Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zenobia/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2017 [1].

Zenobia

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a very interesting woman, Zenobia, the queen of Palmyra. Often, her story is distorted by romanticism and myths, which ignore the fact that she was a historic monarch whose actions were not really based on romantic motives. I re-wrote the article with the aim of giving a clear picture of the historic queen, and gave the romantic accounts their share, but also noted them for what they are: romance. The article was privately peer-reviewed (as in I asked an editor directly to review it) by one of Wikipedia's most productive editors Al Ameer son and was copy-edited by the copy-editing guild. Looking forward for other editors notes and advice.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

Thanks for your review and sorry for the late reply, I was busy and didnt have the time to edit Wikipedia.

That's quite alright; real life (allegedly!) comes first, after all. Based on your replies I've done a little bit of copy-editing: feel free to revert anything you think I have made worse or where I have changed the meaning of the text.

Again thanks for waiting. I have exams actually and thats why my time is so limited now. Nothing to be reverted, thanks for taking the effort :).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

"Palmyrene: (Btzby), spelled Bat-Zabbai" – What does this mean? In what way was her name "spelled" Bat-Zabbai?

Semitic languages do not include vowels when written. So, in Palmyrene alphabet, the vowels in her name are missing and if you will read it as it is, it will be read Btzby, however, the right pronunciation with vowels is B(a)t-Z(a)b(a)(i)

I changed "spelled" to "pronounced": I think this is what you mean?

"who exiled her to Rome (where she spent the remainder of her life)." why is "where she spent the remainder of her life" in parentheses?

The article was copy edited by a guild member and it was their choice. I removed the parentheses

Name and appearance:

"The queen was born c. 240–241": as she wasn't queen when she was born, I would write "Zenobia was born"

Done

The section says, apart from the quote from AH at the top, very little about Zenobia's appearance: this is a surprise given the name of the section

Yes, we know little of her appearance but for a reader looking for info about her outlook, it would be helpful for him to know where to read and find the answer which justify the heading

"Historian Victor Duruy believed that the queen used the Greek name as a translation of her native name in deference to her Greek subjects.[11] No contemporary statues of Zenobia have been found in Palmyra or elsewhere, only inscriptions on statue bases; most known representations of Zenobia are on her coins.": this paragraph covers two ideas; it would probably be better to concatenate the first part (about her use of the name Zenobia) with the preceding paragraph, and expand the second part into a more substantial coverage of representations her (or cut it and make the section one about Zenobia's name)

I wrote more about the representation on coins

Not really sure what the paragraph on sources is doing at the end of this section
"other sources are available" doesn't really tell us anything. discuss what the key sources are, or tell us something about them, but don't just assert that they exist

Removed the sentence. As for the paragraph, it is important to give an idea about how careful one must be when dealing with the life of Zenobia counting on those written sources. It gives the readers an understanding that not everything they read from AH should be taken with certainty.

Early life and family:

"The Augustan History contains details of Zenobia's early life, although their credibility is doubtful; according to Augustan, the queen's hobby as a child was hunting." Presumably the connection here is that Zenobia having hunting as a childhood hobby is not credible; if so, you should make this more explicit as it is not obviously incredible to me. Macedonian nobles and Spartans, to take two examples from the ancient world, both learnt to hunt as children.

The paragraph on sources was meant to do the job of not having to explain that the info taken from AH is unreliable. Throughout the article, info from the AH are included and their source indicated (which is inevitable since most scholars still indicate the AH) It would make the paragraphs redundant to mention that an AH info might be unreliable every time such an info would be written. On a side note, the situation of women in the east cant be compared to Greece as females were more marginalized

As it is at the moment, the semi-colon suggests that there is a link between the two parts of this sentence: that AH's story that Z's hobby as a child was hunting is a reason to doubt its credibility. This doesn't seem to me to be at all what the relevant source is saying, which is that AH is unreliable, and then, as a seperate thought, that it tells us that she enjoyed hunting. Therefore, I think that this semi-colon should be a period instead. (If you intend this sentence to be read as I am reading it, then I would instead quibble with your use of the source, which doesn't as I read it say that.)

But Stoneman made the connection: he say that we are given plentiful info by the AH but that little of them should be believed. Then Stoneman say that we are told (by the AH) that Zenobia loved haunting. Before giving any info from AH, Stoneman was careful to tell his readers in advanced that they shouldnt believe what they are reading from AH. I see that he connected the two thoughts really. In any case, I removed the semi-colon.

