Talk:Burney Relief/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I am going to review this article, please note this is my first review and i shall have to take my time doing it :) Reviewer: mark nutley (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Passed quick-fail check.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is very well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
It is well written and is an excellent article, well done. I am going to go over it all again to double check myself before giving the final decision mark nutley (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

On my second reading i have found some uncited content, this might not really be an issue but statements of fact are being made and as such should either be pared back or cited. These are the uncited parts so far. I will bold the parts i think to be most problematic.

"Unfortunately its original provenance remains unknown. The relief was not archaeologically excavated, and thus we have no further information where it came from, or in which context it was discovered. An interpretation of the relief thus relies on stylistic comparisons with other objects for which the date and place of origin has been established, on an analysis of the iconography, and on the interpretation of textual sources from Mesopotamian mythology and religion". Now sourced
 * Provenance

"The composition as a whole is unique among works of art from Mesopotamia, even though many elements have interesting counterparts in other images from that time." Now referenced No other examples of owls in an iconographic context exist in Mesopotamian art, nor are there textual references that directly associate owls with a particular god or goddess. Letting this go, i can find nothing to disprove nor prove it :)
 * Description
 * Owls

mark nutley (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)