Talk:Khaba/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 22:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	ON HOLD

Sources

I've checked the references where I could. Out of these sources, the only one in my possession is Wilkinson 1999, but I've found Google Books previews for some of the others. Where I've been able to check the sources, the article cites them accurately. However, I have questions about two of the sources, because I couldn't find any sign of them online:

• Edwin Smith and others: Siegelinschriften des Alten Reiches aus Naga-ed-Deir und Abusir. In: 'Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts in Kairo (MDAIK), No. 43. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Orient-Abteilung (Hg.). de Gruyter, Berlin 1987, p. 108–109; obj.13b in table 15b.

• Aidan Dodson: Khaba in Zawjet el-Ariyan and other contemporary sources. In: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt (JARCE), No. 37. American Research Center (Hg.), Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake 1987, ISSN 0065-9991, p. 82.

I know JARCE and MDAIK are journals, but journals sometimes publish "supplement" volumes that are actually self-contained books. I have access to all but the most recent issues of JARCE and can't find anything by Dodson about Khaba. And if these are proper books, then it's odd that I can't find them in WorldCat, where normally I can find even obscure Ph.D. theses. Can you clarify what these sources are?

For the record, Nephiliskos explained these problems here, eliminated the Edwin Smith reference, and corrected the title of Aidan Dodson's article. A. Parrot (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Prose

There are still a few issues of prose clarity, unfortunately. I've tweaked a few passages where the intended meaning was fairly clear to me; look over what I've done and make sure I haven't accidentally misrepresented the sources. There are a few passages I'm not sure about:

• "Mainstream Egyptologists and archaeologists propose that an unfinished step pyramid at Zawyet el'Aryan, known as the Layer Pyramid, belongs to him. Others believe…"

It's probably best to change "mainstream" to "most". "Mainstream Egyptologists" usually implies a contrast between the great majority of Egyptologists and untrained or less-trained fringe figures, like Graham Hancock or Ahmed Osman. That isn't the case here.

Done!--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Khaba's Gold name is the first to show the infinite form of the royal Gold name."

"Infinite" is not a grammatical term in English. I assume you mean "infinitive" or "infinitival", which are both used to refer to forms of Egyptian verbs. They're closely related grammatical forms (the infinitive is a particular type of infinitival), but I don't know which one you mean—my grasp of Egyptian grammar is very weak. If this different form of the Gold name has any larger significance, I suggest explaining that. Does it changes the meaning of a translation, or is it could be a transitional stage between earlier forms of the Gold name and the Golden Horus name?

Done!--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• "There is little dispute among modern Egyptologists that Khaba might be identical to a Ramesside cartouche name known as Huni."

"There is little dispute" suggests that most Egyptologists agree with the notion. But as far as I am aware, most or all Egyptologists regard Huni as separate from Khaba, and the rest of the paragraph supports that impression. Do you mean that a minority of Egyptologists think Huni and Khaba are the same?

Done!--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Thus, the reign of Khaba slips rather very close to the end of third dynasty. A chronological datation of Khaba into the 3rd dynasty is seen as secure."

The first sentence just sounds odd. I suggest writing "Thus, Khaba is thought to have reigned close to the end of the Third Dynasty."

As for the second, it's so general that it should probably be moved to the start of the section. And "datation" is not a word in English, logical though it might seem to have such a word. Maybe remove this sentence, and at the start of the section, write something like "Khaba's reign is securely dated to the Third Dynasty. Because of the contradictions within Ramesside king lists and the lack of contemporary, festive inscriptions, his exact chronological position within the dynasty remains disputed."

Done!--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If these issues are resolved, I believe the article will qualify as a GA. A. Parrot (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe this article now meets the criteria. A. Parrot (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)