Talk:Tomb of Kha and Merit/GA1

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

Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 06:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) Looks like a thoroughly researched article, close to GA status, but there are a few snags.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * There are a couple of passages I had problems with:
 * "The texts align across the lid and base, but Dennis C. Forbes suggests that they were not intended to go together as the treatment of the wig is different between the two halves. The discrepancy in design may instead represent a merging of the typical two-coffin set into one." I gather that these sentences are intended to lay out two distinct hypotheses, but that wasn't entirely clear to me on first reading. It would help to say that Bettum has suggested the second hypothesis, to make clearer the parallel with the first hypothesis and its attribution to Forbes.
 * Done
 * "It is unique within the known Eighteenth Dynasty examples for including Chapter 175, which features the origin of Heliopolis and the myth of the divine cow." This statement will be puzzling to most readers. I know what it means, though I checked the standard Faulkner translation of Chapter 175 and found the allusion to the rebellion of mankind (as seen in the Book of the Heavenly Cow) is pretty brief and vague, and I don't see anything that strikes me as a reference to the mythical origin of Heliopolis. (Chapter 175 is probably better known for including a reference to the possible predestined end of the world, though I don't know whether Kha and Merit's copy contains that part of the text.) I know you can't really elaborate on the significance of BD 175's inclusion because Trapani doesn't say anything else about it, but under the circumstances, I'm wondering if it might be better not to mention what BD 175 contains.
 * Agreed, done


 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * Most of the reflist is fine, but there are a couple of problems:
 * The citations to Vassilika 2008 don't connect with the works cited. Are they erroneous references to Vassilika 2010, or is Vassilika 2008 another publication that is missing from the works cited?
 * Gardiner and Weigall 1913 isn't listed either.
 * Fixed. Those were both mistakes and forgetfulness on my part
 * Fixed. Those were both mistakes and forgetfulness on my part


 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * Most of the article concerns concrete facts, and the more speculative points are supported by the sources.
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Earwig's tool points out similarities in wording with some of the papers cited in the article. While most of the overlap seems to just be the presence of citations to many of the same sources, this article does share the phrase "despite their relative wealth at death" with Trapani 2012. Consider rewording.
 * Rephrased I hope
 * Rephrased I hope


 * 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:
 * The only opinions I notice are related to the quality of the artwork, e.g., "beautifully painted pyramid chapel" and the "technically brilliant craftsmanship" of Amenhotep III's era. If I remember correctly, the art-history community on Wikipedia has occasionally given pushback on the idea that such judgments violate neutrality, given that they are widespread in art history sources, but I think it's best to quote and attribute those opinions to the authors who express them.
 * Removed
 * The only opinions I notice are related to the quality of the artwork, e.g., "beautifully painted pyramid chapel" and the "technically brilliant craftsmanship" of Amenhotep III's era. If I remember correctly, the art-history community on Wikipedia has occasionally given pushback on the idea that such judgments violate neutrality, given that they are widespread in art history sources, but I think it's best to quote and attribute those opinions to the authors who express them.
 * Removed


 * 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):
 * Having a gallery of miscellaneous images is discouraged by the image-use guidelines. If it were a gallery of burial goods, that would be one thing, but some of the images are floorplans and photos from the excavation. It would work better if these images were integrated into the body of the article at relevant points, and the gallery dedicated specifically to burial goods.
 * Would the additional images be best integrated as a small gallery within the relevant sections as is seen in the little trial gallery in the "Sarcophagi and coffins/mummies" section and in other pages such as Tomb of Tutankhamun or Pyramid of Sahure or should as many as are relevant be put into the main body of the text, at risk of it looking cramped? Either way the main gallery can illustrate burial goods only as you suggest :)
 * You certainly don't want the text to be cramped. I think a few images can simply be cut; e.g., the image of the wooden door and the image of the corridor blocking aren't especially informative. People who want to see everything can still look at the Commons category. As for the images you decide to keep, splitting up the gallery into smaller galleries for specific sections (like the one you already have for Merit's coffins) may be the best option. The puzzle is the plans of the chapel and the tomb, which I think are among the most valuable images in the article and should probably be integrated into the text rather than a gallery, but which could cause crowding if they were simply added in to those sections as they are. Maybe you could insert the chapel plan in TT8 and then at the bottom of the section have a gallery of the chapel exterior photo, the chapel interior photo, and the pyramidion. I don't know, just spitballing.
 * I've done as you suggested, made some room and swapped some images around. I think it definitely looks better! I then took it one step further, maybe too far, and made some more small galleries in TT8, TT8 and TT8 that contain 3-4 select images to give an idea of what is mentioned in each section, trying to mostly stick to objects mentioned. Someone other than me has added loooots of the Museo Egizio photos to Commons haha so I had plenty to choose from! Dunno if I made the right choices : T I moved the images of coffins to the gallery in TT8 and left the gallery with Merit with two photos of her. I removed the gallery at the end of the page.
 * Looks good to me.
 * I've done as you suggested, made some room and swapped some images around. I think it definitely looks better! I then took it one step further, maybe too far, and made some more small galleries in TT8, TT8 and TT8 that contain 3-4 select images to give an idea of what is mentioned in each section, trying to mostly stick to objects mentioned. Someone other than me has added loooots of the Museo Egizio photos to Commons haha so I had plenty to choose from! Dunno if I made the right choices : T I moved the images of coffins to the gallery in TT8 and left the gallery with Merit with two photos of her. I removed the gallery at the end of the page.
 * Looks good to me.


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Congratulations! A. Parrot (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much, I really appreciate your thorough and careful review! Merytat3n (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)