Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Code of Hammurabi/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 June 2021 [1].

Code of Hammurabi

[edit]
Nominator(s): Emqu (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Code of Hammurabi is an enigmatic legal text with powerful literary passages. It’s also one of exceptionally few bits of Assyriology known to non-Assyriologists. Politicians and curators pay it lip service and buy expensive replicas, and the page gets 1.5k–2k views in a day. All in all it deserves an article above C-class. I've rewritten it, and have had some very generous FAC mentoring from A. Parrot (talk · contribs). Feedback much appreciated! Emqu (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Done. Emqu (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Scrapped.
Also: what sort of citation do you think is needed for the cn you inserted? A few examples to show that the terms are conventional? Emqu (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would just delete it. To keep you would need a source that explicitly discusses use of the terms, not just some examples which would be WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 23:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: OK, done. Emqu (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Thanks for the edits. I've just unlinked the guilt/shame/fear spectrum which I always found rather suspect. Emqu (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]
  • Should there be a "circa" before the date range in the lede?
Done. Emqu (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hammurabi's letters suggest that he was You can remove "that".
Hmm, this sounds odd to me? I feel that I would always use "that" in this context. Emqu (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not 100% sure, but I saw the folks at GOCE doing it to my last request. ~ HAL333 13:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Emqu (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "cm" in the body look strange. I think there's a template for that.
Is it seeing dimensions in the body per se that is strange, or specifically the abbreviation "cm"? And were you thinking of a template like height? Emqu (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the template. ~ HAL333 13:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Emqu (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • many alternative interpretations Is "alternative" needed?
Have changed this paragraph, hope it is clearer now. Emqu (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments later. Like what I see and the subject matter definitely deserves this treatment. ~ HAL333 23:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can references be in the middle of sentences rather than after punctuation? Not sure myself. If not, I would address that.
Fixed. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are all expressed --> "These are expressed"
Done. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • wrath of all the gods --> "wrath of the gods"
Done. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a source for the order in which Gods and goddesses are invoked?
Have supplied a Roth ref as per the rest of the section. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Justinian and Napoleon caption, why not make it a single sentence: "Justinian I of Byzantium (L) and Napoléon Bonaparte of France (R) both created legal codes to which the Louvre stele has been compared." You can also apply this to other captions.
Done: for this, for Ea/Enki, and for Moses. I'm inclined to keep "The text. ..." as it is, though. Unlike with Justinian and Napoleon, without a simple label it is not at all clear that the image shows the text on the stele. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a huge fan of many of the captions having full stops despite not being sentences.
MOS:CAPTION says that if there is any full sentence in the caption, then all sentences and sentence fragments must be capitalised. The only caption which I think violates MOS:CAPTION is the Capitol caption, and I had actually removed the full stop there before. I've removed it again now. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Code and, e.g., United States law and medieval law Is it okay t have "e.g." in the body of the text? I have only seen it in notes and parentheses. If so, ignore.
Ignoring as per your edit. (WP:MOS uses it 37 times so I think we're safe.) Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some have remarked that the punishments Who?
The two cited sources. It seemed too wordy to say "C. H. W. Johns and... and...", so I just put them in the footnote, but let me know if this is not acceptable. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some writers incorrectly state Which?
Ditto. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Civilopedia" a high quality reliable source?
No for history, yes for the game. It's published by the game's publisher and I believe it's just a copy of the in-game encyclopaedia. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure ref 170 is reliable or that it fully supports the dependent text.
Is this the soundtrack link? I thought the Apple Music page was a reliable source for a soundtrack. If not, I will scrap the mention of the series because I couldn't find any more concrete link to the Code. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A relief portrait of Hammurabi hangs over the doors Does it hang?
Fixed. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got. ~ HAL333 18:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support this nomination. ~ HAL333 12:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

[edit]

Add alt text to the images per WP:CAPTION/MOS:ACCIM and a caption to the table per MOS:DTAB :) Heartfox (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I hope the alt text is OK? Emqu (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wretchskull

[edit]

Review after a quick skim through the article. Thorough review coming soon

  • However, he invokes the wrath of all the gods on any who disobeys or erases his pronouncements. Remove the 's' from "disobeys" and "erases" because they should not be third-person singular simple present.
Fixed. Emqu (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The beginning of the "Theories of purpose" section is unreferenced. 20th century dispute or jurisprudence theory having more support should be referenced.
Addressed. Emqu (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many footnotes use the same books frequently, I'll check for possibfle plagiarism soon, and perhaps look for weasel terms. Great job on bringing this vital article all the way to FAC rather quickly! Wretchskull (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I would say, regarding samey sources, that most instances of Roth (1995a) are page references to Roth's translation. I incorporated these at the end of the FAC mentoring. Emqu (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many overlinked words, even some words that shouldn't be linked at all per WP:OVERLINK. You could fix these manually or with a script if you wish.

