Talk:Pyramid of Sahure/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 09:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Further information: WP:WIAGA

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review[edit]

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	no major issues.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	No major MOS issues.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Ref number 6: "New Archaeological Discoveries in the Abusir Pyramid Field - by Miroslav Verner: Sahure's Causeway (2007)" is a non-english reference. If this is the only source for this information of equel validity it can be used, but requires a note to explain its use. This can be done in the inline citation itself or made as a seperate note. You do not have to provide a translation of the section used but is acceptable. Y Actually it is an English reference ! The first paragraph is in italian but scroll down the page and the whole second part is the English version. Ref 15 is just an image and cannot be used in this manner. It is original research. YI only wanted to show a picture of the starving bedouins as I doubt that many readers will have the relief in mind. I am not trying to reference any claim with this picture, only show what the article talks about. I put the picture in the text and added the Miroslav Verner reference book claiming the similarity between the two reliefs, see below. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Ref 17 is just an image and cannot be used in this manner. It is original research. I disagree, it is no original research to point to the obvious, see the gallery of images from wikicommons below. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Ref 18 " ". YAgain only an illustration. I removed it and put it in the external links.\|\| Fail
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	I am seeing some issues with primary source images being used to reference claims of analysis. There may be other issues. I will note them below.	Fail
(c) (original research)	There does appear to be some original research. ~~I will make a note of all the issues I see~~. "The courtyard was paved with irregularly shaped but polished black basalt slabs, some of which are still visible today.[17]" is not supported by a reference. That is no original research: the black basalt flooring is visible by everyone on the following pictures: Black basalt flooring in front of the architrave. Black basalt flooring in front of the architrave. Black basalt flooring in the courtyard. Black basalt flooring in the courtyard. Black basalt flooring in the courtyard. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "Finally a relief showing starving Bedouins was unearthed, which is very similar to the one from the pyramid of Unas" is not supported by a reference. Y This is no original research it is supported by the reference given at the end of the paragraph. Miroslav Verner: Abusir - The realm of Osiris, American University in Cairo Press, ISBN 977-424-723-X, 2003, Google books. See the page 44. I added the reference again just after saying that the relief is similar to that of Unas' pyramid. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "Finally, a very uncommon relief found in the ruins of the courtyard depicts Syrian brown bears" Y I removed the "very uncommon". Iry-Hor (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC) \|\|[reply] Fail

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Seems to cover the subject broadly.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Stays focused without being too narrow.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Appears neutral in tone and appearance.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Stable. No edit wars or changing versions.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	I removed two images for not having information summaries with date, author and source.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	No issues.	Pass

Result[edit]

Result	Notes
Fail	Some issues to address.

I have addressed all the issues you raised !! If you fail the article, please explain why and in particular why the improvements I made following your comments do not satisfy you ? Please explain otherwise I will contest the fail. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left notes, you refused to make needed changes. Feel free to contest the review. I am not listing it. You may simply refile.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did all the changes you required except one which I explain is no original research ! Instead of failing straight ahead I believe we should have discussed about this one point I did not change. GA review is not an automatic process where the article must be fail as soon as at least one point made by the reviewer is contested. Thus, yes I will contest the review. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional Notes[edit]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]