Talk:Amat-Mamu (daughter of Sin-ilum)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amat-Mamu (daughter of Sin-ilum)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 04:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 21:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Article revisions: Reviewed version of article 6 June 2024, version which passed 9 June 2024.

Beginning a source review, expect it next week. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Done sooner than I expected. Full review follows. Please reply at the end of the review, thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Criterion

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   All good, nice little article

Review comments

Prose

Prose is good, I only noticed a couple MOS points:

• Amat-Mamu inherited four fields totaling 46 acres: a five acre field and a 20 acre field in the Pzur-Ilaba district, a nine acre field in the Akbarum district, and a 12 acre field in the Pahuşu district. Because these numbers are likely to be compared, they should either all be in numerals or all spelled-out (per MOS:NUMNOTES bullet 5 "Comparable values...").
  • If you choose to write them out, they should be hyphenated: nine-acre field
• Conversion might be advisable for archaic units, if practical. A sar is 12 x 12 cubits, I don't know if there's a rough equivalent. On the other hand, the size of the fields/plots isn't really relevant to the claims.

Referencing & verifiability

Sources are reliable, peer-reviewed works. No copyvio detected.

• Charpin2010 used 9 times. Verified for all the material it is used to cite except the debt... which is covered by Harris1969.
• Charpin2023 used 7 times. I found this while logged out of Jstor but couldn't manage to get it to show up while logged in to Jstor through the Wikipedia Library. It seems as though it is not accessible through the Wikipedia Library. AGF.
• Harris1969 used 4 times, all good.
• Harris1976 used once for opinion.
• Jacquet2013 used 4 times.
• Nakata2016 used 8 times.
  • In the references section, it says this is pages 255–269, but the Notes section cites pages between 280 and 283. The document I downloaded from De Gruyter has pages 255–269. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Okay, I found the problem. You've got the right page numbers but you cited the wrong chapter of the book. It was the following chapter, "Cherchez la femme!" by Katrien De Graef. I've corrected this. Now DeGraef2016. All checked.
  • Please verify my changes are okay.

Breadth & focus

It seems that this is all that is known about her (from the tablet), so no more breadth to be had. I didn't spot any additional sources on a cursory search. It might go into too much detail with the size of the plots, but it doesn't hurt anything.

Neutrality

No NPOV issues detected

Stability

Article is new this month, not a single revert on it.

Media

There seems to be an issue with the PD tag on the image at Commons, if you could please address that.

Other areas to improve

Although not part of the GA criteria, here are some other areas for consideration:

• Is this article at the right title? Amat-Mamu seems to be known only through this legal dispute. Should the article be named for the legal dispute or perhaps even the tablet CT 47.63? Either seems awkward, so I don't mind leaving it here.

General discussion

@Thebiguglyalien: So just a couple changes, I think. If you disagree, we can discuss. You can leave specific comments above or general ones down here. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Reidgreg, thank you for fixing the chapter! I've switched all of the numerals to spelled-out numbers, and I added a U.S. public domain tag to the image. I'm a little out of my depth with the units, I just copied them as they were described in the source. And I agree that the title isn't ideal. I went back and forth on it for a while and this was the only one that made sense to me. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I verified your changes. The image tags look good now, thanks for that. As the article gets a little more time in the main space it may attract some specialist attention for the title, but no reason to hold up the review over that. I am satisfied that this article meets the GA criteria and am passing this nomination. Congrats, and I appreciate you picking this truly historical subject for Women in Green's Going Back in Time editathon. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)