# Talk:Tell Brak

External link or links have recently been deleted by User:Calton as "horrible Tripod pages which add little information, are full of ads, and fail WP:EL standards." No better external links were substituted. Readers may like to judge these deleted links for themselves, by opening Page history. --Wetman 15:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tell Brak/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 03:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Third on my "to review" list. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead
Is the ancient village 50 km away from Al-Hasaka, or is the modern one?
Both (the modern village is next to the tell), but in this article Im referring to the ancient city
"while the city's most ancient name was unknown" I would prefer "original name"
 Done
In the second paragraph of the lead, could you give some reasons for the village's expanding and contracting?
I wrote : with the end of Uruk period. We dont know how Uruk period ended but we only know that cities all around the region contracted or were abandoned
Also, you overuse the verb "contract" in this section.
fixed
"Tell Brak was a religious center…" in this sentence, between "earliest periods" and "its" their should either be a semicolon or an "and" after the comma.
 Done
In the next sentence, there's a typo--you say "Tell Bral" instead of "Tell Brak"
fixed
History
I don't love that you put parentheticals to your own table, especially because I don't see them as necessary.
Sorry, Its embarrassing but I didnt fully understood your point (English is not my mother tongue). Are you talking about the Periods picture ?
Wow, your English is awesome! Yes, I'm talking about the periods picture. Specifically, where you things like say "the ___ period (A)" or "or phase (A)" unless these letter designations are done by others than yourself, I would remove. Update: after reading below, the usage of the letters is fine, but I would still prefer that you say either "the ____ period" or "period A" etc. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 17:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. If you wanna laugh at the most notorious mistakes I made then read this (its from an argument I had with a guy... just read his response and laugh at my English User_talk:B.Andersohn#Antiochian). So you want me to remove those (). I removed them)
Could you put that first paragraph in a subsection of its own?
That's kind of funny. Easy mistake to make, as "costume" and "custom" sound similar. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 20:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 Done
What's "proper Ubaid"?
The original Ubaid culture in southern Mesopotamia. Proper is to distinguish it from northern Ubaid which was a local Northern Mesopotamian adoption of southern Ubaid but not caused by southern immigrants
Changed to "the original Ubaid culture"--this is clearer.
"Northern Mesopotamia entered the period…" this is a bit clumsy. Reword it to "Tell Brak started to expand during the period later designated the Late Chalcolithic or Northern Uruk period."
I reworded to avoid the clumsiness but I need to make it clear that in the south its Uruk period and in the north its Northern Uruk
Also, I don't see why the sentence starting "the new culture…" is necessary.
 Done
I would prefer if you didn't use the term "phase" when referring to time periods.
 Done
What does "Area TW" mean?
A designation used by archaeologists for an area of the city. Just like we name modern neighborhoods and squares
Per below, I would say "see excavation site map below" after the first use of these abbreviations because otherwise, it's unclear what it's referring to. Also, a slightly higher resolution of that file below might be nice. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 17:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I added a note. As for the picture : Done.
Do we have any ideas about the reasons for this first contraction?
Its connected with the Uruk destruction. We dont know what happened. It could have been the climate or the appearance of the Kish civilization
When describing some of the archaeological findings in the different periods, you don't specify that the artifacts are known to be from these specific periods (we do know that, right?)
Well, they do date from the period that they were discovered in its layers (unless stated otherwise). So yeah, we know. If its not clear, then can you suggest a way to make it clearer ?
Never mind, I think it's fine. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 17:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
It's quite confusing to have to constantly refer back to the period map, so could you find some other way to usually refer to them? Also, if you absolutely have to refer to the table, please use only one method of referring to them (i.e. letters or period designation in northern Mesopotamia, and I would prefer the latter if you have to)
The problem with tell-brak is that we only have the excavations reports as the main source for information you can download the latest report from here. So, in those reports, archaeologists use those letters and this is the only way to understand which era are we talking about. In the reports, archaeologists use the letters and using the Northern Mesopotamian periods would be confusing. For example : Era Brak (N) spanned two North Mesopotamian periods :Post Akkadian and Bronze I. In the reports they only speak of (N) and I cant tell if an event took place during (N post Akkadian) or (N Bronze I). So I stick to the Brak periods since we are talking about Brak. This article is complicated due to the lack of books. Archaeologists dont offer you simple info and its usually the historians who simplify things for us. In Brak's case, historians didnt care a lot.
Oh, they use the letters in reports? That's very important. I changed my comment from above, so look at that again. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 17:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I still have no idea what the abbreviations such as TW or TC mean.
Just designations for areas of the tell
What's the point of comparing the Brak Oval with the Khafajah building?
Brak Oval was named like this because it reminded archaeologists with Khafajah. So its important to mention the difference, otherwise readers might think that Khafajah immigrants built Brak Oval
Do we know the reasoning behind thinking that Amar-An was Mara-Il?
I wish we do, but those are the words of the professors David Oates (archaeologist) Joan Oates. They offered no reason. My own original research would suggest that it had something to do with the time frame. Mara il and Amar An appears in the same period