What is "an education appropriate for a noble Palmyrene girl"? Were girls – noble or otherwise – in ancient Palmyra educated?

According to Stoneman, we know nothing about that education but Palmyra showed a high level of literacy and Zenobia is known to have mustered many languages which cant be achieved without education. Stoneman reference here.

Well that's disappointing but unsurprising.

How can one be "fluent... (to a lesser extent)"? Is fluency not a binary property?

reworded

That's fine, but see below.

"and nafsha is Aramaic for "soul"." I don't understand the relevance of this. Explain?

Deleted. The scholar (Potter) do not mention why its relevant, its only and extra info

"Based on Zenobia's Palmyrene name (Bat Zabbai), her father may have been Zabbai or he may have been an ancestral head of Zenobia's family (rather than her actual father).": this is a rather clunky sentence; I would rewrite it something like: "On the basis of Zenobia's Palmyrene name, Bat Zabbai, her father name have been called Zabbai; alternatively, Zabbai may have been the name of a more distant ancestor."

reworded

"led scholars such as Harald Ingholt to speculate that Antiochus might be a distant ancestor" – should be "might have been", I think

reworded

I'm not sure I quite understand the point being made about Ammianus in what is at the time of writing note 1

The info of the AH is similar to Ammianus'. It could be that the supposed Cleopatra descent entered the mind of the AH writer when he read the comparison Ammianus made between the two queens. This would prove that this connection is fabricated

Ammianus doesn't equate Zenobia and Cleopatra, though: he says that the Egyptians praise Cleopatra and the Palmyrenes praise Zenobia. I can see what is being got at, here, but this is I think too compressed for the average reader (though irritatingly the source you cite doesn't make the argument any more explicit! Dammit!)

No, he doesnt equate, but he mention the two as equals. This might have inspired the AH writer to fabricate the claim since Zenobia occupied Egypt. I think this is the simplest way to elaborate on what Teixidor meant when he discussed this idea

Note 2 says that Zenobia claimed descent from Cleopatra; the sentences that follow say that she didn't. Which is true? (If the latter is true, should we still believe the inference that Callinicus is talking about Zenobia?)

I wrote "alleged" in the note. This concerns modern scholars and what they know about Zenobia's claims made in ancient sources. It doesnt mean that she actually made such claim. It is widely accepted by scholars that Callinicus is talking about Zenobia, and we cant give our own opinions.

Better now you've added "alleged", thanks :)

Queen of Palmyra:

Is Boccaccio a reliable source when it comes to Palmyran history? I am unconvinced that he is. If not, why are we singling his account out?

Boccaccio is definitely not reliable. But, an FA article must be comprehensible and gives the readers an answer to any question they might have. If a reader was convinced that Zenobia rode with her husband, this Wiki article should be able to tell the reader where that notion of riding came from

But you write "according to later accounts, including one by Boccaccio". Why single out Boccaccio, instead of any other later account? (And WP:WIAFA requires that an FA "neglects no major facts or details"; I would argue that precisely which millenium-late account contains a particular story is not a "major" fact or detail!)

Well, I hated the fact that Boccaccio thought he can write whatever he wants and present it as a legitimate history. However, the details of Boccaccio are the most widespread and I read a lot of misinformation circulating the internet that were taken from his account. Thats why its important in this article to mention the source of those info and make it clear how unreliable that source is.

"If the accounts of her accompanying her husband are true, Zenobia would have boosted the morale of the soldiers": I don't really understand how this follows.

It gives an idea about how she gained her obvious close relation to the soldiers

I think you need to explain or expand upon this, then: as it is, it just confuses me. Why is it that Zenobia's accompanying her husband would necessarily have boosted the soldiers' morale? It certainly wouldn't have boosted the morale of early-modern British seamen to have their captain's wife accompanying them! (yes, I know that 2nd-century Palmyrene and 16th century English society were very different: that's not the point.)

