Talk:Ankh/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 13:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to review the article. Amitchell125 13:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Assessment[edit]
Lead section[edit]
Links: art leads to the article on ancient Egyptian art, not 'Art' (ditto deities, afterlife) - I would amend the text so that the links matched it;
- Done.
Link for 'cross' - I would remove the link for cross - it's a common word;
- Done.
Changed Goth to 'goth' (as is done in the article 'Goth subculture').
- Done.
Bardillo p. 167 discusses the evolution of the ankh, which eventually becomes known as the crux anksata. I'm not sure that the latter be in bold within the lead section, which implies they are both the same thing, when they are not. What do you think?
- I'm not sure either. I was following the practice of the preexisting article, which goes all the way back to 2008—crux ansata does redirect here, after all. It's a real on-the-fence case, but unless the crux ansata is split out into its own article, it may be best to keep the bold text. If you want it removed, though, I have no objection.
- Its use continued through the Coptic Egyptians who adapted it as the crux ansata, a variant of the Christian cross with a circular loop similar to the ankh's oval one. - perhaps if this whole sentence was moved to the end of the section, and given its own little paragraph, it would make it clearer that the two symbols are not identical.
- I did something similar in the earliest uploaded version of the rewrite, but another editor moved crux ansata up into the first paragraph, probably on the belief that bold text should appear at the beginning of the lead. Maybe it should go back to the old arrangement but with the bold text removed. A. Parrot (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Happy with that. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- I did something similar in the earliest uploaded version of the rewrite, but another editor moved crux ansata up into the first paragraph, probably on the belief that bold text should appear at the beginning of the lead. Maybe it should go back to the old arrangement but with the bold text removed. A. Parrot (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Its use continued through the Coptic Egyptians who adapted it as the crux ansata, a variant of the Christian cross with a circular loop similar to the ankh's oval one. - perhaps if this whole sentence was moved to the end of the section, and given its own little paragraph, it would make it clearer that the two symbols are not identical.
- I'm not sure either. I was following the practice of the preexisting article, which goes all the way back to 2008—crux ansata does redirect here, after all. It's a real on-the-fence case, but unless the crux ansata is split out into its own article, it may be best to keep the bold text. If you want it removed, though, I have no objection.
Use in writing[edit]
I would suggest that links are needed for: honorific; and Egyptologists ('Egyptology').
- Done.
Origins[edit]
the was staff - rename as Was-sceptre, as is done in the Wikipedia article (unless it's wrong there!).
- Done.
amend link to ka so it lnks to 'Ancient_Egyptian_conception_of_the_soul#kꜣ_"double"';Is the spelling 'ka' OK? - it appears to be 'kꜣ', if you follow the link I mentioned above.
- It depends whether you want a transcription into a readable word, or a technical transliteration. Given that ꜣ, the Egyptological alef, isn't supported by a lot of browsers, and that the transcribed ka appears very commonly in Egyptological works (almost as commonly as "ankh"), I prefer to transcribe it.
- Agreed.
- It depends whether you want a transcription into a readable word, or a technical transliteration. Given that ꜣ, the Egyptological alef, isn't supported by a lot of browsers, and that the transcribed ka appears very commonly in Egyptological works (almost as commonly as "ankh"), I prefer to transcribe it.
...argue that the origin of the ankh... - the prose would be improved if you removed the date, to keep the sentence consistently within the present tense.
- Done.
The date given for the First Dynasty needs a citation.A citation is also needed for the text covering Loret's theory.
- It's cited to Gordon and Schwabe, who discuss Loret's hypothesis before advocating their own. Loret's article can be found online ([1]), but it's inconvenient because it's in French, which I can't really read.
Use in religion and art[edit]
Amulets shaped like a composite of the ankh, djed, and was were more widespread - The words 'was' and 'were' are currently adjacent, which reads strangely - consider improving the prose by rearranging, perhaps as 'Amulets shaped like the was, and a composite of the ankh, the djed, were more widespread.'
- I rearranged it differently, but "was" and "were" no longer appear together.