Okay--I would just add that this was the opinion of those scholars. Obviously, don't put any of your own research into the article (although it doesn't appear like it is currently) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 17:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Although tempting but I never add my OR. But anyway, no need for mentioning that this is an opinion anymore. I went deeper in a french source written by the archaeologist of Nabada (thanks to Google translate) and found the reason. When using Sumerogram to write, the names are read with Sumerian pronunciation and need to be given the right pronunciation in their original language. So Amar-An in Sumerian pronunciation is Mara-Il in Semitic. I added a note and the sources to the article
Great.
"and was an equal of the Eblaite and Mariote states" in what way?
Diplomatic equal (Nagar's monarchs were the same level as Ebla's and Mari's. Military equal : Nagar's army went side by side with Ebla's army which is different from the Eblaite vassal kingdoms who sent their armies to serve Ebla
With that in mind, I changed the wording slightly to "diplomatic and political equal"
"The palace is closer to a fortress" what's your distinction? And how do we know this if it's only remains?
It had massive walls (shown from the foundations). A palace is a residential building with gardens and many rooms, but this "Palace" was just a huge fortress and wasn't built as a royal palace fit for a king-god like Naram-Sin liked to describe himself.
Okay, changed the wording slightly and added a link. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 17:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
no comma after "during which"
 Done
"The view that Tell Brak came under the control of…" where did that view come from in the first place?
That would be the fault of Max Mallowan. He discovered a seal in 1947 that had the style of Ur and said that its Ur-Nammu of Ur's seal. However, once the inscription on the seal was translated it proved otherwise. It was the Hurrian king who owned the seal not Ur-Nammu. I added a note to explain
evidence exists not evidence exist--I found that a couple times
 Done
Unless this article uses British English, which it doesn't appear to do, you should change "storey" to "story"
 Done
This subsection probably should be renamed to "Foreign rule and later periods" or "Mitanni and later periods" because the inclusion of both foreign rule and Mitanni makes it sound as if they are two separate periods.
 Done
Society
In the first subsection, I personally think it makes more sense for the first paragraph to be people and the second paragraph to be language, but if you explain to me why you want it this way, you can keep it.
Just to keep the chain connected. Talking about each population and its language in one connected sentence. This city was inhabited by many people and I thought it easier and less complicated like this
Alright, I'm fine with that.
Throughout, why is Eye Temple in quotes?
Because there is no real Eye.. its just a weird name (in my opinion) and I thought that the quotes are appropriate. I can remove them if you want
Unless it's quoted like that in all your sources, I would remove it. Otherwise, quotes in that case are sarcastic, informal, and not appropriate for WP.
 Done
I wouldn't start the culture subsection with background on Mesopotamia in the period--I would start with the part about the Eye Temple before elaborating on the cultural background of the period. It makes it more focused.
Ubaid eye temple is different from Uruk eye temple. They eye temple is only mentioned in name but the later explanations belongs to a building in area TW that also contained eyes. Both the temple and the building belongs to the  Late Chalcolithic / early and middle Northern Uruk so I thought that explaining about this period first and its emphasizing on religious sites sounded like a good beginning to explain about the temples. If you still want me to change it then that wont be a problem
"it is first noted in the context of feasting" meaning that it was peaceful? Specify that. Also, "peaceful infiltration" is a bit of an oxymoron--use another word
 Done
Government
Remove the "the" before monumental buildings
 Done
I don't feel that the table in this section is all that helpful, as the information is either in this section already or could be incorporated into it easily.
You are probably right but I have a passion for those rulers tables. They are my treat. I will delete it if you insist. But seriously though, some readers dont like to read whole articles and prefer summaries like those tables and kings lists
I'm not going to insist--I think it can be left. However, just be prepared that if you decide to take this article to FAC or a peer review, there might be some people who would delete it.
Economy
At the top of this section, I would put a summary sentence like "Throughout its history, Tell Brak was an important trade center."
 Done
Site
See note above about the file. I don't see anything else wrong with this section.
The picture shows the excavations areas so I thought that its place in the excavation section is appropriate. I could move it to the top but it wouldn't have a place and will ruin the style of the article.
That's fine but once again I would increase the resolution of the file so that people who want to examine it can within the article and don't have to click on it. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 17:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 Done
References
Your sources are all really great in terms of reliability and such; used checklinks and didn't see any problems.
@Attar-Aram syria: This is really good! Amazingly well-researched and referenced and broad in scope. There aren't really any major problems with the article--I think you could take it to FA if you wanted to, possibly after a peer review. After you respond to all comments, I will finish my responses to you. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Attar-Aram syria: I have responded to you. If there are comments that I have not responded to, this means that I do not recommend any further changes. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 17:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Attar-Aram syria: Great job! I can pass this article now. It's wonderfully done--I'm really serious about taking it to FA. If you get a peer review under your belt, I'm sure it'll do well there. Good luck. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 20:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User:Johanna. Honestly, I still cant believe that you took this article for review ! its the most boring article I have ever written !! It took me more time writing it than writing Palmyra. So thanks again.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was pretty interesting actually! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 15:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, 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): 

