Talk:Cave of Treasures/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Hogshine (talk · contribs) 15:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 11:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Initial comments

I am sorry to say that in my view the existing text falls at the first fence: the lead – all of 65 words – comes nowhere near meeting GA criterion 1b. By no stretch of the imagination could the two existing sentences be called a summary of the article's most important contents. The WP guidance states: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points.

In my opinion you need to glance briefly in the lead at the authorship, the setting, the relationship with Christianity and other religions, the Magi and manuscripts and translations.

I have jotted down a short list of minor drafting points, but will keep it back for now. If you deal with the deficiency of the lead we can go on to other comments and suggestions. I'll put the review on hold for a week to give you time to flesh out the lead properly. – Tim riley talk 11:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

It used to have a longer lead but someone shortened it; I've restored it with modifications, with additional changes and content added. Please take a look at the latest version whenever you can. Thanks ~ Hogshine (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Good grief! What possessed anyone to mutilate your lead so badly! The restored and revised version is much more the mark. I have to travel tomorrow and will not be working seriously on WP till the weekend, but will continue the review then, with much increased hope of a favourable outcome. Tim riley talk 21:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Please take all the time you need (: ~ Hogshine (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Here, meanwhile, are the minor drafting points I jotted down. They are purely suggestions – please feel free to accept or reject any of them

• Duplicate links you could dispense with:

• Adiabene
• Nimrod
• Tower of Babel
• Zoroaster
• Edessan
• Magi
• Bethlehem
• Church of the East

• Adding or removing blue links:

• You blue link Jews but not Christians, which seems odd
• Adam – could do with a link at first mention in main text
• the Fall – would benefit from a link
• frankincense and myrrh – neither is an everyday term and links would be useful
• Egypt – we don't ordinarily link countries

• Other prose points

• "retells biblical history" – a bit tendentious to call the biblical narrative "history". In the normal sense that history is an account of what actually happened I don't think the term can in conscience be applied to much of the Old Testament or even bits of the New.
• "Later, when Jesus Christ was born" – He's been mentioned twice earlier as "Christ", tout court and bringing in His given name at this point seems odd.
• "the biblical "land of Nod." – Wikipedia uses the "logical punctuation" system, so that the full stop should come after the closing quotation marks.
• "The author engages with these matters because he sought to construct a foundation myth" – the lurch from present to past tense is jarring.
• "After bathing in the lake and having "made obeisance" to Yonton to acknowledge Yonton's superiority, Yonton taught him wisdom" – there is a dangling modifier problem here. As drawn it says that Yonton bathed in the lake, made obeisance to Yonton, etc. You need something on the lines of "After Nimrod bathed in the lake and "made obeisance" to Yonton to acknowledge the latter's superiority, Yonton taught him wisdom".
• "the false arts of astrology (as opposed to astronomy) and incest" – seems rather odd to see incest described as an art, whether a false or true one.

I hope to complete the review over the weekend. Tim riley talk 10:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I have now had the chance to reread your text, and now that the lead has been restored it seems to me that the article meets all the GA criteria. Knowing nothing about the subject I take it on trust that it meets criterion 3a ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic") which it has every appearance of doing, and in my view it clearly meets all the others. I hope you will find some of my suggestions for tweaking the prose useful, but promotion to GA is not contingent on that. Therefore:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

If you decide to take the article to FAC – and to my layman's eyes it seems to have that potential – please ping me when you get there.

I see you have another article up for GAN at the moment. Would you be comfortable with my reviewing it? Your call. – Tim riley talk 10:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

So sorry for the late reply, I was busy.

I have modified the article per your points - you have quite the impressive eye for minute details. Thanks

I would absolutely love if you could take a look at my other GANs: Barhebraeus and/or Zuqnin Chronicle. ~ Hogshine (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll give the former a go. I don't think it would be seemly to review three of any editor's GANs in a row, and so I'll leave Zuqnin Chronicle to someone else. See you chez Barhebraeus. Tim riley talk 12:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)