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

Reviewer: Maclean25 (talk · contribs) 18:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   10 images used:

• File:Cyrus Cylinder front.jpg - Commons-hosted, cc-by-sa/GFDL
• File:Hormuzd.Rassam.reclined.jpg - Commons-hosted, tagged public domain
• File:Babylon 1829 cropped.gif - Commons-hosted, tagged public domain
• File:Cyrus cylinder extract.png - Commons-hosted, tagged public domain
• File:Cyrus Cylinder detail.jpg - Commons-hosted, cc-by-sa/GFDL
• File:Nabonidus cylinder sippar bm1.jpg - Commons-hosted, tagged public domain
• File:Nabonidus.jpg - Commons-hosted, cc-by-sa/GFDL
• File:Cyrus cylinder Mesopotamia.svg - Commons-hosted, cc-by-sa/GFDL
• File:House of Iran - Cyrus cylinder.jpg - Commons-hosted, cc-by-sa
• File:London 307.JPG - Commons-hosted, cc-by-sa/GFDL

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Notes

• 1a. In "The text", ...it has been edited... - does "it" refer to the false translation. The false translation circulated on the internet has been edited?

• 2a. The Encyclopedia of library and information science is listed in the references but doesn't seem to have an associated footnote. Was it actually used in the article? If not it can be removed or placed in a "Further reading" section. Also, it appears the "Books and journals" is going for an alphabetical list, but the last two are not in order.

• Well spotted, I think the thing for which the encyclopedia was used as a citation must have been removed at some point. The last two also seem to be leftovers and don't seem to be in use for anything (and one of them is a dubious source anyway). I've removed all three unused references. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 2b. In "The text", "brought relief...to their (main) complaints". - no citation. Is this from [28] like the rest of the quotes?

• The supporting citation for this paragraph is [47], at the end of the para. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 2b. In last paragraph of "Pre-revolutionary Iranian government's view", there are several quotes in which it is unclear which source they are coming from.

• Could you possibly highlight the particular quotes you mean? Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "the history of our empire...in the history of mankind."
• "the heritage of Cyrus...human liberty".
• "the question of Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflict".
• "an ancient declaration of human rights." maclean (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, tackled all of these. Prioryman (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't Hassan Pirnia's opinion be better placed in the "Pre-revolutionary Iranian government's view" section, rather than the "Scholar" section?

• Not really, because Pirnia wasn't writing in an official category - he had retired from public service and was acting purely in the capacity of a scholar when he wrote his history of Iran. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 3b. The "Dispute between Islamic Republic of Iran and the British Museum" section is given excessive weight over sections more relevant to the Cylinder. I suggest condensing to one paragraph and under the "Exhibition in Iran (2010-11)" section.

• I've condensed it quite drastically - see what you think of it now. Prioryman (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One dead link.

• Removed, it wasn't necessary anyway as there was already an alternative link. Prioryman (talk)

• Should use WP:LQ consistently.

• I've gone through and fixed any examples that I found. Prioryman (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

I am placing the review on hold (~one week) pending resolution or explanation of the numbered points above. maclean (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

• This is an excellent and valuable article (and well-illustrated!). If you have FA ambitions, it would be best to do a peer review first or at least get one of the FA-regulars to give you an opinion first. maclean (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]