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: 

Since Göbekli Tepe agriculture invention, around 3000 years were required to create an "agricultural pack of tools, methods, seeds & animals" to create a successful model to expand Worldwide, in 6000 b.C. (carbon check), the farmers were already in the Danube - Carpathian Mountains cross.
--188.171.57.108 (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it true it was run by the Institute of Archaeology in London? I was lectured at Cambridge by Joan Oates in 1982-3 about the site when she was a faculty member at Cambridge - I thought it was a Cambridge dig then. 62.232.130.11 (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Alas this article is not as well sourced as it could be. Anyway, it says "The purpose of this article is to provide a brief stratigraphic summary of the 14 seasons of excavations at Tell Brak from 1976 to 1993, under the auspices of the Institute of Archaeology University of London, and more recently, the McDonald Institute of the University of Cambridge." in "Oates, Joan, and David Oates. “Tell Brak: A Stratigraphic Summary, 1976-1993.” Iraq, vol. 56, 1994, pp. 167–76". Hopefully that clarifies things for you.Ploversegg (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand that this is listed as a GA article so I'm being gentle with it but the Archaeology part of things needs some work, especially better sources than a couple pages in Bryce (2009). Don't worry, I don't plan to mod the shiny parts, just the stuff pertaining to excavation/archaeology of the site. If there is a problem, speak up. We can work something out.Ploversegg (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Yea the excavation section wasnt a strong point of this article. It just doesnt interest me much so I didnt expand on it and I believe this is normal since we edit because we like to not because we have to or are paid to do it. So what you are doing is great.. maybe one day we can bring this to FA. I would just be careful with cluttering. Many sources are important but if they all support the same point then the most recent or the best quality source should be used.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
And I lack interest in society/culture, really much in political stuff. It all seems to somehow work out in the end. Agreed on the clutter. Thats one reason I like a healthy Further Reading section. It gives me a place to move excess refs to without feeling like I am losing information down a black hole. And to stash new sources for a possible use as upgrades.Ploversegg (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I am done poking things archaeological. If you see anything I broke, feel free. :-) If you ever decide to go for FA on Brak, I will, if you wish and I am available, pitch in.Ploversegg (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

A TOC is good but you CAN have too much of a good thing. The current TOC is over a page long with thirty five (35) lines. Sectioning is good but too much section is not so good. Best not to make the granularity overly fine.Ploversegg (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

But each section serve a purpose. Combining many sections together does not make sense. Combining for example the Nagar kingdom with the Akkadian period.. why? A TOC is not good or bad. It serves a purpose and has a function to ease navigating the article. It is also hidden so its not really affecting anthing
Mentioning every single archaeological period is excessive though (when we have other designations. Example: we dont need a Middle Bronze section heading for Mari's period or an Late Bronze for Mitanni.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)