main body of article, that is An, etc. Use this tool to identify them.

I have taken care of most of them. I left a few in because I think duplicate links are acceptable in some instances; for instance, words that are linked in the lead are also at their first occurrence in the body and words that appear in captions are linked also, even if they appear in the text around the image, because some people might read the captions before reading the surrounding text. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That is correct.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• Citations are only necessary in the lead for controversial content. Other citations should be in the body of the article rather than the lead.

There is only one citation in the lead, which is for the definition, which needs to be cited, especially since some of the ancient astronaut theorists out there will probably challenge it otherwise. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Haha, okay. I wasn't aware of that.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• The Assyrians mentioned in the lead seem not to be mentioned in the body of the article. Or did I misunderstand something?

All the sources agree that the Anunnaki were also in Assyrian mythology, but I could not find any sources dealing with their precise role. It is probably mostly the same as their role in Babylonian mythology, since the Babylonians and Assyrians shared a large number of their myths. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to mention it somewhere in the body of the article too? Strictly speaking, the lead should not contain anything new.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I did a whole bunch of digging this afternoon, which involved wading through oceans of "ancient astronaut" publications, but I did manage to dig up an academic source discussing an Assyrian text about the Anunnaki. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Etymology

• This is not a problem for GA, but per WP:CITEFOOT and WP:CITEBUNDLE, it is usually nor required to add citations immediately next to the word or phrase cited: "... it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text."

Worship and iconography

• Very interesting information.

• “The deities typically wore melam, a substance...”: could you expand a bit on the ‘’substance’’?

Unfortunately, I cannot because the source merely calls it a "substance." The textual evidence is ambiguous and Mesopotamian texts are still not always fully understand due to the fact that many of them are highly fragmentary and the vast majority of them have not yet been translated because there are not enough scholars on the subject to translate them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

If the sources mention that the term is ambiguous, the article should say that as well.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I found the pages in the source with the article about melam, which has a little bit more information about it. I have added some of this information to the article in effort to make the meaning of the word more apparent. I have also added mention of the word's ambiguity. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

* With regard to the paragraph “The ancient Mesopotamians believed that their deities lived in Heaven... Third Dynasty of Ur”, it is unclear whether the sources explicitly link this information to the Anunnaki class of deities. If sources do not mention the Anunnaki specifically, this could be bordering on WP:SYNTH.

The sources for these paragraphs do not specifically mention the Anunnaki in regard to these particular facets of Mesopotamian worship, but I though this would be useful background information about Mesopotamian religion to include. If you would like me to remove it, I will. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I think there is some connection. There is no need to remove it.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Mythology, Sumerian

• "The Anunnaki are usually only referred to ..." This duplicates content from the first sentence of the section Worship and iconography. Perhaps you can make it more brief, or integrate it with the next sentence.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Enki and the World Order ..." What work is that? Perhaps better to state from the start that it is a composition, and expand a bit on what kind of composition.

It is a Sumerian poem. I have clarified this in the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Inanna stands trial before them..." Why? What happened?

She tried to take over the Underworld from her older sister Ereshkigal. I have clarified this in the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Major deities in Sumerian mythology..." Is this paragraph still about the Anunnaki? If not, then why is it in here? If it is, then is An an Anunnaki or is he their parent?

All the deities mentioned in this paragraph are members of the "seven gods who decree," who are members of the Anunnaki. An is both the parent of the Anunnaki and one of them himself. The Sumerians gave him double privileges, I guess. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you should mention that "double role" somewhere. Right now it is a bit confusing.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I cannot do that because I do not have any sources discussing it. Kramer lists An as one of the "seven gods who decree" and describes him as the father of the Anunnaki, but does not explain anything beyond that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Alright then.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Akkadian

This section is hard to understand for outsiders.

• "Utnapishtim describes the Anunnaki..." and "Ereshkigal comments..." Perhaps say one or two words about Utnapishtim and Ereshkigal. Was Utnapishtim a writer, a poet, a priest, etc. What kind of deity was Ereshkigal?

Ereshkigal was the queen of the Underworld. Utnapishtim is the survivor of the flood myth. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• "...as the storm approaches." and "...when the flood..." Each time there is a storm or a flood? Or what storm and flood exactly? A flood myth or what exactly?

This is part of the flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh. I think my clarification about Utnapishtim covers this point also. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Please add a note inline that the Ishtar is the same deity as Inanna.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• " Ishtar's Descent into the Netherworld..." So the same work exists in Akkadian mythology?

It is an Akkadian revision; it is only one third as long and it has some minor changes. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• "...seat them on golden thrones..." Why? For homage?

The text does not say. It could be for homage or it could have some religious meaning that is lost to us. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Nice work. Minor detail:" In Ishtar's Descent into the Netherworld, an abbreviated Akkadian version of Inanna's Descent written in the early second millennium..." I'd cut out Ishtar's Descent into the Netherworld, and wikilink abbreviated Akkadian version instead. Is less confusing.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Babylonian

• "...the names appear to be used synonymously..." Perhaps categories would make more sense to the average reader. Or types.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• "In the late Akkadian Atra-Hasis epic..." I apologize for my ignorance, but in the previous section Late Akkadian texts were also mentioned. How is this section different? In geography, time period, or perspective? For the average reader, it may be useful to add some information explaining the differences, ideally in a graph of some kind.

