Battle of Round Mountain

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MossbergBoyG19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone

Hey people, BTW, I changed my nickname from Tourskin to ManofBravery!! just for fun.

Anyways, as for the quote at the beginning, how bout we have the following at the beginning, right above, but its small:

"if it is they pleasure, slay! If it is they pleasure, let live!" To demonstrate how bad ass we are?Man of Bravery!! 00:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're going to go for the most badass quote, I'd say Ashurbanipal's destruction of Susa at the very beginning. I have to read this quote every day just to grasp how badass Ashurbanipal must've been. But it would be a little bit out of context. Anyway, what are we going to do with the quote at the intro? It's obviously out of style, to have it there. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:32 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Alrite i will remove it and find where in the article it talks either about siege warfare or about egypt (cos it says he sacked memphis yah!).Man of Bravery!! 19:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A article?

Hang on, Elias, you cant just make this an A article without an A-class review. This is still in a Good-Article review!!Man of Bravery!! 20:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but I think it's such a damn good article. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:57 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily Tourskin. Read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Assyria/Assessment#Importance_scale Chaldean 04:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then. I can't say not to this; well done to us all! We brave Assyrians have restored the might of Assyria! Now we must maintain it from...trolls...Man of Bravery!! 20:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can still use the good article review!! Chaldean 03:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aramaeanist trolls... — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:01 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Ok Dreamafter, b4 u make changes, even if they appear to be "correct", u should leave a note so we can crunch it up and reverse ur canges lol. Me, Elias and Chaldean have agreed that teh article is of A class quality, especially for Assyrian articles. Tourskin 17:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok look teh good article thing at teh top is a joke cos no one s gonna give a Good Article rating to something thats already A class. Gees, look at the logic! Quoting from Elias, "no wonder we don't have a country" (or u said something funny and true along those lines about arameanist trolls). Well Chaldean, I must ask you to stop this embarassing arameanist activity and remove the GA candidate process cos no ones gonna do it.Tourskin 07:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tourskin, do you want this article to be a featured article? If so, then it needs to be reviewed by the GA panel first. Chaldean 04:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't u mean a FA panel? Its a comunity review rite? so lets nominate this for FA status instead. Have an FA review. Tourskin 21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As outlined below, I am prepared to GA review this article. I've just seen this discussion though, and will wait for your go-ahead before beginning the review. During my preliminary read-through I did notice a few issues with the article; you may find the GA process beneficial if you plan to take the article further. However, it's entirely up to you ;) EyeSereneTALK 16:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

I have taken on Military history of the Neo-Assyrian Empire for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by Tourskin. You'll be pleased to hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria, so I will shortly be conducting an in-depth review and will post the results below.

Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around a week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 15:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted from GAC for now

As there has been no response to my above comments, I have delisted this article from the WP:GAC page for now. This does not count as a GA failure, and please feel free to relist the article at any time.

If you intend to go for Featured status, it may be useful to submit the article for peer review first. Whilst this is a very promising, well-researched article, I can give you an idea of some issues that will need addressing (these would have come up in my GA review):

  • the lead as it stands is not sufficient (it should not be an introduction but should summarise the article per WP:LEAD - as though it is a mini-article in its own right)
  • some references are misplaced (inside punctuation)
  • not all headings comply with the MoS (eg "Assyrian Weapons" > "Weapons", "Strategy and Tactics in Battle" > "Strategy and tactics" etc)
  • "See also" comes directly after the main text (ie before Notes and References)
  • all images need to be accurately tagged with the source provided, and the MS Paint ones may be unacceptable at FA (I'm not certain of this though!)
  • the prose would benefit from a copyedit in places for flow and clarity

I hope this helps, whatever you decide. All the best with the article; I'll look forward to seeing it on the front page someday ;) EyeSereneTALK 18:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not answering, I didn't even notice this. We will do some work on it (me and Tourskin). We'll get back to you once we've cleaned up the article. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:55 13 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Ibid

Ibid sections are discouraged on Wikipedia because footnotes might be rearranged. Tourskin, you have to help out in fixing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EliasAlucard (talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate image with different descriptions

Hi. I'm new to this, so have mercy or whatever.

I notice that there is a picture on the top right of an archer on a horse that appears also under the Cavalry section. The caption in the latter says that the rider is "An Assyrian Cavalry Archer, most likely a King; the robes and the perfect handling of his horse testify to his supreme position." The former image links to the Dutch Wiki claiming that the rider is "Assurbanipal riding and hunting (relief carving from the north palace of Nineveh, ca. 640 BC, now at the British Museum - London)".

Maybe this info should be reconciled?

Zeropluslessthan (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons

Excuse me, but doesn't the weapons section appear rather badly-made? Apart from offering no real information, it's unappealing in terms of language, and downright atrocious as far as spelling goes.

Could it be replaced by something more informative, or deleted altogether? Just fixing the spelling errors won't do it, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrugging khan (talk • contribs) 20:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone paying attention? Low article quality.

Excuse me is anyone paying attention to this page?

Large sections of the article seem badly written and organized, uninformative, and just generally unpleasant to read.

Does someone have plans to edit it? Migratory Oilrig (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Military_history_of_the_Neo-Assyrian_Empire