Talk:Burney Relief

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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.

Non-GA Concerns

It seems more difficult to resolve, but the reasons given for stopping explained edits immediately need to be of a required quality also. 50.32.100.1 (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Now invited to discuss the latest twice blocked edit here, we should at least encourage that editor to take some time in their complete read throughs with the new material or maybe try to allow time for others to confirm their perceptions of errors going forward, most likely possible by some other editors' seemingly nonsense however, until/before an immediate threat of being banned from Wikipedia for not correctly following the rules gets issued again here? Wikipedia's volunteer editor force concern etc. being expressed here as further Burney Relief's article management problems. 50.32.100.1 (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Challenging mentally (or stated as having been ridiculously not an improvement), it seems a sort of Manual of Style appeal will be needed rather than the well-known unsourced complaint for this sort of editing, that applies now for these sort of editing errors that they almost always somehow read from them, based on simple organizations being changed/created and being to others maybe as the possible improvement(s) of the article using the rules of Wikipedia not a case for being banned from editing it (if this editorial dispute isn't encouraged to be discussed like this first as per that rule I like to point out) and they're conceding for it going forward that at least this stuff doesn't require a source? 50.32.115.65 (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course the lack of following for this rule for some reason, or successfully to an understood/stated collaborative resolution leads to what happens next if a disputed edit blocked twice tries number three at it like that, simply having been left as unaddressed, and what happens from the volunteer editor force (most likely) that will ignore themselves not following this rule at all at this point (possibly stated as this having been nonsense or whatever it is but not being a Wikipedia rule error by them for not discussing the edit dispute anymore as it's their right, (maybe) as it could be more of a Wikipedia suggestion as something they should just do their best at getting to performing, in understanding their rules), in this example, and they'll just ban me at doing it a third time. Again, not pushing it is what you get left with choosing, but if you liked an edit at least it's kind of in good faith, something their encouraged to try and perceive as they get tested, by Wikipedia etc. Even the talk page has rules. 74.37.14.81 (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

An editor uses "Note" in this article that can be removed by this editor, as it's specifically stated by Wikipedia as one of the examples of what this editor is saying they are working on preventing appearing incorrectly? "As pictured here" or "as here" isn't stated as clearly as "note" is here, as it would be easily ruled as being an error here. While being here, as self-referential concerns also surface with this editor, the source of the picture isn't Wikipedia and it should be able to be located in that sort of reference's meaning or as referring to the Relief and some exceptions may be found - as stated by Wikipedia's rules? In the context of the full article's use of photographs it's organizational rather than directive or self-referential would be my stated defense for its discussion like this, given interest and time. 50.107.178.33 (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Would it be possible to stick to one account or IP, and clearly state a request/pov. The nonsense above, where you are pretending to be two people, is giving me a headache already. Ceoil (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

My IP address changes. I disagree with the brief reasoning behind that editor's last two blockings of my edit and have invited its discussion by stating some things in there at times. I'd like to put it in the article still, if possible, because I'm following the rules while they aren't and it's an improvement to the article. Not at all implied/meant to be framed as a discussion among editors, that bit of your reasoning so far in this discussion could be a signal that you support the brief reasoning against the edit being discussed and are operating by nonsense yourself? 50.107.178.33 (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe related to the MoS but still how interesting the article can be made for those that are here by devotion to any of the possible characters or for Babylon in general that way can be a flexible part of it for those that are like that, too. In that sense, we'd be directing things in some loose ways for them etc. Scholars of a common sort should be included somehow. This object's analysis for in the context of their everyday life? 50.32.115.65 (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe easily encyclopedic given all the religiosity, mainly only for some readers though, I'd work on the "... a very rare survival..." statement by including "and sacred." "... a very rare and sacred survival from the period." Along with it being intact it must be a sacred object for Hammurabi's Babylon as the first laudatory fact can be the way to begin? While clay, it is demonstrated as on par with the top of the code and the code regarded as one of the most amazing objects still available if wanted? 50.32.115.65 (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The relief on top of the Code and the Code is self-referential while this relief can be paired with any code thought to be a rational system? It seems situated in a time for its references that proved effective through time, however? How to work that into the article better than a question of its authenticity if it seems too modern or busy but with established meanings more or less still available in its "distinctive iconography." I once edited in "an accomplished" after "depicting" in the article kind of in recognition for its current standing considered from the perspective of time rather than the "prototypical" approach. 50.32.123.66 (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Editor Alith Anar

Attempt rational exploration beyond saying you don't understand it or it's nonsense for the community of editors to examine? 50.107.159.223 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the sentences and writing you add in your edits, while well intentioned, do not make any sort of sense in the English language. This is because of severe misunderstandings of the very words and phrases that are added. For example, "unexcavated coupled with several verifiable transmissions" doesn't make any sense whatsoever. What are the "verifiable transmissions"? The use of the word "unexcavated" doesn't make sense, as the relief itself is displayed, so it's clearly excavated. Saying the location of the where the relief is found is simply "unknown" is better not only because it's true, but because it makes sense in legible English.

