Talk:Layer Pyramid/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) 17:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three months is quite a wait! I'll be taking on this review over the next day or two. I will post feedback along the way. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MusikAnimal thanks I am looking forward to your comments! Iry-Hor (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iry-Hor: I've been unexpectedly busy the past two days, and looks like I may not get to this review until Sunday. I apologize for the delay! I'm actually participating in the GA Cup, clearly I'm not off to good start

In the meantime I might be observed doing RCP work as that doesn't require dedicated attention and thoroughness like a GA review does. Just wanted to keep you updated, and for you know I haven't forgotten about this. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, take your time! Iry-Hor (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Concerns

This is not something that to me is required for to meet WP:GA?, but in general we should try to keep citations out of the lead, as the verifiable content is duplicated in the body. Exceptions of course include material likely to be challenged or direct quotes. More at WP:CITELEAD.

I have removed the citations from the lead as there is nothing likely to be challenged in it. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence of the lead, "baring modern excavations of the site", did you perhaps mean "barring" and not "baring"?

Yes typo! Thanks for pointing it out. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Research history, "Around 40 years later, in 1886 ... discovered in 1896 by Jacques de Morgan". This is unclear. Are we implying Maspero was unable to find the entrance, which was discovered 10 years later? How about wording it like "Around 40 years later, in 1886, Gaston Maspero unsuccessfully searched for the entrance of the subterranean passages of the pyramid, which was discovered in 1896 by Jacques de Morgan".

Your sentence is indeed clearer, I have implemented it in the article as you advocated. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Research history, "Shortly after, in 1910 - 1911 ...", MOS:DASH likes en dashes, and to be consistent with other ranges in the article, let's remove the spacing. So we should have "1910–1911".

Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next sentence, "... subterranean galleries they report is in disagreement", shouldn't that be "are in disagreement"?

Yes the numbers are in disagreement, corrected! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next sentence, "... consequently no excavation have been undertaken", "has been undertaken"?

Yes you are right, corrected! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"This opinion is shared by most egyptologists who attribute the layer pyramid to Khaba" This appears to be the only unsourced claim in this article. It seems more along the lines of WP:LIKELY, so if we're unable to find a source to support it I'd remove it altogether.

So I am not against removing it but it is really the case that the majority of specialists believe the pyramid belong to Khaba. I have put the references where this identification is made, it includes the following egyptologists: Ian Shaw, Jaromir Malek, Georges Reisner, Clarence Fisher, Jean-Philippe Lauer, Rainer Stadelmann, Miroslav Verner, Dows Dunham, Mark Lehner. This is nearly all egyptologists who did research on the pyramid (the others including Barsanti just refrain from any attribution). To quote J. Malek on the matter (here is the quote), "[the layer pyramid] is assigned with some probability, though without certainty, to Khaba". I have modified the sentence to "Most scholars today believe that it was likely king Khaba of the late 3rd Dynasty" as a consequence. Let me know if this suits you. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! — MusikAnimal ^talk

— MusikAnimal ^talk 21:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Great work! I believe all the criteria has been met and hereby promote this article to GA status. Congratulations! — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MusikAnimal Thank you for your comments, one more GA on wikipedia! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]