Talk:Medjed/GA1

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

Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 23:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Looks like a good GA candidate that says about all there is to say about this obscure deity, but I have a few nitpicks.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * For the most part the prose is fine, but in a couple of places it could be more fluid. Where it says "Kamigami no Ki, Oh, Suddenly Egyptian God", I wasn't sure at first if it was listing two separate anime series or the Japanese and English titles of a single series. I think "…his 'cartoon ghost'-like portrayal in vignettes on the Greenfield papyrus…" is excessively compact and would work better as "…his portrayal in vignettes on the Greenfield papyrus, resembling a 'cartoon ghost'…"
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation, and the text seems closely based on the sources. The Egyptological sources are all solid (except Budge, who is used with appropriate caution). While I'm less comfortable judging pop-cultural sources, they all seem good enough for documenting the facts they're used for here. My only problems are that Anime News Network is inconsistently italicized, and that Citations 28a and 28b, referring to Salvador 2017, use an unnecessarily broad page range. I think it could be reduced to pp. 17–18.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * First off, thanks for the review! How do these changes look to you?--Gen. Quon[Talk] 19:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The third Anime News Network ref (Citation 30) still needs to be made consistent with the other two, but aside from that, I think it looks good. A. Parrot (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoops! My mistake. That should be fixed now.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 16:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pass. Congratulations! A. Parrot (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * First off, thanks for the review! How do these changes look to you?--Gen. Quon[Talk] 19:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The third Anime News Network ref (Citation 30) still needs to be made consistent with the other two, but aside from that, I think it looks good. A. Parrot (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoops! My mistake. That should be fixed now.--Gen. Quon[Talk]</b> 16:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pass. Congratulations! A. Parrot (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pass. Congratulations! A. Parrot (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)