Talk:Šulak

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Šulak/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ArtemisiaGentileschiFan(talk · contribs) 14:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Reviewer: Jishara(talk · contribs) 18:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: Just a few tiny comments before we can get this approved. As per usual, you have 7 days. Looking forward to this. P.S. - great name, I'm a big fan of hers as well. Sincerely, Jishara (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Almost perfect here - but one of the quotes, the one about striking on the side, is a bit long - trim a bit, if possible.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   No errors with MoS here - it's relevant and clear.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   A reference section is present and in accordance with the MoS.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   A spot-check of the sources (i reviewed 6 of the 12 cites, 3 out of 4 sources) found nothing in the wikipedia that wasn't also in fact in the source.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Missing a little of the hedging - for example your source for Hitter states the Hitter "could be Sulak", not that it is.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No signs of copyvio to either Earwig or me.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   When checking the sources, I noticed this in the same book source - i'd recommend you note it, maybe? (it seems to indicate that part's based on Sulak, not just tied with) "This wisdom is the heritage of the babylonians: the babylonian demon of the privy, Sulak, hits man with a disease akin to epilepsy".

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Focused on only matters important to the issue - even when it diverges slightly, it's important because it shows the similarities between the two.

4. Is it neutral ?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Controversial claims are accredited instead of being in the Wikipedia voice.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No signs of stability errors throughout.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images ?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Only one image, it's public domain - works.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   image of a seal of the entity at issue here, and with an appropriate caption

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

@Jishara: Hi, thanks so much for the review. I believe I've addressed the issues you brought up. If there's anything else, please let me know, thanks! ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: thanks for the updates! just a few more things - this quote ("[i]f the whole left side of his body hangs limp: he is stricken at the front. [...] An exorcist cannot make a prognosis for his recovery or diagnosis for his cure".) is still a hair too long, and you updated both Lurker and Hitter at once so your hedging re. Lurker is now a bit too hedged (source is very definitive, so either confirm with attribution or confirm) Jishara (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Jishara: Thanks again, I've now made the suggested edits. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: Approved! Jishara (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion . No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Beta Beta Beta(talk)19:22, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

• ... that Babylonians believed in a toilet demon that gave people strokes while they pooped?

• • ALT1: ... that ancient Babylonians blamed epilepsy on a poop demon ? Source: Manekin-Bamberger, Avigail (2013). "An Akkadian Demon in the Talmud: Between Šulak and Bar-Širiqa". Journal for the Study of Judaism. 44 (2): 282–287. doi:10.1163/15700631-12340381. ISSN 0047-2212. Archived from the original on 2025年04月15日. Retrieved 2026年07月14日.^:282
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2024 NBA Finals
  • Comment: I think ALT1 is funnier, but may be technically inaccurate since Šulak was said to live in toilets but may not necessarily be "a poop demon" (it attacked people while they pooped but was not a demon of poop). I'll leave it up to the nominator to decide if they think that slight technical inaccuracy is ok or not.

ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC).Reply