  • Remove all links from:
  1. "Justice"
  2. "Law" (only if it stands alone, do not remove links from words such as Mosaic law, etc.)
  3. "Portrait"
  4. "Legal system"
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these words have been linked once in the lead and once in the body (or in an infobox/image), remove all other links from these words:
  1. "Relief"
  2. "Stele"
  3. Any names: scholars, writers, historical figures, etc.
Done. (Some of the duplinks were there because I thought the captions had their own "count" for links.)
"Middle chronology" is technically linked twice in the body, but the second is for the "ultra-long chronology", which is covered in the same article.
Would you say that the infobox is part of the lead, and that I should therefore remove infobox links found in the lead? Emqu (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emqu: Information below.
  • Add missing links to the following words:
  1. First mention of "stele" in the lead section (note that this word is also in the bullet above)
  2. The city of "Isin"
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • References:
  • In the Jurisprudence section, the references of laws should be placed after the law number. Placing it after the text is fine but for MOS, it would be best (-Law x[reference], etc.).
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I have for now. Wretchskull (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thorough review

  • More about links:
  • In the Louvre stele section, you should be careful with how you link acropolis, as in this case, it leads to the ancient Greek settlement. Also, you could link the city of Susa in the images, as the rule of thumb goes: One link in the lead, one in the infobox, one in the body, one in images, and more if they aid the user. You could say that the lead is separate from the infobox. I will come with more soon. Wretchskull (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have relinked the captions on this basis. Delinked acropolis too. Emqu (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead section
  • Hammurabi claims in the prologue to have been granted his rule[...] Somewhat incorrect adjunction of words, change it to "In the prologue, Hammurabi claims to have been granted his rule[...]".
Changed (though I disagree that it was incorrect). Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their scope is very broad, including, for example, criminal law, family law, property law, and commercial law. "Very" is a redundant adverb, because it would be used when the mentioned verb or explanation is beyond its scope of the subject. In the text, it talks about laws, which is part of the subject despite its broadness. Remove "very".
Done. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hammurabi
  • Hammurabi (or Hammurapi), sixth king of[...] There is a missing definite article "the" before the word "sixth". It should be used because it is about Hammurabi specifically.
Neither phrasing is obviously preferable to me. Changed nonetheless. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast to his aggressive foreign policy, Hammurabi's letters suggest he was concerned with the welfare of his many subjects and interested in law and justice. I understand the gist of the sentence, but it is worded rather unclearly.
How about now? Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He commissioned extensive construction works, and in his letters he frequently[...] There should be a comma right after "letters" because it is a subordinate clause connecting with a main clause.
Done. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier law collections
  • Several earlier collections survive, in Sumerian as well as Akkadian. Remove the comma, the whole sentence is a main clause.
How about now? Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Louvre stele
  • The main copy of the text was found on a basalt stele now in the Louvre. Replace "main" with "original" as it is has a more direct definition for the subject.
How about now? Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is 225 cm (7 ft 4 1⁄2 in) high; its circumference is 165 cm (5 ft 5 in) at summit and 190 cm (6 ft 3 in) at base. Add the definitive article "the" before both "summit" and "base".
Done. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scheil hypothesised that the stele had been taken to Susa by the Elamite king Shutruk-Nakhunte, and that he had commissioned the erasure of several columns of laws in order to write his own legend there. Remove the comma (main clause grammar rules), remove "in order" as it is redundant, and remove the redundant word "own" because "write his..." already suggests that it is about himself.
Done. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other copies
  • Over fifty manuscripts containing the laws are known, found not only in Susa but in Babylon, Nineveh, Assur, Borsippa, Nippur, Sippar, Ur, Larsa, and more. Slightly clear but grammatically unsound. Change it to "Over fifty manuscripts containing the laws are known. Among them, they were not only found in Susa. They were also in Babylon, Nineveh, Assur, Borsippa, Nippur, Sippar, Ur, Larsa, and more.". If it is unsatisfactory to you, you may alter it however you see fit.
Amended. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copies were created both during and after Hammurabi's reign: after, it became a part of the scribal curriculum. Unclear wording within two main clauses sandwiched by a sunordinate one. Consider changing it along the lines of "Copies were created both during and after Hammurabi's reign. After his reign, they became a part of the scribal curriculum."
Amended. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Emqu: I will continue with the other half of the article later. Apologies if this is too much, an article this important deserves to be a FA. Wretchskull (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all—thorough feedback is always the best! I'm very grateful. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: you may alter unsatisfactory/unconfident suggestions however you want