It is not any different. The problem is that there is overlap between the Sumerians and the Akkadians, and also overlap among the Akkadians, Assyrians, and Babylonians. I put this text in this section because it fits better contextually with the Old Babylonian innovation of the Igigi. I could rearrange some of this if you hink that would be necessary. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You should arrange the content according to what the sources say. If the sources consider the Late Akkadian text Babylonian in style or content, than mention that. If not, move it to the section where the sources say it belongs.

It is not required for GA, but at some point you might want to create a time graph for the uninitiated reader, which shows each civilization's rise and fall. If that is possible, of course.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hurrian and Hittite

• Would you mind adding in another time indication? This is the only mythology section that does not have one.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• "Hittite and Hurrian treaties were often sworn by the old gods in order to ensure that the oaths would be kept." By whom?

I do not understand why you are confused. The oathes were sworn by the people agreeing to the treaties... Who else would be swearing them? --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Is there any reason why they were not sworn by the new gods?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize; I must have missed this one earlier. I do not believe I have any sources explaining why they were sworn by the old gods instead of the new ones, so I cannot add anything about this to the article, but my guess would be that it is either because the new gods rebelled against the old ones and are therefore untrustworthy, because the old gods were chthonic deities who were believed to punish those who violated there oathes, or simply because it was traditional. It could be for any of these reasons. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I see, interesting. If you consider upgrading to FA, it would be worthwhile to explore the relationship between the Anunnaki's suppression and the suppression of the asuras in India and titans in Greece.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC) If anything has bee written about that, that is.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I know for certain that the Greek story of the Titans is derived from the Hittite story of the Anunnaki being overthrown by the new gods (a fact which I discuss in the article Anu). Other aspects of the Hittite story also became incorporated into Hesiod's Theogony, such as the castration of Anu by his son Kumarbi became the castration of Ouranos by his son Kronos. The Hesiodic account of the birth of Aphrodite comes from the Hittite account of the birth of Teshub and Ishtar after Kumarbi swallows Anu's severed genitals and becomes pregnant with his offspring. I believe the story of the asuras is unrelated, however. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• "...the names of the old gods are listed as..." Have any of the Anunnaki gods been identified with other names in the previous sections? This would be useful to know, to make the connection.

They have not been identified with the gods in the previous sections as far as I am aware. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• "...instead, the Hurrians and Hittites sought..." Sounds like a cult to me. If it was not a cult, because it was not organized as such, you should mention that.

It is not a cult unless they are being worshipped. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I see. So they merely have a role in rituals, but not as a focus of worship.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

This section has some overlinking. Words like Earth and gold mining are not relevant to the overall structure of the section. Delink those.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• "...all the major monuments of the ancient world" Does he really state that? Or just the majority of the major monuments?

He does not specify a quantity, but the general reasoning is that "If it is big and impressive, then the Anunnaki must have built it," which would therefore include all the major monuments. I have removed the word "all." --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• "... conspiracy theorist David Icke.." Please rephrase to separate the linked words per MOS:SEAOFBLUE.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Akkadian, Babylonian, and Assyrian

• If possible, please explain who Damkianna and the gods of Eshumesha are.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. @Farang Rak Tham: I believe I have addressed all your criticisms. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

February, 1, 2018

@Farang Rak Tham: I believe I have addressed all of the criticisms you have presented so far. If you have more, I will try to address them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There are a few details left in the writing, but after you have those fixed, I will do a final check whether I can find anything important not covered by the article. If that is done, we can wrap it up.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

February, 2, 2018

@Farang Rak Tham: I believe I have now addressed all of the criticisms you have presented so far, unless I have overlooked something, which I will admit is quite possible since this page is getting so long and it has so many different mini-conversations on it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I am just checking with some sources. Almost done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have found one or two sources that haven't been used yet, but nothing essential seems to have been omitted. I have one question above still waiting to be answered, after which I will pass the article as GA.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC) It is in bold type.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

We have now finished the process, and the article is at GA. Congratulations! Please continue to guard the article against pseudoscientific contributions, which may increase after this upgrade. And as a Did You Know? idea, you might do something like "Did you know that ... the Anunnaki, by conspiracy theorists interpreted as aliens, were actually a class of deities honored by ancient Mesopotamian civilizations?" Anyway, that's just my two cents, a funny thought to end with. And good luck with the other running assessments!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not know how to submit an article for DYK. I have never done it before. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you like to? I can walk you through.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to do it; I would also like to do a DYK for my article Pythagoras, which, by some bizarre coincidence, passed as a Good Article just a few hours after you passed this one. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyromai, that's great news to hear!

If you want to nominate a DYK entry, please go to Template talk:Did you know, and type in the name of the article. The rest will show itself. I am not very experienced in it either, but you need to be concise, and the entry should refer to content in the article here. Furthermore, you should include the source that supports it. There are examples on the page from which you can learn. There is a lot of detail, but I have now given you the main points to keep in mind.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:05, 3 February 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.