I cant explain since those are the words of Patricia Southern and she doesnt give much explanation She only say that the soldiers would have been dazzled by the young wife of their king. I will write in the article that this morality boost is according to Patricia Southern, and the readers can indulge themselves in imagining why. As someone who comes from the middle east and is familiar with it, a woman in the battlefield will always make the soldiers more eager to win cause they want to prove that they are capable of protecting their honor (in this case, women are considered part of the honor). But this is my original research :)

Vaballathus is described in quick succession as "ten-year-old" and then "adolescent" on his accession: I wouldn't consider a ten-year-old an adolescent

Changed

Descendants and Title:

Having been told much further up the article that Herodianus was Odaenathus' son "not Zenobia's offspring", we now have a long discussion of whether or not he actually was!

Yes, and it is inevitable kind of. Odaenathus had two sons named Hairan; one with his first wife and another with Zenobia. The problem arise on the identity of Herudianus: was he the first Hairan or the Second. It is generally accepted that the crowned son was Hairan I, but since some scholars (mainly Potter) suggest that he might be Hairan II, then this should be written since Potter is an authority when it comes to Palmyra's royal family. We are dealing with uncertainties here and the NPOV thing to do is to represent all opinions and give the reader the chance to build his own opinions

Possibly you should explain this more in the article, then (and not relegate much of it to a fairly obscurely-written note). Even having read your explanation here, I am struggling to understand the account which is given in the article. (Additionally, a footnote at the point where the article states that Hairan was not Zenobia's son explaining that there may have been two Hairans could be a good idea.)

The two Hairans are confusing. I created a new article for Hairan II where I assembled all the mess and explained further. As for the article of Zenobia, I removed the note, and in the "Consort" section, I removed that Herodianus was not her son. In the role in the assassination section, I explained that the Augustan says that Odaenathus crowned his eldest son (whom the Augustan names Herodes), who was not Zenobia's. Finally, I explained about the theories concerning the relation between Hairan II and Herodianus in the descendant section

Evaluation and legacy/Myth, romanticism and popular culture:

I'm not quite clear on why these are two different sections: they seem to have fairly overlapping scopes

The legacy section deals with the effect of the historic queen's actions on the national feelings in the region while the Romance section deals with outright fabrications and dramas written on her. They might seem similar though, but the difference are enough to separate them

I'm not sure how much the random list of "selected cultural depictions" adds. If they are worth discussing, I'd like to see them actually discussed; as it is they just seem like an invitation to listcruft

It isnt quite random as it is very comprehensive and lists the most important works. If they will be discussed then we need a new article about cultural depiction of the queen like it is the case with Cleopatra. Discussing them in the article will turn it away from its scope.

General:

I know false titles are a matter of preference: I don't like them. More than that, though, I don't see the point of describing every writer on Zenobia as "historian Foo Bar". They're writing about ancient Palmyra: of course they are historians! I count 14 different examples of this usage for modern authors.

I used to share your opinion and never mentioned a profession of a scholar. However, when I nominated Palmyra for FA, an editor was confused about those people. You and I are interested in ancient history and it is obvious to us that a certain guy mentioned in an article is a historian, but not all readers will know that especially if the historian doesnt have a Wiki article

Fine. So long as you know what you are doing.

Frequently the article uses semi-colons to divide what seem to me like they should really be separate sentences

Those were the choices of the copy-editor. Its a matter of personal judgment really.

I changed some of what seemed like the more egregious ones.

Almost all of your sources are recent; why are two (Duruy and Mommsen) so conspicuously out-of-date? There's an 89-year gap from Mommsen being first published in 1882 and Millar in 1971, the next-oldest source.Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being older doesn't discredit a source specially if it is discussing an idea that newer sources make no mention of. This is the case of Duruy who is the only one to give a possible explanation for the motives behind the use of the name Zenobia. As for Mommsen, it is used as a reference for Gallienus being Valerian's son, which is a common knowledge and new sources are not gonna discredit it. After all, Mommsen is still considered one of the greatest historians and his works are still used by modern scholars.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Duruy: if his idea hasn't been discussed since he proposed it in 1855(!) is it really WP:DUE to be discussing it in the article?

Re. Mommsen: there's nothing technically wrong with using him as a source for this – it's not exactly a fact which is likely to be challenged in new sources! But as it's such common knowledge, I would either a) have cited it to one of the other works you are using to establish other things: one must surely have mentioned it at some point(?!); b) cited it to a recent standard resource (the OCD?) or c) not bothered citing it at all: it's not exactly "likely to be challenged". Again, there's nothing actually wrong with citing Mommsen; it's just incongruous when you have cited with two exceptions literature written within the past 50 years to have a source from the 1880s...