Lead section
  • Their scope is broad, including for example criminal law, family law, property law, and commercial law. Add a comma before the word "for" and right after "example".
I think this makes it significantly harder to read. Comma soup. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hammurabi
  • Hammurabi's foreign policy was aggressive, then, but his letters suggest he was concerned with the welfare of his many subjects and interested in law and justice. Remove "then," because "was" suggests that it is past tense. Adding the pronoun "that" after "suggest" seems logical, but I think it is already correct; unconfident about that one. Add "was" before "interested" because verbs should certainly be repeated after multiple words explaining the previous verb; the sentence would be unclear otherwise.
Added "was".
I agree that a "that" makes it flow better. I had one there but removed it (see above on this page).
I'm inclined to keep "then" to indicate that it summarises the preceding paragraph rather than adding new, uncited information. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Early scholarship
  • [...]Scheil gives a transliteration and a free translation into French, as well as a selection of images. Using third-person singular simple present about the past is strange, change "gives" to "gave" or "had given" if it is discussing what happened after the brief introduction.
Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]this is an earlier estimate than even the "ultra-long chronology" would now support, and the "middle chronology" is now favoured. There are some weasel terms, vague attribution, redundancy, and unclear grammar. Consider changing it to along the lines of "[...]this is an earlier estimate than even the "ultra-long chronology" would now support. Therefore, the "middle chronology" is favoured."
How about now? Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Code was compiled near the end of Hammurabi's reign (1792–1750 BC); this was deduced partly from the list of his achievements in the prologue. Unnecessary semicolon and incorrect pronoun. Replace ";" with "." and replace "this" with "It". I see misuse of semicolons quite often, but that will be fixed.
Changed the semicolon. "This" is definitely correct though. "It" can only refer to the stele itself, whereas "this" clearly refers to the estimate of date given in the previous sentence. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]history of the human race"; he remarked that[...] Replace ";" with "." and capitalize "he".
Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relief
  • Contrastingly, Scheil in his editio princeps identified[...] Add a comma before "in" and right after "princeps".
Again, really seems like comma soup to me. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prologue
  • The prologue and epilogue together occupy one fifth of the text, the prologue 300 lines and the epilogue 500 lines out of around 4,130 total For clarity and consistent style, add a dash between "one fifth" and rewrite the sentence to "The prologue and epilogue together occupy one-fifth of the text. Out of around 4,130 total lines, the prologue has 300 lines, and the epilogue has 500."
Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anum, the Babylonian sky god and king of the gods, granted rulership of humanity to Marduk; Marduk[...] I assume you mean that Marduk became ruler of humanity, if that is the case, replace "of" with "over". Misuse of semicolon, replace ";" with "."
Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]shepherd also recurs; it was a common metaphor[...] Replace ";" with "." and capitalize "it".
Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]maintaining temples, and peerless on the battlefield. There are two main clauses, remove the comma.
Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Epilogue
  • He exalts the laws and his own magnanimity (3152'–3239'). Remove "own", because "his" with "magnanimity" suggest that it is about himself.
Rephrased. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]legal imagery, and notably the phrase[...] Add a comma right after "notably".
How about now? Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the king's main concern appears to be ensuring that his achievements are not forgotten, and his name not sullied. Main concern? "Main" seems redundant. Remove the comma after "forgotten".
Comma done. I disagree with "main" though. The aforementioned appears to have been his main concern but not his only concern. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Legislation
  • Only if the text was intended as enforced legislation can it truly be called a code of law and its provisions laws. "Truly" is redundant as the whole sentence already suggests that with context.
I'm inclined to keep it. Even scholars sceptical about the "code" and "laws" being a code and laws have not produced a satisfactory alternative. Because of this, and because the terms are convention, it would be confusing and original to call them "code" and "laws", even if that is not strictly what they are. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The document does on first inspection resemble a highly organised code, similar to the Code of Justinian and Napoleonic Code. Remove the comma. The sentence can be worded trivially better, also, add "the" before "Napoleonic". You could write "The document, upon first inspection, resembles a highly organised code similar to the Code of Justinian and the Napoleonic Code."
Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vital areas of society and commerce are omitted: for example[...] Replace ":" with "." and capitalize "for".
Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Mesopotamian legal document explicitly references the Code or indeed any other law collection[...] "Indeed" is unnecessary, "any other law" addresses the point concisely.
Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip: Rosetta stone is a featured article and you might see some similar details that you could add onto this article.
Will have a look tomorrow. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Emqu: That's all I have for today. I will continue with the rest of the article tomorrow. Best of luck! Wretchskull (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Law report
  • Image: library of Ashurbanipal Capitalize library, it's a proper noun.
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]law report, containing records of past cases and judgments, albeit phrased in an abstract way. Remove the first comma because it is a main clause. "In an abstract way" is redundant, rephrase it to "abstractly".
How about now? Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, these judgments were concerned As per MOS:WTW (I highly suggest you read some points there), one should maintain an impartial tone, and "indeed" is not allowed (MOS:EDITORIAL). Either remove "Indeed" or rewrite the sentence to fit the references but without the word.
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jurisprudence
  • [...]within Assyriology, is that the Code is not in fact a true code, MOS:WTW here again, "in fact" is not allowed. Also, it is redundant because "not a true code" already suggests that. Also, remove the comma next to "code".
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others have provided their own versions of this theory. "Own" is redundant. "Their" already suggests that by definition.
Inclined to keep this one. I think without it there would be ambiguity. For example, "their" might refer to the two omen collections just mentioned. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]pursued, in order to generate a sequence. Remove "in order", "to" should be alone.
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Van De Mieroop provides the following examples. Replace "." with ":"
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, following the principle of pointillism, circumstances are added to the first entry in order to create more entries. Link "pointillism" as it may be confusing to some. Remove "in order", again: redundancy.
Removed "in order".
I can't link pointillism, since the article is about the painting technique. I would normally scare-quote "pointillism" to remind the reader that it was defined above, but I see that scare-quoting violates WP:MOS. Do you still think it is a problem? Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, in the case of the goat used for threshing[...] Link "threshing".
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, linking the Code[...] "In addition" is used quite frequently, change it to "also" or "besides" to avoid redundancy. If the wording is important as it is, you could perhaps change "in addition" in other parts of the article.
Done x3. Only kept it where it is "in addition to...". Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Code in fact appears in a late Babylonian[...] "In fact" is not allowed (MOS:EDITORIAL). Remove it or rewrite the sentence.
Done x2. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]it may best be considered a scholary treatise. Add missing a missing L: "Scholary" ---> "Scholarly". Also, "it may be best considered" according to whom?
Rephrased. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]legal system: for example, that it demonstrates that there were no professional advocates, or that there were professional judges. Replace ":" with "." and capitalize "for". Remove the comma after "advocates", two main clauses connected.
