Talk:Letter from Iddin-Sin to Zinu/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 13:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Images -
- Doesn't need fixing for GA, but I'm not sure that commons has the license tag for File:TCL 18 111.jpg right... but that's a commons issue to figure out over there, not here.

I will have a look at this eventually. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright:
- I'm not sure the use of the entire translated text is good under wikipedia copyright rules. I'm not up on the copyright status of translations - are we sure that we can quote the entire translation?

I think this should be fine - it's 134 words long and technically a small excerpt from the rest of Oppenheim's book (since he is responsible for all the translations contained therein) - i.e. the translation of this letter is not an entire work in of itself (?). Translated inscriptions by Assyrian kings that are of similar (and in cases greater) length didn't present problems at articles like Ashurbanipal and Esarhaddon when those were reviewed a while back. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General:
- where was the letter found and when? Do we have any idea of its provenance how did it get to the Louvre?

I've added that it was first published in 1934 by Georges Dossin. According to the CDLI it was found in the ruins of Larsa but there's a question mark so I presume it's not really certain where it was from. A lot of individual cuneiform tablets for some reason seem to have uncertain locations of origin. I have not been able to track down Dossin's original publication (Lettres de la première dynastie babylonienne vol. 2) to check whether he mentions a location. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History:
- "Zinu, and not Shamash-hazir, being the recipient of the letter derives from spinning and weaving in Mesopotamia, though there are exceptions, usually being done by women." is clunky - suggest "Iddin-Sin likely addressed his mother because spinning and weaving in Mesopotamia was usually done by women, though there are exceptions."

Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- "The standard passage "Tell the lady Zinu" derives from that another scribe would read it aloud for Zinu when she received the letter." Clunky - did you mean "The standard passage "Tell the lady Zinu" derives from the fact that another scribe would read it aloud for Zinu when she received the letter."?

Yes, changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it... a nice little article!

Thank you! Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool is down for me....

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Thank you for reviewing! I have responded to your comments. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those all look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]