Talk:Neferhotep I/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * General
 * Duplicate links: The Manual of Style is quite specific: apart from captions and footnotes, you should have a maximum of two blue-links to any other article: one from the lead and another at the first occurrence in the main text. At present you have multiple links to Karnak, Turin canon, Sobekhotep III, naos, Abydos, Itjtawy, Sobekhotep IV, Sihathor, and Egyptian chronology.
 * Karnak is now linked only once, Turin canon is now linked once in the text and once in the infobox, Sobekhotep III is now linked in lead and infobox only, naos is now only linked once in the text, Abydos now linked once in the lead and once in the text, Itjtawy now linked only once, Sobekhotep IV now once in the lead and once in the infobox, Sihathor now once in lead and once in text, Egyptian chronology only once in text.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Spelling and punctuation: It is not clear whether English or American spelling is intended. At present we have (in the main text, not in quotations) both "honour" and "honor". If English is intended, some corrections, according to the Oxford English Dictionary:
 * I will follow your advise on the spelling (so more in line with a British one), which seems more correct to me. Thus I changed honor to honour.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Archeology – the OED gives only "archaeology" (the spelling used in our WP article, I notice)
 * Spelling corrected!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Egyptology – capitalised
 * Capital added!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Coregency – hyphenated as co-regency, which you do in the lead but not in the main text. If I am mistaken, and American spelling is the preferred style of the article, then you'll want to adopt consistent US spelling of this word throughout.
 * I decided to go for "coregency" since the wikipedia article on the subject has it spelled this way.
 * Fine.  Tim riley  talk    14:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Semitic – capitalised in the OED
 * Done!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Quotations: See the Manual of Style, and remove the italics from the quotations throughout, beginning with "as instructed by the gods…" in the lead, "officer of a town regiment" etc in the main text
 * Done!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * Image caption: "Archeological Museum of Bologna" (with no link) here, but in the main text (under Artefacts) "Archaeological Museum of Bologna" (linked)
 * Link added (is this what you wanted?)&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine.  Tim riley  talk  
 * Stela – needs a link
 * Done!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Origins
 * No citations at all in the first paragraph.
 * Two citations added!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Third para – citation lacking for final sentence.
 * Citation added (same source as previous sentence)!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Chronology
 * 'God's father' and 'King's mother' – double not single quotes wanted
 * Done!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Extent of rule
 * A possible vindication of this are – singular noun with plural verb.
 * Done all plural now.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Second para – citation lacking for final sentence.
 * Ryholt's and Schneider's books added as references (where the reign dates can be found).&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Tomb
 * The tomb of Neferhotep I has not been located yet – WP:DATED. Safer to say that as at 2014…
 * Good point, date added.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * References
 * Refs 11 and 16 seem to be the same.
 * Indeed they are the same, I corrected this!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Publishing locations: you sometimes give them (e.g. refs 12, 16, 20, 34 and 49) and sometimes don't. They are not compulsory, but consistency is wanted one way or the other.
 * In progress, will decide what to do tonight.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't find the missing publishing locations! I will continue looking for them, meanwhile I will keep those that are already written.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be most surprised if WorldCat didn't oblige.  Tim riley  talk    21:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

These are mostly very minor prose points, and the article is plainly of GA quality; it will be my pleasure to promote it when the few tweaks have been attended to.  Tim riley  talk    12:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy to leave the question of publishing locations in your hands. All other quibbles are now dealt with. Very happy to promote this scholarly and enjoyable article.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 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:


 * Thank you for your very professional review!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been a pleasure to review an article of such quality. Please feel free to ping me if you have articles up in the future for GAN, PR or FAC.  Tim riley  talk    22:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)