Talk:Bad Dürrenberg burial

changing reference template

I would like to add some new info and references to this page, but I can't for the life of me figure out how this reference template works. Would anyone mind if I switched it to the standard referencing system, that allows the use of the automatic reference generator you see when you click the Cite button? It's a short article, and I don't see why that system would be a problem. Right now it's very difficult to add information. Thanks. Ninafundisha (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ninafundisha: Shortened footnotes is the current format simply through personal preference! No qualms about changing it tbh. I fell into using sfn through WP Ancient Egypt and I'm used to the Harvard style from uni. If you'd like you can find out more about it at its template page : )

I too have more information that I am intending to add to the page but it is currently waiting in my sandbox for inspiration to strike to organise it lol so feel free to have a look. Otherwise, go forth Merytat3n (talk) Merytat3n (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bad Dürrenberg burial/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Merytat3n (talk · contribs) 05:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 20:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Marking my place for this – looks interesting! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, initial comments: I've read through the article a couple of times, and it looks basically good. The prose is fundamentally fine – the prose suggestions below are mostly not strictly necessary for GA status. The two images which are used are both appropriately licensed. There's no evidence of instability.

• It's unfortunate not to have a photograph: given that the burial is in the Halle State Museum of Prehistory, is there any chance of getting one? If you aren't nearby yourself, I'd be tempted to at least stick {{image requested}} on the talkpage in the hopes that someone else might take one.
• neuropathological conditions, such as abnormal sensations, ataxia, or induced rapid eye movement (nystagmus) or double vision as someone without any neuropathological expertise, this confuses me. Do we have any more detail about what sort of abnormal sensations? What is ataxia? (is there at least an article to link?) The structure suggests that "induced rapid eye movement (nystagmus)" is synonymous with double vision, but the articles on nystagmus and double vision suggests that this is in fact two unrelated conditions.
• so it is generally unclear exactly how the bodies and grave goods were arranged: it's not wrong per se, but "generally" is superfluous here so I would tend towards cutting it. You might also consider wikilinking grave goods
• Re-excavation of the site in the 2010s found the burial was recovered utilising only the trench cut and that no larger hole was made. A few things here: 1. "utilising" can almost always be replaced by the more common and easily understood "using" with no loss of meaning 2. "the burial was recovered using only the trench cut" sounds almost tautological. I would suggest being explicit that this means "using only the trench cut for the water pipe". 3. "and that no larger hole was made" seems superfluous to me.
• ochre is linked in the lead but not on first use in the body; I would link there too
• Her face has broad cheekbones and masculine features: "masculine features" is so culturally constructed that I don't love it as a description here.
• This is her suggested cause of death. This reads awkwardly to me. If this is a general consensus then "This is believed to be the cause of her death"; if not then "X has suggested that this was the cause of her death".
• atlas vertebra ... foramen magnum: I know that vertebrae are in the spine, and I would assume from context (I think wrongly, following the link!) that the foramen magnum is also a bone, but it might be worth glossing these so readers don't have to follow the link to work out what is going on here: e.g. "atlas (the highest vertebra in the neck) ... foramen magnum (the hole at the base of the skull)". (Do correct my anatomy here if I've misunderstood what these are!)
• was previously suggested to be caused: this is unidiomatic to me. Suggest: "Hans Grimm suggested that the atypical formation of the foramen magnum was caused ..."
• 600 years after her death: given that there's a 200-year margin on the date of her death, how precise can we be about the date of these antlers?

I will do spot-checks against the sources for copyright and verifiability issues next, but unless I turn up something deeply concerning this looks to be well on its way to GA. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)