# Talk:Naqiʾa

I'm not aware of Hezekiah sending any women?--JaredMithrandir (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Naqi'a/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 13:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

General:
I don't think we need to repeat "BC" after every date, do you?
No, not really. I've removed "BC" from every date except the ones in the infobox and the first dates in the lead and body. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm good with that solution - or if you thought it was needed, having one at the first date in each section would probably be okay too... just seems silly to have one after almost all dates. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it's quite unnecessary - I'm just used to doing it for some reason. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Lead:
"impose a treaty" - this seems like a very odd phrasing to me, can we think of a better wording?
Yeah; this is difficult because every scholarly source that mentions this type of documents call them treaties (similar ones by Esarhaddon are also called treaties) but they seem more like royal commands or decrees. Naqi'a's treaty in this article reads as if it's an agreement between Naqi'a and everyone else in Assyria but it seems more to me that it's Naqi'a commanding the Assyrian people to obey the clauses listed. Would "issue a treaty" or "draw up a treaty" work better? Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I think "issue" may work or "forced" maybe? -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: went with "issue" in the lead and "forced" in the body - let me know what you think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
"In 684 BC, Sennacherib designated Esarhaddon as his crown prince despite having older sons, perhaps influenced by Naqi'a." is a bit awkward - suggest "In 684 BC, Sennacherib, perhaps influenced by Naqi'a, designated Esarhaddon as his crown prince despite having older sons."
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Reign of Sennacherib section:
"Naqi'a was one of the consorts of the Assyrian king Sennacherib (r. 705–681 BC).[17] Naqi'a had probably married Sennacherib by the late 8th century BC since she in c. 713 BC gave birth to his son Esarhaddon." this is clunky - suggest "Naqi'a was one of the consorts of the Assyrian king Sennacherib (r. 705–681 BC),[17] with the marriage taking place by the late 8th century BC due to the birth of their son in c. 713 BC." which also gets rid of the "his son" construction which kinda implies that Esarhaddon wasn't actually her child also.
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
"It is possible that Naqi'a was influential already in Sennacherib's reign; she might have been responsible for the king in 684 BC dismissing Arda-Mulissu as heir and instead proclaiming Esarhaddon, his son by Naqi'a, as crown prince." again - clunky - suggest "It is possible that Naqi'a gained influence already in Sennacherib's reign; in 684 she may have been responsible for the king dismissing Arda-Mulissu as heir and instead proclaiming their son Esarhaddon as crown prince."
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
"It is possible that Naqi'a was Sennacherib's queen but that she only achieved that status late in Sennacherib's reign." also clunky - suggest "Another possibility is that Naqi'a achieved the status of queen only late in Sennacherib's reign."
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Reign of Esarhaddon section:
"since all battlefield victories were normally described to the Assyrian king personally." perhaps "since all battlefield victories were normally described to the Assyrian king personally whether or not the king was at the battle."?
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Legacy section:
"It is possible that some portions of the Semiramis legend were based on Naqi'a, rather than Shammuramat." ... we give reasons for equating Naqi'a and Nitocris, we should probably do so for equating Naqi'a and Semiramis too.
The equation of Shammuramat and Semiramis is pretty solid but some parts of the Semiramis legend may be amalgamations of stories originally referring to different individuals. I've added some of the stuff from the source so there's more info on why the figures could be connected. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Please double check my copyedits to make sure they haven't changed the meaning of anything.
Copyedits look good. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Thank you for taking the time to go through this. I've addressed all but one of the comments above (the point with rewording "imposing a treaty" remains). Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Just the treaty ... made one suggestion but either "issue" or "forced" would work for me. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Looks good. Passing it now. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)