# Talk:Medjed

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anakinsmommy710.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Medjed (god). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417192941/http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2010/09/22/what-is-a-book-of-the-dead/ to http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2010/09/22/what-is-a-book-of-the-dead/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I have had an edit to this page reverted for "excessive information", but the page is listed as a stub. Should the stub listing be removed if additional information is to be considered "excessive", or do other editors have expanded edits in progress?
SeaOfBones (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think there's room for substantive information about the god's portrayal in media, such as summaries of analyses of media observers. But mere mentions in the vein of "he appeared in video game X" are generally discouraged in Wikipedia as accumulations of trivia.  Sandstein  17:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The two sections, Book of the Dead and New Kingdom "Papyri", essentially duplicate the same information from different aspects. Both are quotes from the Book of the Dead, with the second one simply being slightly longer. I have the Budge book which is one of the references. The book is based on the Papyrus of Ani, which Wikipedia itself admits is a New Kingdom text. This is the 17th chapter/spell, as mentioned in the other section. I hate to make a stub article shorter, but there is absolutely no reason to keep both these sections.

I'm late to the party here, but I agree: I've trimmed it down so that there's just a single quote.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 16:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

this page is being more popular, because it looks like the character of among us --Zemxer (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
among them

Text copied from Medjed (fish) to Medjed.  See history of former article for a list of contributors.   7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Medjed/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 23:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Looks like a good GA candidate that says about all there is to say about this obscure deity, but I have a few nitpicks.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
For the most part the prose is fine, but in a couple of places it could be more fluid. Where it says "Kamigami no Ki, Oh, Suddenly Egyptian God", I wasn't sure at first  if it was listing two separate anime series or the Japanese and English titles of a single series. I think "…his 'cartoon ghost'-like portrayal in vignettes on the Greenfield papyrus…" is excessively compact and would work better as "…his portrayal in vignettes on the Greenfield papyrus, resembling a 'cartoon ghost'…"
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation, and the text seems closely based on the sources. The Egyptological sources are all solid (except Budge, who is used with appropriate caution). While I'm less comfortable judging pop-cultural sources, they all seem good enough for documenting the facts they're used for here. My only problems are that Anime News Network is inconsistently italicized, and that Citations 28a and 28b, referring to Salvador 2017, use an unnecessarily broad page range. I think it could be reduced to pp. 17–18.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

@A. Parrot: First off, thanks for the review! How do these changes look to you?--Gen. Quon[Talk] 19:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The third Anime News Network ref (Citation 30) still needs to be made consistent with the other two, but aside from that, I think it looks good. A. Parrot (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@A. Parrot: Whoops! My mistake. That should be fixed now.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 16:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Pass. Congratulations! A. Parrot (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)