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Underlying principles
  • Indeed, laws 196 and 200 respectively prescribe an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, when one man destroys another's. Same issue with MOS:WTW, remove "Indeed" or rewrite the sentence. Remove the comma after "tooth".
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]house's builder; the following law[...] Replace ";" with "." and capitalize "the".
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • before the law: not just age Replace ":" with ";"
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]though contentious it seems likely[...] Missing comma, add one right after "contentious".
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, most readers will be struck[...] Rephrase "In addition" to "also" or "besides" unless it is significant.
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • innocence: the very first two laws Replace ":" with ";". Remove the redundant "very"; if you mean the first two laws of the entire stele then it may be an exception.
I did mean that, but have removed anyway. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]laws, and as Owen B. Jenkins observed the Replace ", and" with "." (two independent clauses) and capitalize "as". Also, add a comma after "observed".
Rephrased. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Language
  • (In the second paragraph, add the missing indefinite article "a" before the words "sequence". Also, link the first mention of "clause" if it hasn't been linked once in the article as it is very relevant to the subject.)
Linked "clause". "Sequence of action", though, is an uncountable grammatical term. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • muškēnum is now thought to derive[...] The first word of the sentence should be capitalized. Never use vague attribution (MOS:WTW). I see the word "now" used incorrectly throughout the article quite often.
Assyriological scholarship never capitalises Akkadian words. MOS:LCITEMS isn't clear about what to do here. (Anyway, I changed the sentence to avoid vague attribution so it doesn't matter.)
I've removed a bunch of "now"s. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other Mesopotamian
  • [...]god-given legitimacy in a similar way. Unnecessarily wordy, rewrite "in a similar way" to "similarly".
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also like the Code of Hammurabi[...] Add missing comma after "Also".
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that scribes were still copying e.g. the Code of Ur-Nammu when Hammurabi produced his Code does suggest that influence can be inferred from this similarity. A rather unclear sentence and is wordy. Can't the sentence be reworded and reduce the extremely wordy "suggest that influence can be inferred from this similarity" to "influenced" in a way?
How about now? Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Middle Assyrian Laws, and to the Neo-Babylonian Laws Remove the comma.
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]tradition of legal writing, outside Mesopotamia proper. Remove the comma.
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mosaic, Graeco-Roman, and modern
  • There are certainly similarities between the two law collections[...] Remove "certainly" per MOS:EDITORIAL, using such words is not allowed.
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]collections is very difficult to establish. Is "very" necessary? If not, it is redundant.
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]Twelve Tables; however, this is highly conjectural, as are most arguments for Mesopotamian influence on the Graeco-Roman world. Replace ";" with "." and capitalize "however". It is "highly conjectural" according to whom?
Full stop done. Removed the resulting second sentence. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even Van De Mieroop acknowledges that the majority of Roman law is not similar to the Code, or likely to have been influenced by it. Replace "the majority of Roman law is" with "most Roman laws are"; more concise and could lessen the risk of plagiarism if the previous text was closer to the reference.
Changed to "most Roman law is". Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]the Code and e.g. United States law and medieval law. Add a comma right after the first "and".
Done. Based on your other suggestions I assume you also wanted a comma after the "and", but let me know if this is wrong. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Code are no more severe and in some cases less so. Add a comma right after "and" and "cases".
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reception outside Assyriology
  • The king's reputation as a lawgiver presumably inspired the name of Iraq's Hammurabi Human Rights Organization, and of the South Korean novel and television series called Ms. Hammurabi, which are about a judge. Remove the comma after "Organization". Also, this sentence is unreferenced. Even if it may seem logical, using words such as "presumably" to hypothesize and speculate something is not allowed in an encyclopedia and is original reseach. Unless there are references, the sentence must be removed.
How about now? Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are replicas of the Louvre stele in institutions around the world, including the Headquarters of the United Nations in New York City; the Peace Palace in The Hague, seat of the International Court of Justice; the National Museum of Iran in Tehran; the Pergamon Museum in Berlin; the University of Chicago Oriental Institute; the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology; the University of Kansas Clendening History of Medicine Library; and the Prewitt–Allen Archaeological Museum of Corban University. Replace all semicolons with commas (incorrect clause listing).
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes:
  • I notice that you sometimes do not like "comma soup". These commas are actually fully justified and grammatically necessary, and paradoxically, it would be invalid and ugly not to have them. If there are some instances where you feel like you could rewrite a sentence to avoid it, that is an option.
Have changed them. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Hammurabi article, there are some sources and details in the "Code of laws" section where you could use sources that aren't used in this article. That could perhaps diversify your sources to avoid possible plagiarism of Roth-sources. You could also add and alter information there as you obviously know a lot about the Code.
I'll have a look at these sources. Initial impression is that they are not the best. Also, at least two were written much earlier than the article attributes and have not been updated.
The Code article itself is not reliant on Roth. As stated, during the FAC mentoring, I added a Roth page ref after every line number ref and changed my own translations to hers. I grant that this may create an impression of uneven source use. Is this a problem? Is the current scheme necessary?
Yes, once this FAC is done I might go and improve the articles that reference the Code. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull: Yep—the sources in that article aren't ideal, and most of them are mis-dated. I've added some highlights though. The Hazor paper is somewhat interesting, and I had forgotten about the Ziolkowski book.
I also added stuff on the Civilization games because they are doubtless responsible for many of the pageviews. Emqu (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you see that I have missed some words to watch, you could fix them.
Have done so. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Emqu: That's my review of this article. I'm sure promotion will be a cakewalk for you, good luck! Wretchskull (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your thorough and upbeat comments. I'm touched that you also want to speed this along to FA! Do let me know if you're unhappy with the edits. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Wretchskull: just wondering whether you would now support this? Emqu (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Emqu: Sorry for the delay. I have three minor things to say. If you look at the footnotes section, there are some short citations that do not have page numbers. Another thing is that before you started your rewrite of the article, I saw that the relief at the top of the stele is referred to as the "fingernail". Is that something significant that could be included once or twice in the article? Also, are there any good references prior to the rewrite that could be used here to diversify the sources? Apart from that, I absolutely support this nomination! Wretchskull (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull: Re footnotes: yes, in those cases it is where I make a general point about the work. Is that OK? Re "fingernail": the only sources I have seen calling it that are the old Wikipedia article and the iconography article it cites, which I could not access to check, so I'm inclined to avoid it. Re sources: a few are obviously non-reputable, and numerous are from general history books. Unless the latter are of special significance (e.g. the H. G. Wells), I would also consider them non-reputable.

