Talk:Pyramid of Sahure/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 11:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, if there are no objections I'll take this review. I haven't had any part in creating or editing this article. I welcome the contributions of other editors or interested parties during this review. LT90001 (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be posting my assessment tomorrow along with any proposed changes to meet the GA criteria. LT90001 (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is at times clunky and hard to read
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Numerous uncited paragraphs
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Unsourced areas make this hard to verify.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes to some extent (see below)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Cannot check presently.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are excellent
	7. Overall assessment.	Has outstanding issues (see below).

Overall this is a very interesting article but due to some issues with prose, layout and readability I think it may need some editing before it can get to GA status. I'll provide some specific commentary below. Lastly, I regret that this article wasn't picked up for review for so many months and hope that the nominator is still interested in elevation to GA status. LT90001 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specific commentary

I'll wait for feedback from the nominator before I provide more specific feedback, but some general points:

I found this article focuses very heavily on the architectural description of the pyramid and layout. No problem there, but it occasionally impacts on readability and if there was a greater emphasis on the historiography at the beginning of each section it would be much easier to read. This impacts on the readability criteria.

Do you mean adding a small paragraph at the beginning of each section describing in general terms what a causeway or a valley temple is ? Iry-Hor (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! To be more clear, without a bit of context about the notability, use or significance of each section of the pyramid, it is a little confusing to read. I hope this advice makes sense. LT90001 (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the layout quite strange. I personally think it would be logical to arrange it historically, ie main pyramid -> pyramid complex -> discovery so that there is a nice flow to the article. This relates to the readability criteria.

The layout of the article reflects the layout of the pyramid complex itself. Indeed the main pyramid is localted inside of the pyramid complex and to access the pyramid, one would have to arrive at the valley temple, then go up the causeway, enter the mortuary temple, traverse it and finally you would be at the foot of the main pyramid. Also, the layout, with the "excavations" section at the beginning is standard in wikipedia articles on pyramid. See for example, Pyramid of Neferefre, Pyramid of Userkaf, Buried Pyramid, Pyramid of Khendjer, it is also the same layout on the German wiki. This is why I followed the layout here as well. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. With some edits pertaining to use, notability and context as I have mentioned above, I think this will be less confusing. LT90001 (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A section on "influences" or "context" integrated into the "main pyramid" section would be very helpful, and relates to the 'broad' criteria. This could help orientate the reader in terms of the pharoh, his consort, the capital, architectural influences and preceding pyramids, and so forth.

Ok I will add a paragraph on the pyramid historical context. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I await your edits. LT90001 (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several paragraphs are uncited.

Ok I will add the references. Most of the facts are from Lehner's book or the original excavation report. The reason I did not put these everywhere was to avoid cluttering the article. But I will add the citations tonight to make sure the reliability criteria is met. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Kind regards, LT90001 (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Have contacted the nominator (User_talk:Iry-Hor#Your_GA_nomination_of_Pyramid_of_Sahure) and it doesn't look like changes will be made in the foreseeable future. I wish Iry-Hor all the best in their future wikitravels and thank them for the nomination and their edits to the Ancient Egypt content on Wiki. I encourage nomination in the future when the concerns raised in this review have been addressed. LT910001 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]