Duruy is a respected historian hence his opinion do have some weight. The information is attributed to him and it is good that the article would offer some answer to any reader who might ask himself: Why did she named herself Zenobia. As for Mommsen, I removed it and added a newer source

More comments

Now that I look at Stoneman p.113, it says that Z was fluent in Palmyrene, spoke good Greek, spoke Egyptian, and did not speak Latin. Yet this article has her fluent in all three of Greek, Egyptian and Palmyrene, and speaking Latin though not fluently. Ball, cited for that claim, does in fact back it up: but is that the scholarly consensus? The two sources I have just read literally at random disagree. (And neither cite the source that "reported" what they claim, so I can't go back to check that...)Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its from the Augustan. I added a source with direct quote from the Augustan next to Ball's source

Image review

Suggest scaling up the maps
Since Syria does not have freedom of panorama except for buildings, we should explicitly account for the licensing of the pictured 3D works from that region

Even when they depict statues many centuries old that are no doubt in the public domain? FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For File:Poikile_quadriportico_Villa_Adriana.jpg, the situation in Italy is [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Italy more complicated

Wouldn't that leave us without photos of any ancient buildings in Italy, such as this featured picture?[2] Certainly there must have been some wider discussion about how to handle this? FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would not, as copyright can still expire. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Odaenathus_Kingdom.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Same with File:Palmyrene_Empire.png
File:OldSyrian500front.png: the uploader is not the copyright holder. What is the copyright status of this work?
File:Hosmer.jpg: the US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture

Same as above, if the author died more than a hundred years ago, as is the case here, there is no copyright, so FOP is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The US only cares about author's date of death in a few cases, and those don't seem likely to apply here. If these works are out of copyright, it should be relatively quick to add an appropriate tag - but we should still do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Herbert_Schmalz-Zenobia.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria. I will work on the issues as soon as possible but will probably require your help.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is so so annoying to be honest. You see a column 2000 years old pictured, and the one who took the picture released it into the public domain, yet we are faced with this.. I removed all the pictures that you think have issues.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can put them back, I will help you add PD tags. The structures are certainly too old to be copyrighted. FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You there, Attar-Aram syria? FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey FunkMonk, I was away for some exams and a short vacation. For the pictures deleted, I have no idea how to do what Nikkimaria wants to be honest. That why I deleted them.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know, so if you put them back, I'll fix it. Then you can see what I've done (for future reference). FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, always helping me :). I will do it now.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, an article like this needs lots of images... So as you can see on the Hosmer sculpture[3], I added a PD-old tag that should cover the copyright of the sculpture itself. I also added this to the other photos that were removed, but I assume Nikkimaria would want this of all photos of ancient architecture, so you can go ahead and add it to those too. As for the banknote, I added a PD-Syria tag, since it obviously wasn't created by the uploader... FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I did it to the other pictures. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

Might take a while before I can make a full review, but it will certainly come. In the meantime, maybe more approximate dates can be given in the captions of various sculptures and buildings (and the painting)? Also, describing a banknote as "old" seems unnecessarily vague. No date? Artist names stated in captions could also be linked. FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FunkMonk. Done.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any date for the banknote? The description says 1998... FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its written on the banknote as well. Added

"in his highly fictionalized account,[7] wrote that the queen's name was Na'ila al-Zabba'" Does this mean that name is probably fictitious too?

Probably, its just the name in Tabari's account and since it doesnt exist in Palmyrene inscriptions then its probably Tabari's own work

"in many ancient sources but many are flawed or fabricated" A bit repetitive, reword one?

Reworded

"According to Augustan, the queen's hobby" You seem to switch between the full name, and just the first or second part in different places. What do the sources do?

Actually this is the work of the copy editor, I will write the full name as most sources I've read include the full name

"In the unreliable fourth-century Augustan History, Zenobia is said" Seems a bit repetitive to present this source again and again?

Reworded

"Jadhimah ibn Malik, who killed the queen's father, was killed by al-Zabba'" I'm not sure who is who here. The queen and al-Zabba is the same? Also, I'd add say "who supposedly killed", or some such, since it seems to be dubious?

The queen is a historic figure. al-Zabba is a character appearing during the Abbasid era in the works of Al-Masudi and Tabari. The Abbasid woman is based on the Palmyrene queen but her story is much different from the historic Zenobia. In the Abbasid accounts, it is certain that Jadhima killed the father of al-Zabba. I wrote that Jadhima is the Tanukhid king to clarify

"which she will need in her later career" Why suddenly present tense?