Notes on the old sources:

  • Moorey says it's granite, most sources say basalt. I'm inclined to defer to the consensus but if you think it's worth mentioning then I will.
  • As mentioned, I couldn't find the Collon, and I wouldn't want to include the fingernail thing anyway.
  • Ragozin is actually from 1896, not 2017, so deserves caution. Secondly, Magan's location has been somewhat controversial since then. Thirdly, I couldn't find any mentions of Magan (or Makan) in the Google Book at all.
  • The H. G. Wells and the Barton would improve the article so I'll add those.
  • I'm inclined to ignore the constitution footnote. The Flach article is bad (and Flach was not an Assyriologist). The Thomas & Stevens source is a kids' book.
  • I checked Victimology already. The Hammurabi coverage is not reputable.
  • Fant & Mitchell, Ancient Orient, and Sax are also bad. Emqu (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emqu: Very well. The only thing left is the concern that some text in the article may not be supported by the corresponding references as per, for example, the few ones raised by Ovinus in a spot-check. If that is because it does support the text but is unavailable then that is fine. You can add and remove whatever point you raised as you see fit; you are the only Wikipedian who I dare say is an expert about the topic. Wretchskull (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull: I had another look today at citations not included in Ovinus' spot checks. I can only say that, to the best of my knowledge, the article's claims are justified.
I've now added Wells and Barton from the earlier revision.
And thanks for the archive links, I didn't think of that. Emqu (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Wretchskull: is your support now without caveats? Emqu (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Emqu: Without a doubt! I keenly support this nomination. Wretchskull (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull: Thanks again for how much you invested in this!
@Gog the Mild: I think that's consensus. Emqu (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is for the coordinators to decide. As a first time nominator I would prefer to see more than the bare minimum of three supports, comprehensive as they have been. The nomination also needs a source review. (I have had it Source review requests for a while.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emqu: I haven't seen you active for a while, I hope you are still there. Wretchskull (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emqu: Check your talk page. Wretchskull (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks from Ovinus

