Talk:Neferefre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be in excellent shape at a first glance. I'll have this finished by tomorrow. JAGUAR 16:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"...with Verner positing that Shepseskare was an uncle of Neferefre and thus that Menkauhor Kaiu was Neferefre's son and Krejčí viewing the opposite hypothesis, that Shepseskare was Neferefre's son with Khentkaus III, as more probable" - I feel like this could be split into two sentences, to enhance readability

Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"where Neferefre is said to have succeeded Shepseskare" - de-link Shepseskare here as it's already been linked before

Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and that he may have stood 167 cm (66 in) to 169 cm (67 in) in height" - this should be ideally converted into metres/feet

Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"but those proved to belong an individual from the late Medieval era" - I'm not sure if medieval should be capitalised

You are right, it shouldn't be capitalised. Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"At the unexpected death of Neferefre" - shouldn't this be After the unexpected death of Neferefre? Or if the lower courses were completed at the time of his death: Upon the unexpected death might sound clearer

Yes it should be "upon" as the lower courses were finished at the time of his death. Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Thus, Neferefre is, with Djedkare Ises" - I've noticed a repetition of 'thus' in the article. How about Therefore, Neferfre?

You are right! I had not noticed it, so to fix it thus and therefore have been alterned throughout the article. Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iry-Hor: This article clearly meets the GA criteria. It is well written, comprehensive, and all of the sources check out fine; the bibliography is also perfectly formatted. Due to the lack of any glaring issues I'll be more than happy to pass this outright. Well done! If you're thinking about nominating this for FAC then I'd recommend clarifying some of the minor nitpicks above. JAGUAR 00:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar Thanks for your work! I have addressed all the points you raised as well, and will soon nominate the article at FAC.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]