Talk:Gebelein predynastic mummies/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * mainly I feel that context is missing here, information on other excavations, etc is not given
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

General

 * Need a caption for the infobox picture.
 * ✅ Caption added.
 * The caption for the black and white photo could better explain that the text in quote marks is the original caption from the book.
 * ✅ Quote now removed. Fæ (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It'd be nice if the black and white photo could be left aligned, but not required. I realize there are issues with the table.
 * ✅ Moved down the page and left aligned.
 * Is the black and white photograph even OF these mummies? If so, it needs to state that, if not, what does it add? I'm guessing it's not because it shows a lot of pots around the body, and the article text says that there was only one pot found. Suggest just cutting the photo.
 * ✅ Clarified which body this is, and added date to show this is how the display appeared in 1920 (showing the display was fairly consistent, with a few minor changes of artefact, for over a century). Fæ (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would regorganize slightly by putting the excavation section first, then the description, but move the table to the description section. This improves the flow of the article. I'd also move the bit about the nickname not being used to the exhibition section, which I'd leave last.
 * ✅ Fæ (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead:
 * Who is Wallis Budge ?
 * ✅ Clarified his connection to the BM. Not sure how much more to add, further details could be carried over from E. A. Wallis Budge but this would seem redundant. Fæ (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would expect a bit more information in the lead .. perhaps a bit on the fact few other grave goods were found, how many of each sex, mention of the fact that the nickname is no longer used, etc.
 * ✅ Extended the lead to be a better summary. Fæ (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Description

 * I'd expect a description of whether they were buried together, or apart, how deep, and the table would go better in the description section.
 * ✅ Clarified they they were in separate but close shallow graves. Unfortunately, unlike more recent excavations, apart from body positions there are few other details apart from the narrative by Budge in "By Nile and Tigris" (published 1920) so the layout of the graves themselves and more exact depths is likely to remain unknown. Fæ (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Need a citation for the opinion that "most common form" bit.
 * ✅ Added Dawson & Gray reference, this appears to be the best comparative analysis of the history of body burial positions. Fæ (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Excavation

 * Again, need to explain who Budge is.
 * ✅ Added that he was procuring on behalf of the Museum. Fæ (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Who excavated at the various places in 1885 and 6?
 * Why was Budge in Egypt? Was he excavating elsewhere?
 * What else has been found at Gebelein? You mention excavations during 1885, what was found?
 * ✅ New paragraph added giving context of the period and why Budge was interested based on his 1920 narrative. Fæ (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What has been found since?
 * ✅ New paragraph added explaining earliest mention and later finds from the area. Fæ (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The last two sentences of the third paragraph add absolutely nothing to the understanding of these mummies and could be dropped or why they are relevant facts needs to be explained.
 * (Confirmation needed) If I'm looking at the same paragraph, these sentences give some context as to why all the bodies were found in the same position and why all mummified bodies from later periods are in different positions. I have slightly re-phrased to make it clear that this text is for comparison purposes. Fæ (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I explained, I'd move the table to the description, and I'd drop the subsection title "Analysis" as it's really not needed.
 * ✅ As suggested. Fæ (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The "findings summary" column in the table the prose is incredibly disjointed and should be rewritten to flow better by using less short choppy partial sentences. An example: "All teeth present and healthy. Fractures to ribs, right pubic ring, both thigh bones, shin and calf bones. No evidence of arthritis. Left index finger and several last toe bones are missing. Tufts of ginger-coloured hair on the scalp." might work better as "This female has all teeth remaining and they were healthy. There are fractures on her ribs, right pubic ring, both thigh bones, shin and calf bones, but no evidence of arthritis. The left index finger and several toe bones are missing. There are tufts of ginger-coloured hair on her scalp."
 * ✅ Paragraphs re-written to read more naturally. Fæ (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * References -
 * Okay, I find it very distracting to have 's around footnotes. Any way to remove them?
 * ✅ Swapped from harv to harvnb for cleaner style. Fæ (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Current ref 8 has a bare link in it, needs formatting with a link title.
 * ✅ Filled out citation and added OCLC rather than direct JSTOR link.Fæ (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)