Talk:Ahhotep I/GA1

GA Review

Passed. simongraham (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Alanna the Brave (talk · contribs) 22:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 16:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks an interesting article and, based on my previous experience with the nominator, likely to be close to meeting the Good Article criteria already. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Overall, the standard of the article is high.
It is of sufficient length, with 1,531 words of readable prose.
The lead is reasonable given the length of the article at 200 words.
79% of the article is authored by Alanna the Brave, with contributions from 40 other editors.
It is currently assessed as a B class article.

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written.
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- Suggest putting commas around the subclause "Ahmose I"
Do you mean "her young son, Ahmose I"? Done. - A.
Thank you.
- I believe that the comma in "e.g.," is superfluous.
I checked, and this is a stylistic variation thing (like different varieties of written English). American English and Canadian English both use the comma here, whereas British English often does not. I'm writing in Canadian English, so I'm comfortable leaving the comma. - A.
Seems reasonable.
- Should "the body and bandaging was destroyed soon afterwards," be "were"?
Done! - A.
- Please remove repeated word "that".
Done. - A.
- I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar issues.
it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- Remove the duplicate links to Ahmose I and Pinudjem I.
I've removed a link or two, and I think it meets MOS guidelines for duplicate links: "at most once per major section". - A.
Thank you.
- The layout is otherwise consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- A reference section is included, with sources listed.
all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- Spot checks confirm Ochwada et al 2011 and Roth, 1999 confirm that they cover the topic.
it contains no original research;
- I believe that Noria Serrano 2021 states on page 108 "It would not be until the reign of Thutmose I that titles related to civil administration ... would appear linked to the king. During this reign, Queen Mother Ahhotep would have already died," rather than that his reign followed both both Ahmose I and his son Amenhotep I as stated in the article.
I wanted to include some chronological context here, just for readers who may not know exactly when Thutmose I came on the scene -- I've adjusted the citations and cited that portion of the line with the Oxford Encyclopedia "New Kingdom" source. - A.
Excellent work.
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
- Earwig gives a 2.0% chance of copyright violation, which means it is very unlikely.
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- Key facts are covered.
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- The article is detailed but still covers the article in a way that is accessible to the general reader.
It has a neutral point of view.
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- The article covers controversies about the queen's identity well, taking into consideration concerns raised in the talk page.
It is stable.
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- The article is recent so there are many recent edits but there is no evidence of edit wars.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- The images are marked with appropriate CC or public domain tags.
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- Images are relevant and clear. Suggest considering using the coffin image in the infobox rather than the ring.
Sure -- I've switched them. It's a pretty large image, but I do like beginning the article with the closest thing we've got to a portrait of Ahhotep. Do you think it would be worth putting a smaller close-up/headshot in the infobox instead of the whole coffin photo? I haven't decided, but could put this on my to-do list for future. - A.
That is an excellent idea.

@Alanna the Brave: Excellent work. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Thanks for your review! I've made some edits and have responded above. Please let me know if there's anything else. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanna the Brave: It is a pleasure. And thank you for your fast responses. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. simongraham (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.