Talk:Bad Dürrenberg burial/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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.
- I changed it to "robust" which I'm not sure is much better. In the 1930s the shaman was identified as a man solely from her skull. Following Grünberg, I assume masculine is meant in the biological anthropology sense, in that bones are rated as masculine/feminine meaning more robust (larger, thicker, bigger muscle attachments, stronger features e.g. chin, brow ridges) or more gracile (smaller, thinner, less muscle attachment, rounder chin and facial features). Regardless using the skull alone is not a very reliable way to determine sex, if I recall my single bioanth paper from 10 years ago! Merytat3n (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
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 can't unfortunately. Curry (2023) is the only one who mentions it, in English anyway. The best I can do is follow them in saying "around 8400 years ago" so that's ~6400 BC. It's possible that Meller and Michel's Das Rätsel der Schamanin might be more specific but I don't have a copy (yet) or read German (Google translate). Merytat3n (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
Okay, did some source spotchecking, and have one query:
In the 2010s, the area where the burial was found was scheduled for redevelopment for the State Garden Show so the grave was located and entirely removed in two blocks for controlled excavation in a laboratory.
Unless I'm missing something, I don't think the cited source explicitly supports "in the 2010s"; it says that the State Garden Show was "originally scheduled to open in 2022" so the excavation was presumably before then, but I can't see any more precise indication of date.
I checked several other statements, looking at all of the cited sources, and didn't find any other concerns about either copyvio or source-text integrity. Nor does earwig's copyvio detector come up with anything concerning.
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is entirely my fault! I should also be citing Curry (2023) who says "Some 80 years after the initial [1934] discovery" and "As part of the new archaeological project that started with the reexcavation of the grave in 2019" so I will fix that. Thank you : ) Merytat3n (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)