Talk:Neferhotep I/GA1
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Tim riley in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- General
- Duplicate links: The Manual of Style is quite specific: apart from captions and footnotes, you should have a maximum of two blue-links to any other article: one from the lead and another at the first occurrence in the main text. At present you have multiple links to Karnak, Turin canon, Sobekhotep III, naos, Abydos, Itjtawy, Sobekhotep IV, Sihathor, and Egyptian chronology.
- Karnak is now linked only once, Turin canon is now linked once in the text and once in the infobox, Sobekhotep III is now linked in lead and infobox only, naos is now only linked once in the text, Abydos now linked once in the lead and once in the text, Itjtawy now linked only once, Sobekhotep IV now once in the lead and once in the infobox, Sihathor now once in lead and once in text, Egyptian chronology only once in text. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Spelling and punctuation: It is not clear whether English or American spelling is intended. At present we have (in the main text, not in quotations) both "honour" and "honor". If English is intended, some corrections, according to the Oxford English Dictionary:
- I will follow your advise on the spelling (so more in line with a British one), which seems more correct to me. Thus I changed honor to honour. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Archeology – the OED gives only "archaeology" (the spelling used in our WP article, I notice)
- Spelling corrected! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Egyptology – capitalised
- Capital added! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Coregency – hyphenated as co-regency, which you do in the lead but not in the main text. If I am mistaken, and American spelling is the preferred style of the article, then you'll want to adopt consistent US spelling of this word throughout.
- I decided to go for "coregency" since the wikipedia article on the subject has it spelled this way.
- Semitic – capitalised in the OED
- Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Quotations: See the Manual of Style, and remove the italics from the quotations throughout, beginning with "as instructed by the gods…" in the lead, "officer of a town regiment" etc in the main text
- Duplicate links: The Manual of Style is quite specific: apart from captions and footnotes, you should have a maximum of two blue-links to any other article: one from the lead and another at the first occurrence in the main text. At present you have multiple links to Karnak, Turin canon, Sobekhotep III, naos, Abydos, Itjtawy, Sobekhotep IV, Sihathor, and Egyptian chronology.
- Lead
- Image caption: "Archeological Museum of Bologna" (with no link) here, but in the main text (under Artefacts) "Archaeological Museum of Bologna" (linked)
- Stela – needs a link
- Origins
- Chronology
- Extent of rule
- A possible vindication of this are – singular noun with plural verb.
- Second para – citation lacking for final sentence.
- Tomb
- References
- Refs 11 and 16 seem to be the same.
- Publishing locations: you sometimes give them (e.g. refs 12, 16, 20, 34 and 49) and sometimes don't. They are not compulsory, but consistency is wanted one way or the other.
These are mostly very minor prose points, and the article is plainly of GA quality; it will be my pleasure to promote it when the few tweaks have been attended to. Tim riley talk 12:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy to leave the question of publishing locations in your hands. All other quibbles are now dealt with. Very happy to promote this scholarly and enjoyable article.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail: