Talk:Seth-Peribsen/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]