[edit]
  • [5]: Footnote, not a source
Done. Wretchskull (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [11]: I'm getting a 404
That could be a localised issue; at least it is not happening to me, not sure. Wretchskull (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [16]: "This remains the consensus." Doesn't seem to be found in the source? Roth says "for it was taken to Susa, perhaps by Shutruk-Nahhunte I, a Middle Elamite ruler, or by" (emphasis mine)
  • [25]: good
  • [31]: good
  • [40]: good
  • [41]: good
  • [44]: good
  • [53]: good
  • [57]: good
  • [62], [65], [68], [69], [73], [75], [76], [78], [79], [106], [130]: @Emqu: I have the 1997 edition of Roth 1995a, which looks to line up, but I don't understand the conversion between line numbers. Perhaps you could explain, then I can check these ones?
  • [88], [102], [107], [113], [127], [149], [155], [158], [160]: unobtainable print sources
  • [144]: Not seeing it in Roth, but maybe it's in the others
  • [150]: Roth seems to support the last half, can't check the first
  • [169]: good
  • [176]: good
  • [177]: good

I programmatically chose 35 random numbers, so coordinators let me know if more would be appropriate. Ovinus (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ovinus, that looks more than good enough to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The citation issues that persist are the ones Ovinus pointed out but also that some citations do not have page numbers. I fixed some since Emqu has not been online for a while now, unfortunately. Wretchskull (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ovinus: @Wretchskull: So sorry, for some reason I missed your last ping Wretchskull! I will get on these tomorrow. Emqu (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ovinus: Thanks for these, and for the article edits.

  • [11, now 10]: The Louvre had a page on the stele, which was of course a useful source, but it appears to have removed it since I submitted the article for FAC. Infuriating. Should I assume that the removal is temporary and leave the article, or assume it is permanent and remove all references to it in the article?
  • [16, now 15]: Removed the "consensus" sentence.
  • Re line numbers: Roth's edition doesn't give precise line numbers (at least, the 1995 edition doesn't). The article needs to cite an edition which does. I chose CDLI's edition for these since it is open-source and very thorough. (I initially pointed the reader to CDLI instead of Roth, but my FAC mentor commented that CDLI was less useful without knowledge of Akkadian.) However, CDLI uses a different line numbering scheme.
  • Is "unobtainable print sources" an obstacle to FA status?
  • [144, now 143]: Reworked.
  • [150, now 149]: Rephrased.

@Wretchskull: Re page numbers.

  • Louvre is (/was) a web page.
  • Winckler, Bonfante, and Johns in the context refer to their editions as a whole.
  • Have clarified that the Harper and Equitable Trust Company citations referred to their titles.
  • Souvay and Horne are web pages containing the raw text of early print editions.
  • Citation 40 refers to sources which have this as their topic.
  • Added for Elsen-Novák & Novák.
  • Added for 71.
  • 82 cites editions endorsing this view, for which citations are given later. I would have thought this didn't need a citation?
  • Would 84, 85, and 97 be improved by "passim"?
  • 111: I couldn't find a specific citation for Listenwissenschaft in my notes on that paper, and no longer have access to the paper. Worth retaining?
  • Johns 1910 is another web page of raw text.
  • Most citations from 163 to the end are web pages. I assume it was not these that you were flagging up. Emqu (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emqu: If you want to return a link to its original form you can archive it via, for example, archive.org. I have archived the louvre sources so do not worry about that. Wretchskull (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at Roth 1995a (1997 for me) for some of those ones and it looked to match up, though I of course couldn't check the exact line numbers. So based on that I support on the spot checks, and it looks like y'all will figure out the page numbers. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Fowler&fowler

[edit]
Hi @Fowler&fowler: are you still interested in reviewing? Emqu (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry, but I forgot all about this article. I don't have too much time right now, but if it is archived—which I hope it is not as it reads very well in my cursory reading—I promise I will come back and review it with care in its second appearance. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: Not to worry. I'm active now so should be able to stop it getting archived. Would you feel able to support it? If you would rather not without a full review then I understand. Either way I'm glad you like it. Emqu (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Land

[edit]

I randomly browsed onto this article, started reading it, thought "Why isn't this a Featured Article?" Then saw the candidacy on the talk page. So here I am!

I don't have a detailed knowledge of the subject, but I can find very little scope for improvement. I have made one small edit to "Reception outside Assyriology" and I would be interested to know in this section if the Code has any impact in modern legal discussion, or if it is simply treated as a curiosity to add weight.

