Talk:Burney Relief

The Anzû

@NC360: You still are not listening to what I have been saying. By including the part about the Anzû relief in this article, which is about the Burney Relief, not the Anzû, you are making a comparison between them. Even though you do not mention the Burney Relief in the sentence you added, the comparison is still implied because the Burney Relief is the subject of this article. What you are doing is known as original synthesis; you are taking already published ideas, but organizing them in your own way to make your own, original comparison. In order to include the part about the Anzû in this article, you need to provide a citation to a reliable source that directly makes a comparison between the relief of the Anzû and the Burney Relief. It has to mention both in order to count.

The British Museum source you keep citing says nothing at all about the Burney Relief; it only talks about the Anzû. The source therefore fails to establish relevance for the sentence about the Anzû relief in this article. You are welcome to add the statement that the Anzû is shown in a relief facing forward standing on the backs of two stags in the article Anzû, but you can only put it in this article if you provide a source that directly relates this to the Burney Relief. I am not trying to be mean or anything; I am just trying to keep this article in line with policy. Since this article is currently recognized as a "Good Article" under the Good Article criteria, it is especially important to keep it up to standard. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: The sentence before the edit from the wiki is: "In this episode, Inanna's holy Huluppu tree is invaded by malevolent spirits.", and I only added the following sentence: "One of the spirits named Imdugud or Anzû, is shown facing forward, winged, on two stags." I'm not including any new malevolent spirit to the article. It is the same, and a continuing from the former sentence. I didn't include Anzû also being displayed standing on two lions, as that isn't the point I'm making now. The British Museum source you removed only needs to show the malevolent spirit. Even though we can still see similarities, that isn't the point now, nor is it a fault in itself. The new point cannot be: it's too similar to the article for it to be included. NC360 (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@NC360: You are still ignoring what I have been saying, which is that the source provides no warrant for why the relief ought to be mentioned in an article about the Burney Relief. Nonetheless, I am tired of arguing, so I am just going to give up and let you have what you want, even though it is against policy and, in my view, detracts from the quality of the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Katolophyromai - please don't re-add the stuff without a source that explicitly links the two. Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)