Talk:Seth-Peribsen

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Seth-Peribsen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sotakeit (talk · contribs) 10:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Sotakeit

The article is generally well written and is on a very interesting subject. There range of sources is good and some sections are particularly well referenced. The use of images is good. However, I have several issues, particularly with referencing of certain sections, that mean at this point I would have to Oppose. If they can be fixed I would reconsider, but at the moment the issues seem to prevalent across the article.

The opening:

• The way it is worded now would suggest that the article is about the actual words 'Seth-Peribsen/Peribsen. Something along the lines of 'Peribsen (also know as...) was an early Egyptian pharaoh of the Second Dynasty. His serekh, or royal, name is the subject...' would solve this.
• If the article is titled 'Seth-Peribsen', it should start 'Seth-Peribsen (also known as Peribsen and Ash-Peribsen).
• The lead does not summarise the article at all. A lead should give a concise overview of the article's contents (MOS:LEAD). As it stands it only (and barely) covers the notability of his unusual name. It does not mention anything to do with the sections 1.3, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and it only touches on 1.1 and 1.2.

Referencing:

• The whole of the first paragraph in section 1needs referencing.
• A large part of section 1.1. needs referencing (e.g. Peribsen's name is unusual; Seth, not Horus, was his patron deity; This goes against the Egyptian tradition of a king choosing the falcon-shaped deity Horus as his royal patron; Like Horus, Seth was a popular deity during the early dynastic period).
• In section 1.2 we need references for all of these authors: 'A theory that was popular until the mid 20th century, supported by Egyptologists Percy Newberry, Jaroslav Černý, Cecil Mallaby Firth and Jean-Philippe Lauer, held that...', not just Newberry and Lauer.
• A large part of section 1.2 needs referencing.
• In section 2.2, 'This theory is debatable; Hermann Alexander Schlögl, Wolfgang Helck, Peter Kaplony and Jochem Kahl argue that...'. Here we need references from Kaplony and Kahl, not just Schlogl and Helck.
• Even though the rest of the section goes into more detail, the opening paragraph of section 3 needs to be referenced. Which archaeological records?
• Section 3.2 is a large paragraph and mentions several scholars, and yet only has one reference. This needs to be addressed.
• Reference 51, has the title in guillemets and not standard quotation marks.

Sotakeit (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

All my issues now seem to have been addressed. The article is well written, thorough and broad in its scope, contains a number of pertinent images, and is well referenced. Very interesting read. Support. Sotakeit (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Correction. There are a few language issues I hadn't noticed bfore. I'm just gonna quickly run through and fix then and then will be happy to pass it. Sotakeit (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I've gone through the article again and edited the language issues myself. They were mostly issues with wording and basic grammar (proof, instead of prove; splitted, instead of split etc). I know think the article is in good shape:

• It is well sourced;
• The images are interesting, pertinent and informative;
• It is thorough in its scope but stays on topic;
• The grammar and language issues I raised have now been ironed out;
• It's certainly stable and it includes several different opposing theories equally.

As such, I'm going to pass. Sotakeit (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)