Talk:Gebel Ramlah/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 04:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• No response so failing. AIRcorn (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Review

• From first glance the lead feels a little short. AIRcorn (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting well written and informative article. Some suggestions for improvement below.

• There is no real introduction to the region or what the article is about. For example the body starts out talking about excavation without telling us where the region is. In fact my first impression is that the article is about the archaeology of Gebel Ramlah instead of the region of Gebel Ramlah. Maybe that is the point, but I feel this needs a better intro instead of opening the body with Archaeological excavation began ....
• Cemeteries is mentioned almost exclusively in excavation. Is this because that is all that was there. I feel there needs to be more background information on Gebel Ramlah, for example why does it have so many cemeteries, what was believed to be its purpose.
• The environment section contains some of this background stuff. In fact it all seems to be there the further I read. It might work better with some reorganisation. Not much is needed, just enough to give a sense of the region before we jump into the nitty gritty.
• We try to avoid starting sentences with numbers.
• Although no human bones preserved bones were preserved?
• Considering the consistent water supply needed for pottery work, this is potentially significant. Can this be elaborated on. Is this suggesting that there mifght have been other sources of water at the site or that water was brought in (or that the shortages talked about in the next sentence were not as significant as thought)
• Some of the intricate shapes and designs of Final Neolithic pottery at Gebel Ramlah differ greatly from even Late Neolithic productions of the region just before. Is just before supposed to be there? If so what is it referring to?
• with no gifting discrimination by age or gender I am not familiar with the term "gifting discrimination")
• Nile River bivalves have also been cited as present within the cemeteries of site E-09-02. little awkward
• The references page numbers cover quite large sections. It makes it a little bit more difficult to fact check. I don't think it needs changing here, but there are some pretty good referencing styles that allow you to indicate a particular page and then link to the book when there are multiple parts cited to one source (see Rosetta Stone for an example). Again not needed here, bu just thought I would point it out. The sourcing is excellent by the way.
• I have my doubts about the copyright status of File:Tamaris nilotica-BioLib-77417.jpg. It claims a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, but if you follow it to the original it uses a CC-BY-NC Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License 3.0. The problem is the NonCommercial aspect as we can not use non-commercial images on wikipedia. This is not my strong point so I have tagged it at commons where people more familiar with copyright can deal with it.