Changed

"Palmyrene dominance of Arabia is confirmed by many milestones bearing Vaballathus' name." Still named thus today, or how? What are these milestones?

Milestones are just like modern road signs. They used to put them on roads to indicate how much time is left to reach a city. For example, a milestone found on the road between Homs and Palmyra had and inscription saying that Palmyra is 2 days away (I cant remember the exact number, thats just an example)

"the occupation of Egypt is an opportunistic" Why present tense?

Changed

" the prevailing emperor (Aurelian)" Is parenthesis really needed here?

Changed

You sometimes repeat the full name of some authors, such as Patricia Southern, after they have been mentioned first time, which should be unnecessary.

Changed

"Onomasticon" Could be explained briefly ion parenthesis.

Done

"Hosmer's Zenobia in Chains (1859) by Harriet Hosmer" Is the first one a redundancy?

Changed

Thanks FunkMonk. I will wait until you finish then work on your notes.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now finished reading, looks good! Last comment is that there is a good deal of overlinking (articles linked more than once in the article body). FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot FunkMonk.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks great to me now! It is of extreme importance that the articles about historical Syrian subjects are improved, considering the insanity that is going on in Syria now. In this way, you spread awareness about it in the world, and hopefully, Syrians will appreciate their past, rather than destroying it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Constantine

Good job in bringing this important article so far, I'll comment below as I go along reading it. Constantine ✍ 16:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for reviewing this, Im a big fan and stalker of your articles.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"She bore the gentilicium (surname) Septimia". Perhaps a brief explanation is in order here as to why a Syrian queen had a Roman name.

Added a note

"When an Augustan account deals with a known event". Two things: first, use the full name of the source, as is common practice; second, if the AH is the only or main source, how do we know which events are known and which are invented? I assume you mean that "known" is an event corroborated from other sources. If so, write it out, and mention perhaps an example or two of what other sources are used to corroborate the AH.

Used the full name, and yes, I meant that when an event mentioned in Augustan is also mentioned in other sources or in inscriptions. I mentioned that

"Manichaean sources". Could you please include them by name? And perhaps briefly explain why Manichaean sources seal with her?

They are scattered fragments found in China and they are not part of a certain book. I added a note clarifying them fully. Why did they seal with Zenobia is because, according to them, Mani visited Palmyra in his journeys

"In the unreliable fourth-century Augustan History". You don't have to repeat the fact.

Done

" Ptolemaics". This is a bit odd. I'd suggest "Ptolemies".

Done

"After the Palmyrene conquest of Egypt,[27] and according to the Souda, a 10th-century Byzantine encyclopedia,[28] ". I get what you mean, but this is awkwardly phrased. I'd suggest switching the two sentences.

Done

"invented by Zenobia's enemies to discredit her". For the average reader, it is unclear why an association with Cleopatra would be discrediting. Add a note explaining the Romans' view of Cleopatra (and women leaders in general, which might be appropriate here in general)

Done

"Zenobia's alleged claim of a connection to Cleopatra seems to have been politically motivated". This should follow eight after "invented by Zenobia's enemies to discredit her", as an alternative hypothesis. Then conclude with the assessment by the modern scholars that "A relationship between Zenobia and the Ptolemaic dynasty is unlikely"...

Done

"Arab traditions" and "Arab historians". Given that by this you mean chiefly al-Tabari, I recommend changing to "Arabic", because al-Tabari was not an Arab, but an Arabic-writing Persian.

Done

"immersed with legends". Immersed in.

Done

That's it for now, I'll tackle the remaining sections later. A very thorough job so far. Constantine ✍ 16:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I was busy in RL. Comments on the remaining sections:

"During the early centuries AD, Palmyra was an autonomous city subordinate to Rome and part of the province of Syria Phoenice.[45] ". The reference does not say anything about the autonomy, but as I can see, this is dealt with somewhat more in the same source further on (e.g., p. 40). Please include this, and note that the exact relationship is difficult to define based on the sources.

I removed the word "autonomous". Palmyra did enjoy relative freedom but the word autonomous might be too much

"Odaenathus, formally loyal to Rome and its emperor Gallienus (Valerian's son),[47] was declared king of Palmyra.[48]". What exactly is the connection to the Battle of Edessa? Or is there none?

