Talk:Thinis/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

I read through this article several times and made a few minor changes (added wikilink, merged two short pargraphs) to "improve" the article. Although, the article its is very close to being GA-standard; it is currently let down by the WP:Lead. This is intended to both introduce that article, which it does, and to summarise the main points, which it does not do very well. Once the lead has been improved, I will award GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• In summary, the current WP:Lead states: twice that it is unknown/undiscovered, the historian Manetho cites as the centre of the Thinite Confederacy, and, mainstream Egyptological consensus places it in the vicinity of ancient Abydos and modern Girga. It does not, for instance, summarise why Thinis is beleive to exist and some of the areas where it might to located (other than Abydos-Girga) and there is no summary of the material in the History and Religion sections. I would suggest a rewite to about twice perhaps three-times its current size.

• One possible way might to be to use most of the existing Lead and to insert material in to it in front of the final sentence, i.e. "Thinis or This (Egyptian: Tjenu) was a city which the classical historian Manetho cites as the centre of the Thinite Confederacy, a tribal confederation whose leader, Menes (or Narmer), united Egypt and was its first pharaoh, and as the capital of the first dynasties of ancient Egypt. NEW TEXT......... The precise location of Thinis is unknown, although mainstream Egyptological consensus places it in the vicinity of ancient Abydos and modern Girga."

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold and will award GA once the WP:Lead has been brought upto standard. Pyrotec (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The WP:Lead has been brought up to standard (I did a minor copy edit on it), so I'm awarding GA-status. Congratulations on acheiving GA. Pyrotec (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)