Talk:Unas/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 08:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A few minor drafting points before I start a close reading against the GA criteria:

• Opening
  • The four variant spellings of Unas's name in the opening of the lead are not consistent with the six versions at the top of the info-box, where Onnos and Onnus have crept in.

Y Corrected. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Historical sources
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph could do with a citation.

Y Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Trade and warfare
  • "perdured" – not a word I have ever met. I've just looked it up, and I suggest your readers would be glad if you used a more common synonym such as continued, endured or persisted.

Y Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Pyramid
  • "long causeway, equalled only" – if the article is in AmEng, as it seems to be, you want "equaled" here.

Y Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• • "deliminating" – even the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't know this one.

Y A garbled translation of a French word. Corrected!

• Pyramid texts
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph lacks a citation.

Y My bad, I had forgotten it, done. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have corrected a few typos: please check that you're happy with the changes I have made. Tim riley talk 08:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Your corrections are quite alright! Iry-Hor (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Final comments

• Citations
  • There are five explanatory footnotes that could do with citations. The statements are not contentious, as far as I can see, and I don't regard the absence of citations there as a sticking point for GA, but if you're going on to FAC you'll need to address the matter.

Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Activities
  • Byblos has been linked earlier: the duplicate link should be removed, I think.

Yep, done. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Legacy
  • The New Kingdom is another duplicate link, but if you felt it should remain because the first mention is right at the start of the main text I'd have no quarrel with that.

I have removed the second link. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise, I have no further comments, and I have much pleasure in promoting the article to GA.—Tim riley talk 09:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Iry-Hor (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.