Wikipedia:Peer review/Hammurabi/archive2

Hammurabi

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This
peer review
discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review. As a Level 3 Good vital article, I would like to nominate this for Featured Article status but would appreciate some feedback before I go ahead with this.

Thanks, Gingermead (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a drive by comment: I'm not even sure this article should be a GA, let alone a FA. Being one of the most famous and influential people in world history, the article is shockingly short, lacking in numerous aspects, and is primarily based off of a singular source. Some major citation additions, expansion, and infobox cleaning is required in my mind. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Unlimitedlead: Thank you for your feedback, I do appreciate it. I'm definitely looking to add some other inline citations from other sources to this article. Are there any specific additions / areas you would suggest need expanding? Thanks. Gingermead (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Half of this article is dedicated to Hammurabi's legacy, but I'd argue that a lot more can be said about his actual life, reign, and legal policy; this should be reflected in the lead as well. A couple more thousand words about those topics would be nice. Going along with that, much of the information in the Legacy section is unimportant and is pretty much trivia. Those should be trimmed significantly in favour of details about his actual reign. Make sure the infobox includes his parents (if we know who they were), as well as other relevant parameters found at Template:Infobox royalty. Good luck, Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gingermead There has not been recent activity at this PR, do you want it to stay open? (t · c) buidhe 10:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GuineaPigC77

Hi @Gingermead! I don’t have expertise here, but I’m probably in your target audience as a reader. Overall, an informative read! Comments:

Biggest suggestion overall: bring the most important elements of a section up higher (or at the top) of its section. For example, in #Code of laws, I might start with a general statement about what it is and why it’s important, considering that it touches on huge topics like physical punishment, retribution, and presumption of innocence. To me these concepts are more important than what order the codes came in, or how it was inscribed, which could go to later paragraphs. This is one example but in general I think attention to which elements of a section are most important could make for stronger topic sentences.

Other comments:

“Hammurabi ascended to the throne as the king of a minor kingdom in the midst of a complex geopolitical situation.” I think this sentence could be the topic sentence of the previous paragraph, which opens the section.
“The first few years of Hammurabi's reign were quite peaceful.” Needs citation?
“quelling the unrest and soon after crushing Eshnunna”. Can we add commas: “quelling the unrest, and, soon after, crushing Eshnunna” That could be too many but it needs at least one.
“These letters give a glimpse into the daily trials of ruling an empire”. It would be nice to have a quote so we can hear it in his own voice. We do get that opportunity later in the article, but I’m interested to know what Hammurabi thinks about these daily trials and such. Could his own words give insight into an aspect of his personality perhaps?
The #Code of laws section could be expanded. For example, “Unlike earlier laws, it was written in Akkadian, the daily language of Babylon, and could therefore be read by any literate person in the city.” I want to know more about this.

Minor things:

Lead. The cuneiform in the first sentences seems like a larger font size than the surrounding text. Is that intentional? Or even true?
“The kings who came before Hammurabi had founded a relatively minor City State in 1894 BC”. Here “City State” is capitalized but it appears as “city-state” elsewhere in the article.

I’m happy to discuss further, read again, or both! Cheers! GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 06:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GuineaPigC77: Thank you very much, I appreciate the feedback a lot! Hopefully some of the edits I have done have helped this article.

The only things I couldn't do were extracts from letters the source doesn't mention them, and while I could find some extracts online, I wasn't sure what to find that would be due for inclusion here without straying into original research.

As for the cuneiform text, I agree that it does seem large, but this seems to be the standard way of formatting it in Wikipedia - if there is a better way, please let me know!

I am definitely not an expert in this subject area either, but appreciate any feedback you or anyone else can give. Gingermead (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gingermead, the changes look great. Doing a second read-through:

The first sentence of the second paragraph ("Hammurabi is best known for having issued the Code of Hammurabi"). I think this could be added to the very first sentence of article. Something like: "Hammurabi (Akkadian: 𒄩𒄠𒈬𒊏𒁉; c. 1810 – c. 1750 BC) was the sixth Amorite king of the Old Babylonian Empire, reigning from c. 1792 to c. 1750BC, best known for having issued the Code of Hammurabi." Then the first sentence of paragraph 2 becomes: "Hammurabi claimed to have received the code from Shamash, the Babylonian god of justice." Or something like that. The point is that if he's best known for the code, it should be at the top to help readers identify who they're reading about.
Background and ascension. Possibly change "his father Sin-Muballit" to "Hammurabi's father Sin-Muballit".
Reign and conquests. "In just a few years, Hammurabi succeeded in uniting all of Mesopotamia under his rule." This sentence seems like a good summary of much of the material in this section. Can we use this as a topic sentence earlier? The section can still be in chronological order, but it would be easier for the reader if they get the big points first, so they don't have to read the rest of the section if they don't want the details of this.
Code of laws. This seems much better now that you take up this point (which laws came first) in this section rather than the lead.
Code of laws. The expanded material about language reforms is helpful, but could go further. For example, what effect did literacy have on compliance with the laws?
Code of laws. Are there other modern governments that have commemorated Hammurabi's influence? Or just the U.S.?
Political legacy, paragraph 2. "wiped out" means that there was content on the stele that was removed? That's interesting. Why? When?
To Unlimitedlead's point above, the article does seem short (and there are very few sources listed) for such an important figure. So I'd agree that expansion would be good.
In general moving the important material higher seems to be helpful, and I would do more of it. Some readers may just skim the first several sentences of each section, so it would be good if even they can get the most important points of the article.

Happy to read more updates if you are finding this helpful! GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 15:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]