Talk:Kushite religion/GA1

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

Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 05:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a topic I've long had an interest in, and when this article was created, I was pleased to see it (and bought the Kuckertz & Lohwasser book after learning of its existence from this article). But I'm afraid I have to quick-fail this nomination.

The most inarguable reason, per the criteria, would be that it has an unquestionably valid maintenance tag because its lead section is inadequate. But that's a trivial problem. The key problem is that the article doesn't address all the main aspects of the topic. Instead it consists of two parts: a history of Kushite religion that frequently digresses into political events that lack any clear religious significance; and a list of deities. The core of any religion is its beliefs and practices, but the article never attempts to describe the overall nature of either one. Key topics such as the religious role of kings or the appearance of Egyptian-style temples in Nubia are touched on in passing but not directly described. Of course, there is a great deal we do not know about Kushite beliefs and practices because of the dearth of written evidence, but the article needs to acknowledge that difficulty and describe what is known.

I also note other problems in sourcing. While most of the sources are of very high quality (though others are not), they are sometimes used poorly. Citation 3 encompasses an absurd number of page ranges, which would make it maddeningly difficult for a source spot-check to trace any of the claims supported by this citation to the relevant page. The assertion that Yahweh may be of Kushite origin does not seem to be supported by any of the citations for it, which instead discuss the origins of Moses' wife. While Moses' Midianite in-laws are an important part of the Kenite hypothesis, I do not know of any scholar who has claimed that the "Cushite" origin of a wife of Moses (who may or may not be the same as Zipporah) implies that Yahweh originated in Kush. To claim such a thing when the sources do not is a serious case of original research, and the claim should be removed.

I think the article needs to be restructured so that the bulk of the article focuses on beliefs and practices, with the history of the religion reduced to one top-level section among several. This is the approach used by most, if not all, high-quality Wikipedia articles on whole religions. Many of the best resources for doing so are already listed here, most importantly Fisher et al. 2012 and Kuckertz & Lohwasser 2019, but they need to be more fully digested and summarized. A. Parrot (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. MiddleOfAfrica (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)