This said, based on my initial reaction and subsequent more detailed read of the article, I am delighted to support it. Great job! The Land (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Land: Very late response, but thank you!
I have to say, 'where it is assumed to be a true code of laws, and that its provisions are laws' seems ungrammatical to me. I have inserted a compromise. I am happy with the other edit you made.
I suppose that depends how you define 'impact'. In terms of influence on modern laws or legal thought, probably only via Roman/Greek/Biblical laws, if it influenced those. Most legal scholars I have read take it as given a) that its entries had legal weight, b) that it was a full code of laws, and c) that it was the first code of laws. Then they move on to whatever point they are trying to make. Emqu (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Borsoka

[edit]

Thank you for completing this interesting article. Please find my first comments below:

  • ... his father Sin-Muballit ... Does the cited source verify it?
Added.
  • ... leaving his organisation intact Why is this statement relevant?
It characterises him as sensible rather than vindictive or rash.
  • ... forming alliances to do so when expedient Does this statement provide actual information?
Yes, surely...? Though I would agree that it isn't essential to the article. Removed.
  • All these preoccupations surface in the Code, especially in the prologue ... and epilogue.... OR?
Removed.
  • ...(e.g. 37–39, 51, 90–97) ... (e.g. 3154'–3164', 3240'–3253') What are these numbers? Consider moving them to a footnote.
  • Is the ISBN for Van De Mieroop (2007) correct?
Have changed to the 2007 edition.
  • It was excavated by the French Archaeological Mission under the direction of Jacques de Morgan.[14] Susa is in modern-day Khuzestan Province, Iran (Persia at the time of excavation). Consider changing the sequence of the two sentences.
Done.
  • Introduce Father Jean-Vincent Scheil.
Done.
  • The introduction is problematic, because it is not verified (see my comment below).
Can I just remove it? I didn't initially have one and it doesn't seem necessary to the article.
  • The editio princeps of the Code was published by Father Jean-Vincent Scheil in 1902, in the fourth volume of the Reports of the Delegation to Persia (Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse). After a brief introduction with details of the excavation, Scheil gave a transliteration and a free translation into French, as well as a selection of images.[23] Editions in other languages soon followed: in German by Hugo Winckler in 1902, in English by C. H. W. Johns in 1903, and in Italian by Pietro Bonfante, also in 1903. OR?
Surely a plain edition history is not OR??
Meaning it's not OR, right?
Does it state that it is the editio princeps? Borsoka (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1792–1750 BC) Repetition (that Hammurabi ruled from 1792 to 1750 BC is mentioned in the first sentence).
Cut. Emqu (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...More to come. Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...the French Dominican and Assyriologist who wrote the Code's editio princeps... OR? The same information is repeated some lines below.
See above re Scheil intro. re editio princeps: I have now cited every instance.
  • The relief appears to show Hammurabi standing before a seated Shamash, the Babylonian sun god and god of justice. Repetition.
Thanks, done.
  • ...before a seated Shamash... OR? (The source verifying the statement does not name the god. You may want to verify the statement with a reference to Roth.)
Done.
  • Shamash wears the horned crown of divinity and has a solar attribute, fiery rays,... OR?
Addressed.
  • ... in his editio princeps... OR? Perhaps italics?
Added citation, and on my end at least it was already in italics. Emqu (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...More to come. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • There are several p. or pp. errors. Eg cites 21, 95, 118.
Fixed.
  • Bonfante is missing a publisher location and an OCLC.
Added publisher. Couldn't find OCLC.
It's 458622280.
  • Standardise your hyphenisation of ISBNs.
Removed all hyphens.
  • Are you sure about the ISBNs given for Barton, Driver and Edwards?
Barton: I was using an online copy with no ISBN. I couldn't find an ISBN for that particular edition. Driver: fixed. Edwards: I think it's correct.
  • Barton: In which case, where have you obtained the ISBN you give from?
  • Driver: In which case, why are you giving one? (And where did it come from?)
  • Edwards: I don't. Where are you obtaining the ISBN from? (Perhaps use the OCLC instead?)
  • Breasted needs an ISBN.
Fixed.
You have given the ISBN for the 2015 reprint, not the 1916 edition you cite. Which did you obtain the information cited from?
  • The ISBN given for Davies is for the 2010 edition, not the edition cited.
Fixed.
  • Equitable Trust Company needs an OCLC.
Again, I wasn't sure how to find this.
WorldCat is your friend. Scroll down.
  • The ISBN given for Home is for the 2015 edition.
Fixed.
It still seems to be for the 2015 edition. Where are you obtaining it from?
I cannot find the correct one anywhere. Do I need the OCLC, since I just got it from the URL?
I don't think that you are getting the information from The Code of Hammurabi (1915). I don't even think that there is such an edition. You seem to be getting it from the Fordham University Ancient History Sourcebook and should cite it to there.
  • Are you sure about the ISBN given for Johns (1903a). Which, apart from other issues is the same as that given for Johns (1914).
Fixed.
3601005123 is the ISBN of the 1980 edition, not the edition cited. Which did you obtain the information from?
  • Could you check all of the pre-1967 ISBNs and all of the works which don't have identifiers. There is a trend developing.
Sorry about this, I think I just misunderstood how ISBNs worked. Have done this, minus a few I wasn't sure about. These were: Encyclopædia Britannica 11 (or whichever volume Johns 1910 is in); The Catholic Encyclopaedia from 1910; and the Wells 1920 edition.
Encyclopedias don't need identifiers, so that's fine. The OCLC for Wells (1920) is 867104710.
  • As Stark is listed as a book, why is it under "Web" in "Sources"? It also needs a publisher location.
Well, it's a newsletter, and I'm not certain whether it was printed. I'm also not certain whether simply being printed qualifies a newspaper to go under 'books and journals'. I wasn't sure what cite to use but thought book produced the best result. Added a location.
  • Publisher locations: Why is the country given for "London", but not for "Bethesda"?
That's the convention I was taught: that for U.S. locations, state name is sufficient. I don't think WP:MOS forbids this, and I have been consistent about it. Emqu (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't given the state names: you have, I think, given the US Post Office codes. Mostly I was wondering why you felt it necessary to disambiguate Milan, Qxford, London etc, when it seems unlikely that there will be any confusion as to which is intended - you have, as you say, been consistent here; while "Bethesda, MD" probably doesn't tell a non-North America which of these is intended.
I really was consistently applying the convention I was taught, which is a cannibalised APA. It is US-centric, but I am a "non-North American" and I find it perfectly clear. If you would like me to change it, then say the word.

