User:WesternGoblin/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ramesseum king list

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
King lists are a very important tool in the process of deciphering the chronology of ancient near-eastern civilizations. My immediate impression of the article is that it is too short and does not share as much information as it should or could.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of the article is short but, outside of the actual list of kings, is about half of the article and contains plenty of information that is not elaborated on further in the article itself. It's certainly concise but needs to be elaborated on in the rest of the article.


 * "The scene with the list was first published by Jean-Francois Champollion in 1845, and by Karl Richard Lepsius four years later." How about we add a section discussing the circumstances around the discovery, publishing and interpretation of the piece rather than just having this one line in the lead section?
 * "Notably, Hatshepsut and the Amarna pharaohs are omitted." This should probably be placed lower in the article in the section talking about the actual content of the kings list.

The content of the article is certainly lacking, as I said there needs to be content relating to the circumstances and location in which it was found beyond just a sentence. There ought to be discussion regarding the materials and artistic style that was used to create it and more of the content found on the list itself beyond a list of the kings.

The tone of the article is good, it keeps a neutral tone and is objective.

This article needs more sources, particularly ones that related it to the larger context of ancient Egyptian history, however, there isn't much that has been written about this particular piece which does limit the scope of the article and explains the small size.

Besides the lack of sections that should exist given the information in the lead section the only suggestion I might offer is to make the list of kings collapsible because it takes up far too much of the article compared to the text. The writing quality is good.

Due to the small size of the article and narrow scope I think that the single image of the kings list itself is acceptable, however I could imagine an image of the Ramesseum itself being applicable as that is where the list was found.

There is no discussion on the talk page

In general, for the lack of content published on the topic of the article, it is fine, More context and deeper research could probably be conducted for a more thorough article but it kept an objective tone while delivering the cursory information on the topic. Formatting could be a bit better and fit in with wikipedia's archetypical structure a little better as well.