Overall, this is an issue with all of your edits on this article and its talk page, as well as on the article Sini Shetty and its talk page. It's obvious that your understanding of the English language is rather poor. Although your edits are clearly in good faith, WP:COMPETENCE outlines that the Wikipedia project requires a certain degree of competence in English in order to contribute to the English Wikipedia. So please start suggesting edits on the talk page, because it's incredibly tedious to keep reverting unintelligible additions of sentences. Alith Anar 18:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

While you may have good faith, your understanding of any of this seems totally lacking, for some reason, which in itself doesn't qualify as verifying your claim, or as being factually flawed in what's being conveyed by it. Just by siding with the editors' works on the Sini Shetty BLP doesn't support their arguments (or lack of) any more than your defense here. It's coherent with reality whether you can reach it or not, in both cases. For example, I suppose the one or two points you attempt here are supposed to be factual but where the relief came from, as far as the article is concerned, can be expressed as unexcavated for brevity and its verifiable transmissions for a provenance are stated clearly as an interesting/valuable point in presenting the picture. I personally don't find your reasoning rational as it seems to mainly sit at that you don't understand something, which is not to prove it's actually unintelligible, in your case so far, by far. 50.107.159.223 (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not predicating this on my own understandings, it's that these phrases literally make zero sense in English. "Unexcavated coupled with several verifiable transmissions" makes no sense whatsoever. It's not clear what that phrase is even trying to describe. It's essentially gibberish. Alith Anar 18:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

If you are perceiving gibberish, it doesn't have to be gibberish. 50.107.159.223 (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It is gibberish. Your prose is nonsensical and rambling, and it reads like it was written with generative AI (that is a bad thing). Please stop edit warring. Mr Fink (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

A bot would have that sort of an edit out of an article quicker than what this took, if actually the issue being asserted against here? It's actually an easy read is the assertion for this stuff that expresses concern against the volunteer editor force of the ilk such as yourself. 74.46.20.123 (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This reads more like google translate, perhaps? Either way, if you can't write coherent English here, you shouldn't be editing the article. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering where the history of the protection templates went for the last assumed appropriate measure needed example of this sort used here to know the ID of its enforcer but seemed reminded of it by seeing that same editor in action again, but at least it now as certainly being the one from the similar Sini Shetty article action, also here now (after the same editor, still needing no explanation or discussion, finished it off just prior again here) with the Fink editor's arrival mixed in somewhat similarly here as before, also. Of course, you've sat on it here for the longest of this group. If I'm not mistaken, there is an appeal process for this sort of action that allows an attempted discussion with this actor on the article's main talk page if not having been blocked. I recall not wanting to appeal it beyond the simple addressing of this move on the main talk page in the BLP article case, as is the first move in the appeal process, as I found it informative enough for review just as is and the main talk page enough for me at continuing to try and improve that article as the editors working that article were clearly beyond reasoning with at that point also for any editorial dispute's possible resolution of much complexity for beyond a very limited reading comprehension ability or personality development of what could support its almost certain contention in any case anyway. In this context, I state it proved predictive, this general Non-GA Concerns Section of the main talk page here, in the sense that much if not all actions are currently being persistently supported by a simple statement of merely perceived nonsensical writing by the other side of an editorial dispute that is already assumed irrefutably so, by a cohort here (and apparently there also, to a degree) that show up one after another with this refrain (or at points in the discussion phase of things having no statement required being fine), but that actually there is an appeal process in the rules as the right of the accused, that if understood in this continued addressing of these editors, is being suggested of them to recognize also as the best way to assert their case to the general readership - as a sort of an abuse of power finding can get the acting character in hot water if their conduct is in error of the process. In other words, I'd like the appeal process explained to me, as for here I'll state that this Daniel Case is most likely at fault by restricting articles serially incorrectly and can be held accountable for it if successfully supported to something or other in Wikipedia's structure of things as beyond just here in the initial discussion (mostly just for public opinion's sake of Wikipedia's volunteer editing force model) as an also possible route of this accused gibberish, if concerned enough with Wikipedia. 50.32.108.238 (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)