Talk:Eye of Horus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cinadon36 (talk · contribs) 05:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be reviewing this article. Cinadon36 05:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Well written: Excellent written, as a person who knows almost nothing special on ancient Egypt, never had any interest in it, I could comprehend the topic the details. So it is suitable for a broad audience. Some in text hieroglyphs are hard to notice though, I am not sure if increasing their size would solve this problem.

I've increased their size using Template:Big. It didn't enlarge them much, but Wikipedia discourages more extensive adjustments to text size.

Verifiable: Great sources, Earwing detector of plagiarism is negative [1]. If I had to make a comment, I would say that the last reference, citing a pdf file, without the name of the author, publisher etc, is kind of troublesome, but in general, I am fascinated with sources. An ultra minor issue, 2 refs use "p" instead of "pp".

I think I've caught all instances of the "p." problem. The Unicode PDF is an unusual type of source, but it's preferable to have a source of some kind to support the presence of the symbol in Unicode, and there's no more official place to go than the Unicode Consortium itself.

Broad in its coverage: Yes with an asterisk. I have compared the article with Britanicca, older versions of this article, online staff on Horus eye and WP's article is more informative- by far. Asterisk: I would like a comment by the main editor about the link between Eye of the Horus and Mathematics. I noticed a section was removed some months ago. [2]. A gScholar search yiels this academic article [3] Should anything be added in the article?

I incorporated the hypothesized mathematical use of the sign in the "Hieroglyphic form" section, for two reasons. First, the usage of the hieroglyph as an ideogram had to go somewhere, but there wasn't much to say about it, so it didn't seem to merit its own section. Second, the explanation of the Horus-eye fractions could have gone in its own section, but it felt difficult to give that section a title that maintained article neutrality; "Use in mathematics" or "Use as fractions", that would seem to be endorsing the hypothesis that the signs represented fractions, whereas "Purported use in mathematics" or something like that could be regarded as endorsing Ritter's attack on the hypothesis. So I decided to cover all uses of the symbol as a hieroglyph in one place.

Regarding that paper, I don't know if its arguments have made any impact in the Egyptological field, and I expect Egyptologists would greet it with skepticism if they took note of it, because the known evidence indicates that the Egyptians didn't assign much or any significance to the brain (they attributed thought and emotions to the heart and did not preserve the brain during the mummification process as they did other internal organs). Moreover, if Ritter's conclusions about the fraction signs are correct, that would undermine the paper's arguments about the Horus-eye fractions. So unless this paper can be shown to have had wider impact, I don't think it needs to be included here. A. Parrot (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: Yes. I liked that expert opinions are discussed in the article.
Stable: Yes, seems stable.
Illustrated: Yes.

Hieroglyphs looks much better now, esp on my phone's screen. At my laptop are little small, but still, improved since previous version. Anyway, I am passing the article. Thanks A. Parrot for offering WP such an interesting read. Cinadon36 05:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]