Talk:Burney Relief

Burney Relief was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 9, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
October 20, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Ancient Near East Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assyria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

British Museum Mid‑importance

	This article relates to the British Museum. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one, as needed.British MuseumWikipedia:GLAM/British MuseumTemplate:WikiProject British MuseumBritish Museum-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sculpture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Archives

1

GA Review, August 2010

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Dead links from a template?

There are 2 dead links (1, 2) on this page, but I'm not sure whether to replace them with links to the functional page because I think they're from a template. OwlsTalon (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, replace them, and on the template if you can find it. Where are they? Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is in the external links section (uses Template:British-Museum-object and the second one is in the infobox (uses Template:British-Museum-db). Going by Template talk:British-Museum-db, they're both broken due to the British Museum website having been redesigned at some point. I've fixed the infobox one by changing the ID, but I have not done the same for the external links one because that URL is more dissimilar to that of the functional page than the one in the infobox was. OwlsTalon (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article does not adhere to the good article criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are listed below:

There is a lot of uncited text, including entire sections and some of the notes.
The notes still uses parenthetical referencing, which has been deprecated per WP:PAREN and they should be reformatted to conform to this.
The "Iconography" section suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION and should be reformatted to eliminate some of the level 3 headings.
The lede is too short and does not summarise all major aspects of the article.

Is anyone interested in improving this article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another notch on your bedpost, I expect. The main author hasn't edited since 2009; I'm the 3rd listed & I won't do it. The article is far better quality than most GAs, but needs more refs. The referencing scheme used looks horrible in the editing screen, but seems to work. Why do you think WP:PAREN applies? I can't see any of this. The small section headers can just be removed. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: I interpret things like "Albenda (2005) notes "a tiny vertical indentation" but Collon (2007b)", "BM WA 1910-11-12, 4, also at the British Museum (Curtis 1996)" and "D. Opitz (1936) interprets" as applying to PAREN. In other GAs and FAs I read, the text will introduce the person quoted (for example, "Historian Pauline Albenda said...") with an intext citation represented by a number. Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: I saw that you did some work in August, but there is still uncited text throughout the article. Are you interested in continuing to improve this article? If not, I might bring it to GAR to see if others are interested. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said no in August. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Burney Relief

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text, including entire sections and notes. "Iconography" suffers from oversection, and the lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean re oversection; will take a look at condensing the TOC. There are also way too many images. Ceoil (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would rate this article at Best a B. For one thing it is twice a long as it should be for an artifact which is not all that notable. A lot of text duplicates facts in other articles like Art of Mesopotamia. I would delete the Geopolitical context entirely. To get back on track, no it is not GA caliber. PS I suspect that the mystery "Pauline Albenda (1970)" actually is "[1]Albenda, Pauline. "The Burney Relief Reconsidered." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 2.2, pp. 87-93, 1969" Ploversegg (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To note have removed the "Geopolitical context" sect and condensed the "Iconography" sect. No opinion yet on wheather it is B class vs GA, but this review at least gives an opportunity to get eyes on improving the page. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, still several unsourced statements. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 01:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.