It seems that the news of the defeat prompted Odaenathus royal elevation. Not many writers expand on the matter but you can conclude from the words of AH that he declared himself king to face the lack of a central authority after the capture of Valerian- as in he needed this title to rally troops, but no scholar specifically write this. This might be helpful as it does somewhat discuss the circumstances of that moment

" Odaenathus received many Roman titles and ruled from the Black Sea to Palestine.[51]". ruled the Roman territories from the Black Sea to Palestine. Perhaps it would be better to add the titles explicitly, since you do so either way further on, especially since it was the title corrector totius Orientis which made him viceroy of the East and allowed him to rule "from the Black Sea to Palestine".

Done

"was unmentioned in the historical record". I think this usage is incorrect: was not mentioned, or was left unmentioned.

Done

" According to later accounts, including one by Giovanni Boccaccio, she accompanied her husband on his campaigns". Why is Boccaccio relevant here? Surely he is not a historian? Rather, mention a couple of the other "later accounts".

He is not a historian but there is a false information circulating the internet and in the minds of many people that Zenobia accompanied her husband in campaigns. Boccaccio is the one who started this tradition of having Zenobia with her husband in war and that's why I mentioned him so it would be clear to readers who is the source of such information and why it is not reliable.

"In 267, when Zenobia was in her late twenties or early thirties, Odaenathus and his eldest son were assassinated while returning from a campaign.[50]". I'd suggest moving this up to conclude the section about Odaenathus' career, which would then connect with "dated two or three years after Odaenathus' death", where the date is currently unknown.

Done

"In Augustan History, Odaenathus son". In the AH, Odaenathus' son.

Done

"The history does not suggest". Which history? If AH, name it explicitly.

Done

"At the time of Odaenathus' assassination, Zenobia might have been with her husband; according to chronicler George Syncellus, he was killed near Heraclea Pontica in Bithynia.[61]". This also belongs to one of the sections above, either on the assassination or on her role as consort.

This is a part of a long paragraph detailing the circumstances of power transfer. She might have been with her husband (scenario A) or at Palmyra (scenario B). If she was with her husband then the transfer would have been smoother than if she was in Palmyra which might have led the soldiers to elect one of their own generals. I think it would be better for the flowing of ideas to keep it where it is since it is important to explain the circumstances. Would that be Okay ?

"Zenobia held the reins of power in the kingdom,[63] although she never claimed to rule in her own right and acted as a regent for her son.[64] Vaballathus was kept in his mother's shadow, never exercising real power.[65]". I think a slight re-arrangement would make this flow better: Although she never claimed to rule in her own right and acted as a regent for her son,[64] Zenobia held the reins of power in the kingdom,[63] and Vaballathus was kept in his mother's shadow, never exercising real power.[65]". Just a suggestion, though.

Done

"antagonized the empire towards Palmyra". Strike "towards Palmyra." as unnecessary.

Done

"the queen's timing seemed intentional". Did it seem so at the time, or does it seem so to modern historians? If so, then present tense.

To modern scholars. present tense used

"unrest in the province, whose society was fractured;" a sentence or two on how exactly it was fractured would be needed here to explain why this is relevant.

fractured between Zenobia's supporters and opponents according to Watson

"The Roman stance was worsened". I think you mean position, rather than stance.

Done

"during the reign of Emperor Valens." Give regnal dates.

Done

Descendants and titles section. I'd recommend either splitting off the titles section (and moving it up), or incorporating it, as appropriate, in the "Regent" and "Empress" sections (in part this is already done).

Moved up

Overall I found the article well written, excellently referenced and comprehensive, with an exhaustive bibliography. Once my remarks are addressed, I will be happy to support. Constantine ✍ 15:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, I am glad to Support this excellent article. Well done Attar-Aram syria! Constantine ✍ 13:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good on comprehensiveness...and I can't see any prose clangers outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Earwig's copyvio clear Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References all formatted consistently.
FN 18, used 6 times - material true to source.
FN 146, used once - material true to source.
FN 199, used once - material true to source.
FN 207, used once - material true to source.

Ok I am happy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: @Nikkimaria: Just checking as it got a bit lost in all the text. There were a few changes to the image rationales after your image review. How does it look from your end now? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still suggest scaling up the maps, and File:Herbert_Schmalz-Zenobia.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the tag. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.