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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
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.
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 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]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
