Talk:317a and 317b mummies/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, I look forward to your comments Merytat3n (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
- Discovery:
- Would a main article link to Discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun be useful here?
- When were they transferred to the Egyptian Museum?
- When were they transferred to Cairo University?
- It's not stated but I'm assuming that they were buried singly and there were two coffins found, one for each mummy?
- Would a main article link to Discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun be useful here?
- Coffins:
- "were contained within two sets of small mummy-shaped wooden coffins" ... so there's a coffin set for each mummy? And how many nesting coffins in each set? This is confusing.
- "were contained within two sets of small mummy-shaped wooden coffins" ... so there's a coffin set for each mummy? And how many nesting coffins in each set? This is confusing.
- 317b:
- "as although the umbilical cord is not preserved, the navel was not retracted, indicating that the cord was cut off rather than drying off naturally" this is clunky ... suggest "as indictions are that the cord was cut off rather than drying off naturally." and put the exact details into an explanatory footnote, if it's felt necessary to include.
- "as although the umbilical cord is not preserved, the navel was not retracted, indicating that the cord was cut off rather than drying off naturally" this is clunky ... suggest "as indictions are that the cord was cut off rather than drying off naturally." and put the exact details into an explanatory footnote, if it's felt necessary to include.
- I did some very light copyedits - please make sure they did not change meaning or that I didn't link to the wrong target of an article.
- I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Those changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much!! I really appreciate you taking the time to review the article! Merytat3n (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)