Talk:Pyramid of Neferefre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 09:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

In general, this article appears to be at or about GA-level, but I've not checked any of the references or citations. So, I'm going to work my way through the article, starting at Exploration, then when I've got the the end I'll go back and look at the WP:Lead.

At this stage I'm just looking to see if there are any "problems" that need to be addressed, so this stage could just be a list of minor problems, we will see. Pyrotec (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exploration -

The first paragraph is unreferenced.
The second sentence in the second paragraph uses the word "author", I suspect that "owner" is better, particularly as "owned" is used in the third paragraph.
The first paragraph consists of three short sentences and the second paragraph is also three short sentences, presumably sharing a single reference, but both paragraphs appear to have a common theme. Once the lack of references for the first paragraph has been addressed, I would suggest that the two paragraphs are merged into one.
The third paragraph appears to be OK.

Building conditions -

There are two related "problems" here. The Lead appears to contain information about Known as nTri bAw nfrf ra (Divine is Neferefre's Power) which is not really explained in the article, and nTri bAw nfrf ra appears in the first sentence of the first paragraph without explanation. I assume that nTri bAw nfrf ra comes from cartouches (which might be referred to in the first section) and the infobx seems to show some - but there is no explanation.
The remainder of my comments are almost a repeat of those in Exploration: the first paragraph is unreferenced and the first and second paragraphs could be mereged as they appear to be discussing the same topic.

Plunderings and stone robberies -

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK.

The pyramid -

This is not a valid section title (see MOS:HEADINGS). It needs to be changed.

Done

NO. See comment below. Pyrotec (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The layout of this section is not particularly clear, or helpful. The first unnamed subsection is an introduction (which is OK) and this is followed directly by a Structure subsection and then a Substructure subsection. It appears that the substructure was underneath the structure but this is not made clear. The Structure subsection starts off with: The pyramid was not directly built on bedrock, but rather on a foundation .... and the Substructure subsection starts off with: The foundation of the pyramid was laid out in an open ditch. The ditch ..., so I suspect that the substructure is the foundation. The article might read a bit better if the Substructure subsection came before the Structure subsection and the first paragraph of the existing Structure subsection moved into the Substructure subsection.
The first statement, i.e. The Pyramid of Raneferef was started with a base length of 65 metres (213 ft) and thus could have been the second-smallest king pyramid in the Old Kingdom of Egypt after the Pyramid of Unas. needs its own citation as it is potential consensus or open to question. The paragraph itself has only one citation at the end, but it that is also the citation for the first claim, there is no reason why it can't be used more than once.

- Substructure -

Some clarifications are needed:

The first paragraph states The ditch had an encircling wall, which... , presumably encircling wall was built round the inner edge of the ditch (it could be on the outer edge, or it there were two walls on both edges).
The meaning of the sentence: Access led from the north side of the pyramid downwards to the south direction and led to a slightly north-deviated horizontal passage. is unclear. Does it mean Access was from the northern side of the pyramid. It descended in a southerly direction and led to (or through ?) a horizontal passage which a slightly deviation to the north (or should that be to the south east, looking at the figure: High-angle perspective on the substructure of the pyramid?)?

The pyramid complex -

This is not a valid section title (see MOS:HEADINGS). It needs to be changed.

Done--Tomcat (7) 18:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Since the article is called Pyramid of Neferefre, those words singularly or in total can't be used as a section title; so "Pyramid" is invalid. Pyrotec (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, looks OK.

References / Further reading -

Lehner 1997 and Verner 1999 are used as references in Harvard style (surname, year and page no(s)) but also appear in the General subsection of the Further reading section in full bibliographic form. They are hardly Further reading they are part of the References.
The reference quoted as Verner, Miroslav (1999). The Pyramids: The Mystery, Culture, and Science of Egypt's Great Monuments. Grove/Atlantic. ISBN 978-0802117038 appears to have been possibly mis- cited. According to Amazon, the ISBN given is for: The Pyramids: The Mystery, Culture, and Science of Egypt's Great Monuments, Miroslav Verner (Author), Steven Rendall (Translator), Grove/Atlantic, 1st edition 2001. Verner appears to be a Czech author, so possibly the 1999 version is the original Czech edition.

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Further reading document Verner, Miroslav : Supplément aux sculptures de Rêneferef découvertes à Abousir [avec 4 planches] has a link to a pdf file, but this link is broken as it leads to a 404 error message on the file server.

Lead -

This looks OK.

There a number of points that needed to be addressed. Most of them don't involve extensive work, so I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. Could you give me a week to resolve those issues? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be OK. Pyrotec (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm, closing this review do to lack of progress. Pyrotec (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]