Talk:Abdi-Heba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Abdi-Heba was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 15, 2008 Good article nominee Listed August 8, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted May 10, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed Current Status: Former good article nominee

	Ancient Egypt Portal This article is part of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

[edit] Town of Qiltu

Qiltu (Keilah) needs to be clarified, for its Canaanite reference. Michael McAnnis

and note Keila is a town and province in Estonia...MMcAnnis

[edit] Delisted GA

It seems that this article did not go through the GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2 in that it does not cite any sources. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed and submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 15:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

This article needs to be broadened. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is not currently tagged with a GAC tag, although it appears on the GA nominations page. I am removing it from the page because it does not appear to be broad enough; if the sizable quotes, which provide a great deal of the actual content of the page, are removed the article is very short. It also cites very few secondary sources; if this is truly an exhaustive list of all of the reliable scholarship on this king, then I suppose there's not much more that can be done, and in that case I wonder the extent to which the article could ever qualify for GA given the nature of the subject. Chubbles 05:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)