Talk:Djedkare Isesi/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 19:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. I'll add my initial comments as soon as I can.  Tim riley  talk    19:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks, I am looking forward to your comments!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * in my read-through I have run across a few phrases that are not quite idiomatic English. Please consider how you wish me to deal with them: I can either amend them myself or alternatively list them here for you to consider. I'm happy to do whichever suits you: please let me know.  Tim riley  talk    15:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * if that is not too much work for you, I believe it would be better that you correct these sentences given that I am not a native English speaker and may therefore not correct them appropriately myself. I will look closely at your changes to learn from my mistakes.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your English is 99% spot-on, and being myself someone whose French is about 09% spot-on I remain as impressed with your prose as I have been in your earlier articles. First lot of tweaks now done – more to come – which please check to make sure you're happy with them and that I have not distorted your intended meaning,  Tim riley  talk    17:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I've made a few more minor tweaks, which please check. Throughout I kept noticing italicised phrases that I wouldn't italicise and that I don't think the Manual of Style would have us italicise, but I think this has come up before for Ancient Egyptian articles, and italics are the norm. Anyway, that is not a point that stands between the text and promotion to GA. I have much pleasure in passing the article for GA. I'm about to vanish on a Wikibreak while I concentrate on a publishing commitment elsewhere, but I'll gladly look in to make an exception for articles like this if you take it to FAC. Please ping me if so,  Tim riley  talk    17:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Thank you very much, I am taking the article to FAC as soon as I have looked into the issue with italics. I will let you know asap.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)