Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Code of Hammurabi/archive2

Code of Hammurabi

 * Nominator(s): Emqu (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is for the Code of Hammurabi, which is an iconic text of the ancient Near East and the longest legal text of the period. I rewrote the page two years ago and it remains essentially unchanged. I put it through FAC back then but the process became rather bogged down in personal-preference style edits. I'd love to see it through and I look forward to hearing your views. Emqu (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

First-time nomination

 * Hi, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as you have not yet had a nomination promoted at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I found and removed some original research in the "reception outside Assyriology" section. The entire article should be checked for similar issues. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Placeholder from Airship

 * Hi Emqu, I'll start the review properly this weekend, but I just wanted to comment on the lead's first two paragraphs. At the moment, they're slightly messy, as they seem to lose focus a lot and the second one is rather short (note that WP:LEAD recommends no more than four well-composed paragraphs, emphasis mine).
 * I would combine the two, saying something like: "The Code of Hammurabi is a Babylonian legal text composed c. 1755–1750 BC. Written in the Old Babylonian dialect of Akkadian, purportedly by Hammurabi, sixth king of the First Dynasty of Babylon, it is the longest, best-organised, and best-preserved legal text from the ancient Near East. The text itself was copied and studied by Mesopotamian scribes for over a millennium. The primary copy of the text is inscribed on a basalt stele 2.25 m (7 ft 4+1⁄2 in) tall, which was rediscovered in 1901 at the site of Susa in present-day Iran, where it had been taken as plunder six hundred years after its creation; it now resides in the Louvre Museum." What do you think? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Buidhe
 * The first paragraph of "Mosaic, Graeco-Roman, and modern" is arranged in a confusing way. If there is a consensus as you state in the last part of the paragraph, put that first, then mention any minority views specifically attributed to their holders, not something vague like "some" or "others".
 * There are some issues with editorializing. For example, "even Van De Mieroop acknowledges"—it does not seem verifiable that his position is particularly divergent as the text suggests. There are MOS:WTW issues throughout.
 * Also, I would suggest reducing the number of quotations and mentions of different scholars to aid readability.
 * I have some skepticism about how sources are used and found some failed verification issues, which I flagged in the article. For example, a broad generalization about "all insurance" needs a more recent and stronger source than a book published in 1915. You need a different source than Wolfram von Soden to assert that Wolfram von Soden "proved" anything. Etc. I am finding these issues throughout the article so I am leaning oppose. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:P1050763_Louvre_code_Hammurabi_face_rwk.JPG needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:F0182_Louvre_Code_Hammourabi_Bas-relief_Sb8_rwk.jpg, File:Mosaic_of_Justinianus_I_-_Basilica_San_Vitale_(Ravenna).jpg
 * File:Tranchée_de_Jacques_de_Morgan_sur_l'acropole_de_Susa_en_Iran_(Musée_du_Louvre,_Arch_AO_2267).jpg: when and where was this first published?
 * File:Enki(Ea).jpg is tagged as lacking author info and needs a US tag
 * File:Napoleon_Bonaparte.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose from Gog the Mild
Recusing.

Apologies, but this seems far from FAC-ready, so I am opposing and suggesting withdrawal for further work. The points above seem on the money to me. A partial review (not by me) has led to a number of tags being added, which I agree with. As just one example of the many issues which need addressing, cite 181 bundles eight works, none with page numbers[!], to cover two sentences, with no indication as to which cover the first sentence, which the second and which, if any, both. This is a great start but needs input from an editor or editors who understands the requirements of FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Sorry, but there too many issues in terms of sourcing and referencing to pass muster here. - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hog Farm Talk 22:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)