I'll leave things there for now. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ensure that each "Sources" list is in alphabetical order by (first) author surname.
Some responses above and an additional comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Sorry, give me two days to address these queries and the others. Emqu (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Done. Unless otherwise specified, I have added OCLCs using WorldCat (thanks for the tip). Emqu (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just Horne that I still have a query against, see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Emqu, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the coordinators

[edit]

The nominator, Emqu, has been inactive since 9 April. It may be time to archive this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Very sorry, I have been extremely busy and also didn't get notifications about these. If you could just leave the page open for two or three more days I will address everything. I am pleased that more people have commented and I look forward to replying. Emqu (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll give you another three or four days, then drop by again. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emqu: I'm glad you came back, but make sure you check this page every now and then; there are more reviews and answers to your previous comments. Wretchskull (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator absent from WP three weeks, time to close. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ajpolino

[edit]

I admit I knew nothing about the topic except for the whole "eye for an eye" bit, so I'll be reviewing only on criterion 1a.

  • Earlier law collections:
    • Not a hill I plan to die on, but "... make it tempting to assume..." is odd to read in Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps a rephrase?
    • "practice of law, from before..." - The comma seems purposeless; perhaps the whole ", from" could be removed safely?
  • Copies>Louvre stele
    • "However, others,..." could be shortened to "Others, including..."
    • Jean-Vincent Scheil is wikilinked at second use rather than first.
    • "...Elamite city of Susa. Susa is in modern-day..." - a bit choppy to read. How about "... Elamite city of Susa in modern-day..."
  • Copies>Other copies
    • I'm not sure I understand "a part of the scribal curriculum". If you're generally referring to texts typically copied by scribes, then I think it's fine. If you mean something more specific or different, perhaps a clarification is in order.
    • It's momentarily confusing to read that the Louvre steel is "most complete" and later that "The additional copies fill in most of the stele's original text, including much of the erased section." Am I to understand that the known copies contain less complete fragments of the code, but happen to also include the sections erased in the Louvre stele? Or am I misunderstanding something?
  • Early scholarship:
    • "...first volume of The Outline of History, and to Wells too..." is clunky to read. How about "Outline of History, calling the Code 'the earliest known code of law'." or something that similarly avoids saying Wells twice in a dozen or so words.
    • The two sentences "The Code was compiled... in the prologue" stand out as different from the who-said-what style of the surrounding paragraphs. You repeat the same information in the Prologue section ("The list of his... Hammurabi's reign"). I think it flows a bit better there, so I'd suggest removing it here. Alternatively you could just state it here; either way I don't think the reader needs the repetition.
  • Prologue:
    • I'm not sure I understand the purpose of "but is perhaps justified by Hammurabi's interest in his subjects' affairs." You just told us that the shepherd metaphor was common for rulers of that time and place. Is an additional justification necessary?
  • Epilogue:
    • I'm not demanding its removal, but I don't think the structured list of god(desse)s in order of invocation is particularly informative to a reader. It would be equally informative without breaking up the page to say "The epilogue continues in this manner, invoking (in order) Anum, Enlil...". Or it could be removed; we get the idea from your description just above.

More to come... Ajpolino (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Code_of_Hammurabi/archive1&oldid=1031564113"