The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot ( talk) 20:05, 26 July 2017 [1].
This article is about an ancient city in modern Syria named Qatna which, for a period of 400 years, was in control of half of Syria. The city's palace and royal grave presented us with magnificent artifacts that shed light on the extensive human contact in 1600 BC as they included pieces made with materials imported from as far as modern Sweden. Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 02:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Brief comments: I hope that I can kickstart this review and get other reviewers interested in providing more detailed comments, because it is, in my view, an important and interesting article, well worth the time. These opening, minor points relate to the lead which is the only part of the text I've read in detail:
I hope to return later – I'm certainly looking forward to reading more of this fascinating history. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Image review
Taking a look...comments below: Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
NB: I made these changes to help the prose flow more naturally. I hope they are satisfactory.
All in all, a nice read, and comprehensive. Just a few minor issues.
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs) 13:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ealdgyth. The ISBN is taken from the website of the publisher. Its the only ISBN See here. As for the Earwig's tool, its certainly mistaken. For example, It says that there is 85% chance of a violation for this source However, I pressed compare and no sentence from Qatna is identical to the source at all !!!!! See here. This tool is detecting the source's editor name who is also the head of the archaeologist team in the city and its normal for his name to be mentioned a lot in the article. Its also detecting words like "bronze age" !! but Qatna flourished in the Bronze age and its normal that the bronze age will be mentioned. The tool is also showing the full titles of sources listed in the sources section of the article as copyvio because they match the titles in the content section of the original sources !!!!!! I cant change the title of an article so it wont match the original title !!! Thats a not very reliable tool to be honest
The results of Earwig's tool should be neglected. They are false and I cant address them cause they are false. Any editor is welcome to do a manual check. I have provided links to all the sources with pages numbers and its very easy to compare sentences from the article with the original sources.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 15:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ealdgyth, can you take a look now ? I changed all the sentences highlighted. However, some are general sentnces every one use, and some like "Late Bronze Age", "The royal palace"...etc cant be changed.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 20:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Brianboulton, Ealdgyth, do you have anything you'd like to add? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I was informed by Ian Rose of this FAC. I've gone through it making mostly stylistic edits and some minor fixes, link and regnal dates additions, etc. Overall an excellent article, I cannot really think of anything missing, very informative, comprehensive, and balanced in portraying the differing views and theories of modern researchers. Very well done Attar-Aram syria! Unreservedly Support. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Closing comment: Like Ian, I've gone through the first three comparisons in Earwig and have not found any issues. The phrases that have been found would not, I don't think, cause any problems at all in terms of copyright as they are very generic and I think the high scores are just an unfortunate coincidence (and I notice that the same phrases come up in a few of the results, which further proves the point that these are just generic phrases). Therefore, I don't think we need be too worried in this case. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot ( talk) 20:05, 26 July 2017 [1].
This article is about an ancient city in modern Syria named Qatna which, for a period of 400 years, was in control of half of Syria. The city's palace and royal grave presented us with magnificent artifacts that shed light on the extensive human contact in 1600 BC as they included pieces made with materials imported from as far as modern Sweden. Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 02:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Brief comments: I hope that I can kickstart this review and get other reviewers interested in providing more detailed comments, because it is, in my view, an important and interesting article, well worth the time. These opening, minor points relate to the lead which is the only part of the text I've read in detail:
I hope to return later – I'm certainly looking forward to reading more of this fascinating history. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Image review
Taking a look...comments below: Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
NB: I made these changes to help the prose flow more naturally. I hope they are satisfactory.
All in all, a nice read, and comprehensive. Just a few minor issues.
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs) 13:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ealdgyth. The ISBN is taken from the website of the publisher. Its the only ISBN See here. As for the Earwig's tool, its certainly mistaken. For example, It says that there is 85% chance of a violation for this source However, I pressed compare and no sentence from Qatna is identical to the source at all !!!!! See here. This tool is detecting the source's editor name who is also the head of the archaeologist team in the city and its normal for his name to be mentioned a lot in the article. Its also detecting words like "bronze age" !! but Qatna flourished in the Bronze age and its normal that the bronze age will be mentioned. The tool is also showing the full titles of sources listed in the sources section of the article as copyvio because they match the titles in the content section of the original sources !!!!!! I cant change the title of an article so it wont match the original title !!! Thats a not very reliable tool to be honest
The results of Earwig's tool should be neglected. They are false and I cant address them cause they are false. Any editor is welcome to do a manual check. I have provided links to all the sources with pages numbers and its very easy to compare sentences from the article with the original sources.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 15:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ealdgyth, can you take a look now ? I changed all the sentences highlighted. However, some are general sentnces every one use, and some like "Late Bronze Age", "The royal palace"...etc cant be changed.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 20:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Brianboulton, Ealdgyth, do you have anything you'd like to add? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I was informed by Ian Rose of this FAC. I've gone through it making mostly stylistic edits and some minor fixes, link and regnal dates additions, etc. Overall an excellent article, I cannot really think of anything missing, very informative, comprehensive, and balanced in portraying the differing views and theories of modern researchers. Very well done Attar-Aram syria! Unreservedly Support. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Closing comment: Like Ian, I've gone through the first three comparisons in Earwig and have not found any issues. The phrases that have been found would not, I don't think, cause any problems at all in terms of copyright as they are very generic and I think the high scores are just an unfortunate coincidence (and I notice that the same phrases come up in a few of the results, which further proves the point that these are just generic phrases). Therefore, I don't think we need be too worried in this case. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)