Andrews p. 86 - there does not appear to be a reference to the was or the djed here.
- That's weird. In my copy it says: "Although it is constantly depicted carried by royalty and deities, and being offered to their faces, actual individual ankh amulets are surprisingly few; the shape is more commonly found in composite amulets formed from the djed, was and ankh combined, signifying 'stability', 'dominion' and 'life'."
- Good enough for me. That's what comes from when I try to read a source too quickly... Amitchell125 (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's weird. In my copy it says: "Although it is constantly depicted carried by royalty and deities, and being offered to their faces, actual individual ankh amulets are surprisingly few; the shape is more commonly found in composite amulets formed from the djed, was and ankh combined, signifying 'stability', 'dominion' and 'life'."
Ancient Near East[edit]
The date range given for the Middle Bronze Age needs a citation.
- Teissier gives a date range for Middle Bronze seals on page 12 (with MB I starting at c. 1920 BC and MB III ending at 1550 or 1500). Ancient Near Eastern chronology is much worse than Egyptian—so much so that works like Teissier's have to state their chronological assumptions in advance—and many sources start the Middle Bronze Age at 2100 or 2000. So I rounded her 1920 date to 1950.
Christianity[edit]
.jpg)
I walked past this when I was in the V&A on Friday, and did a double take. Could the Christianity section benefit from the image, or perhaps the photograph I took?
- I photo I took is poorer in quality, and I wouldn't use it. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- My sympathies; museum photography drives me crazy. Unfortunately, the V&A terms indicate that commercial use of their work is permission-only, so their photo can't be uploaded to Commons. I know it's possible to host more stringently licensed images on Wikipedia itself, but that's not something I want to tangle with. A pity..
- Agreed, here's the (tweaked) image last week anyway. Perhaps it's not too bad after all.
- My sympathies; museum photography drives me crazy. Unfortunately, the V&A terms indicate that commercial use of their work is permission-only, so their photo can't be uploaded to Commons. I know it's possible to host more stringently licensed images on Wikipedia itself, but that's not something I want to tangle with. A pity..
- I photo I took is poorer in quality, and I wouldn't use it. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Citations[edit]
Ref 28 (Du Bourguet) - imo a page number need to be included (page 1), but it's a minor issue.
- Done.
Works cited[edit]
There is a link to Fischer available (allows the pdf to be downloaded), which I would add.
- Done.
I would suggest an improved link to Andrews (download the free pdf from here), instead of the Internet Archive link (where you join a queue to view the book).
- I don't know that site and am reluctant to link it. Googling it does not inspire confidence (e.g., [2]). Archive.org at least tries to ensure that its books are licensed for free access, and it's noncommercial.
- Agreed, let's keep what's there.
- I don't know that site and am reluctant to link it. Googling it does not inspire confidence (e.g., [2]). Archive.org at least tries to ensure that its books are licensed for free access, and it's noncommercial.
Possibly, and as a courtesy, provide a link to Allen (here) - it links to the 2014 edition of the book, on IA (not 2000), so the pages numbers are unreliable. I don't think it's worth trying to amend all the references in the article, but readers might want to access a version of the full text.
- I've added the link, and I think I will re-work the page numbers eventually. I've been working from the first edition for a long time, but it's better to be up-to-date.
- I've amended the text for the source to try and make it clear that the linked edition is not used in the article. Thanks for the offer to update the refs at some time, it won't affect the decision to make it GA.
- I've added the link, and I think I will re-work the page numbers eventually. I've been working from the first edition for a long time, but it's better to be up-to-date.
Further reading[edit]
The link that could be added for this source is: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/zaes.1973.99.issue-2/zaes.1973.99.2.16/zaes.1973.99.2.16.xml, but it is not freely accessible online, and so may not be worth including.
On hold[edit]
Hello, A. Parrot, not much to change here. I am placing the article on hold for a week. Please feel free to put me right or ask me anything about the review. Regards. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- I've passed the article, thanks for all the work you put in.
Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
