Talk:Burney Relief

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 9, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
October 20, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Ancient Near East Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assyria Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

British Museum Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sculpture

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

Visual arts

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

Archives

1

GA Review, August 2010

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 3.

GA Reassessment

Burney Relief

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 see what you mean re oversection; will take a look at condensing the TOC. There are also way too many images. Ceoil (talk) 20:44, 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]

Delist, still several unsourced statements. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 01:32, 18 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.

Copt-Edit

A minor irksome point, but the instances of "right/left-hand side" should be simply stated as "right/left side"

"The headdress has some damage to its front and right hand side" --> "The headdress has some damage to its front and right side"
"some modern damage has been sustained as well: the right hand side of the crown" --> "some modern damage has been sustained as well: the right side of the crown"
"Both owls have one more feather on the right-hand side of their plumage than on the left-hand side." --> "Both owls have one more feather on the right side of their plumage than on the left side."

86.144.176.186 (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@86.144.176.186 Actually, "right-hand" and "left-hand" are less ambiguous Both imply that it is the figures right hand and left hand. Just "right side" and "left side" are confusing, as it is unclear if this is the viewer's or the figure's direction that is meant.

I thus think the "-hand" should be kept. Mastakos (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Identification addition?

The article on Kilili specifies an identification as the goddess on the Burney Relief, though it's details are minimal

Is it ignored because of specific issues, or just not noticed for inclusion here? Mastakos (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the article on Kilili states that she was a demon also worshipped as a goddess - something specifically denied as possible in this article on the Burney Relief (as part of denial of the Lilith identification).

I don't have the knowledge to sort that out. Mastakos (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's only covered as far as it's progressed professionally, more or less, with in the "Authenticity" section found here being kind of summed up accurately by one against its authenticity/antiquity for as it being presented as being "a pastiche of artistic features." Personally, as should be allowed, I find it very Egyptian in this "pastiche," this not being addressed professionally other than what seems possible for that one cited here, that I'd imagine is part of what has her doubting it overall, but I like it. It's also a good bit of a much later fay, if not nude, however etc. Kind of opposite of adding more demonology. ~2026-22269-45 (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even for modern times, for those with a goodly amount of experiences, I suggested and edited as (I've been here a while) - at a much less self-referential relief juxtaposed with that used for the very singularly famous Code, as it might have been implied at the time, also. She might even supplant Shamash for the observer(s) while having them being/playing it for instead of Hammurabi in this/that and with what seems the mystery of a maybe more Egyptian method of counseling going on in having two sides in it. It can be fun like that/this etc. Of course, having a fay in the matter, as it's assumed unnamed at this point even for the pros, while seemingly unheard of so far, would at least be worth pursuing, as I thought a while ago getting a name should be first. ~2026-25043-64 (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That explores perceptions, but you'll get back to Old-Babylon with how it's usually approached, at least. That's well presented, also? I thought a moth and a bird was part of it, with the lions not being a metaphor, and an orb apex, more for that angle, along with that measuring tool (I guess that's what that is) and stacked horns, and possibly a near original use of owls (that became very popular around). I don't think they're commonly nude, either. ~2026-25043-64 (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably more complex than simple, but an age range seems to get importantly established visually, too? ~2026-25043-64 (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thought/tried posture being noted in the article, too. Along with her smile, even with very good posture, she's rather "comfortable" to read, as say opposed to the lions if considered actual lions in this (or some Egyptian works found here in what they display for posture)? I would say this article can be improved even without original research if verifiability is obvious but as can be found around main talk pages aren't much use at improving articles in how uptight first those willing to shut it down are like? It's common, but it's almost anti-improvement how broad enough discussion is not allowed having some cohort of editors that can't let it happen even though they never attempt finding some improvements themselves. ~2026-25043-64 (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think in this example of use, besides shooting down more demon angles, it could be on the trail of something good to toss around some before it gets worked into something worth trying only to have some not involved up to that point show up with what appears just phoning it in as what shoots it down only discussed in the edit summary for a revert successfully seemingly no matter what. Last I was active here at editing losing it all like that, I think for the most part, when next a longtime editor here then just "hmmm-ed" a little for a summary section and did that last part of the lead, that it's assumed a religious subject? If original in its time, it's a "very rare survival," that was reduced to that "rare" in the article now, too, by another editor being a little active then. ~2026-25043-64 (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The main talk page needs to be more intellectually focused than a forum and for BLP's successful integration can take on some traits of the "issues" of its BLP, to be welcoming? I found fun was an actual strategy to success, which is fun to have as a potential quality encouraged and of course discourse can be very successful. Recently, as subjects for a Wikipeida article can be complex, I found the usual pretty dysfunctional main talk page that had a creative humanist's article included in it a stable section for over a year that among other points stated he was a eugenicist not of the sort for one that won humanist of the year in 1967 by the American Humanist Association and that had developed/coined Humanistic Psychology. It was supported at attempts to remove it in the usual way until a main talk page was used to finally improve the article, in good fun too etc. It now sits silent as discourse ended but that team of editors associated with that article are typical it seems, of a cohort. It can be of interest related to this article and those related/linked to it in that a pyramid and an orb as an apex generally entering society could be first established during these times (along with other lasting notions and well-known aggressions)? ~2026-25043-64 (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Progression itself can be fun? ~2026-25043-64 (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]