Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pyramid of Neferirkare/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2018 [1].

Pyramid of Neferirkare

edit
Nominator(s): Mr rnddude (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Pyramid of Neferirkare, the monument of the Fifth Dynasty pharaoh Neferirkare Kakai –yes that other candidate that you can read about below this one. Eye-catching facts: It's the largest of its period, and about the same size as Menkaure's pyramid–the short one with the big gash in the middle of it's north face– at Giza. Underneath it's exterior true pyramid face, lies the heart of it's step pyramid design; a design deprecated in the Third Dynasty and famously used first in the original Egyptian pyramid, that of Djoser at Saqqara. It's also the best article I've written to date, hence my nominating it. For Egyptologists, however, it's most important for the Abusir paypri archives discovered in the adjoining mortuary temple which gave insight into the daily workings of the royal funerary cult. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Comments by Iry-Hor

edit

It is nice to see this topic coming up at FAC. I believe there is currently no featured pyramid article on wikipedia so this is an important addition. I will add what I see here as I read along. I will then do a source spotcheck.

  • Ref 49 should be pp.

Leaving this here for the rest (likely tonight).Iry-Hor (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • First mention of the Old Kingdom in the body of the article should be linked.
  • One sentence on the necropolis of Abusir could be welcomed in the first section. The article says "The Pyramid of Neferirkare is situated at the necropolis of the site Abusir, located between Saqqara and the Giza plateau." I think this could nicely be followed by a sentence recalling that Abusir was, at the time, the royal necropolis as Sahure had built his pyramid there. This is likely the reason why Neferirkare chose Abusir as a site for his pyramid (following in his father's footsteps). If you don't find a source corroborating this latter hypothesis, owing to the very recent establishment of Sahure as Neferirkare's father, don't say it but keep the observation that Abusir was the royal necropolis due to the location of Sahure's pyramid (who in turn may have chosen the place because of Userkaf's temple).
  • Is there any source which discusses the reasons why Neferirkare chose Abusir? At least one must mention Sahure's pyramid as a driving factor.
  • From what I've read Sahure's pyramid is considered separately from the pyramids Neferirkare, Neferefre and Nyuserre. Verner and Zemina state: "At the same time the latest archaeological discoveries in Abusir indicate that apart from Sahure's pyramid all the other pyramids in this cemetery make up a whole that is architecturally and functionally very closely connected with Neferirkare's pyramid." There doesn't seem to have been any change is this perception despite the recent discoveries. Even newer research such as Dodson's 2016, Verner's 2014, and Barta's 2017 works didn't bring up any connection between Sahure's pyramid and Neferirkare's pyramid. It's either hiding somewhere I haven't read or as yet unknown. I'm hoping you know something I don't. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing this is because of what happened after Neferirkare's rule, with Neferefre and Nyuserre wnating to be so closely associated with their father (in the case of Nyuserre, likely to further legitimise his rule). However I am surprised that Neferirkare did not attempt to align his pyramid on the line formed by Sahure's and Heliopolis. But well, if no source discusses the relation Neferirkare / Sahure, then we shall remain silent on it.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I figured the same thing, but, I thought somebody would at least mention that Neferirkare's pyramid is south-west of Sahure's. I'm sure Neferirkare made the alignment for heliopolis intentionally, but, it's only mentioned in the context of all three pyramids together. Not that any individual pyramid was intentionally placed there. I'll add it in if I find something though. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you believe it, I found a source stating that the pyramid complex may have been intentionally located to draw a line to heliopolis, but, and this is important, Neferirkare may also have been motivated to distance himself from Sahure and for this reason he founded his own cemetery and redesigned the mortuary temple to differ from Sahure's. Or, alternatively, that slope between his and Sahure's pyramid complexes might have been in the way. Krejčí, 2000, pp= 475-477 (source is in article). Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pyramids at this site hold the tombs of kings from Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty of the Old Kingdom", I think it could be made clearer that at the time of Neferirkare's reign, only one pharaoh had been buried in Abusir.
  • It would be good if I could get a sentence in between that goes something along the lines of: "following his father's footsteps, Neferirkare joined the newly founded necropolis with his pyramid complex". Though I may have to settle for; "Sahure's successor, Neferirkare, joined the newly founded necropolis with his pyramid complex". Mr rnddude (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(transl. inbw-ḥḏ)" would fit nicely in a footnote but it is up to you.
  • "Providing that the location of ancient Memphis is accurately known, the Abusir necropolis would have been no further than four kilometres from the city centre" Very nice what you did here ! I am very happy to see that you have been cautious on this complicated subject.
It is up to you really.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • First mention of Sahure in the text is linked to his pyramid so you need to wikilink the second mention of him to his article. This mention is in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the layout section "These two conceptual changes had developed by the time of Sahure's reign at the latest."

More to come.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "as the second member" I like the sentence you wrote about why Abusir and what was Abusir at the time. However I think it would be more precise to say "as the second ruler" rather than member. After all at the time of Neferirkare many people had already been buried there: courtiers of Sahure, his queen etc.
  • Extremely nice section on the layout !
  • "cult pyramid" : Unfortunately, there is no wikipedia article on this concept at the moment, so I think this needs some explanation. A single sentence or a footnote would do. Indeed, I don't think most readers know what this is and what the purpose of this was. EDIT: I just saw that later in the article you give such an explanation as to its possible function. I think this needs to appear in the first mention of the concept (e.g. you could put a footnote to avoid disrupting the nice flow of the article and keep the second mention in the text).
  • Food for thoughts: The fact that the pyramid of Neferirkare was originally meant to be a step one is strange but perhaps less so when one considers the position of Userkaf's own (next to that of Djoser). For the latter article to be written on the Fifth Dynasty, it might be good to look for sources talking about the influence of the 3rd Dynasty during the 5th.
  • If I recall, Neferirkare is put as the founder of the Fifth Dynasty on one of the king lists or maybe by Manetho. In any case I'd read somewhere that the step pyramid design might have been an attempt to emulate the founding of the dynasty by mimicking Djoser's step pyramid. Or something along those lines. I'll see if I can dig up where I read that. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude Improtant this was written in the article on Neferirkare before I started working on this but I found no source backing up this claim so I removed it. In addition I had a good reason to be suspicious : the concept of Egyptian dynasties was invented in the Aegyptiaca of Manetho in order to adhere to then prevalent Greek concepts, as was required by his patron Ptolemy. On a deeper level, Egyptologists and Hellenists have argued that this is a result of a phylosophical change in the perception of time, with the Greeks of the classical periods adopting a linear vision (which we have very much retained) while the Ancient Egyptians had a cyclical vision of time. In the latter, dynasties have no sense. In any case, it remains true that no Egyptian king list predating the Hellenistic period explicitely uses dynasties. Even the Turin canon, which does have tallies of reign lengths at some places, do not place these tallies where we now place divisions between dynasties. Therefore the claim that Neferirkare was the founder of a dynasty in a source can only either be : 1) a misunderstanding of the placement of Neferirkare's name in an ancient Egyptian list (e.g. beginning of a column or row); or 2) given as such in the Aegyptiaca, but at least in Africanus version this is not true and Userkaf is given as founder. Of course if we can find a serious source saying Neferikare is a founder I would be happy to include it but I very much doubt that a source can be found. To conclude, we should be warry of our own preconceptions on the organisation of history and royal lineage. Egyptologists have argued that while dynasties are handy for us as historians, they do not reflect the truth of the time. For example, the transition from Unas to Teti is likely not have been perceived as a dynastic change by the contemporaries, being no more special to them than the transition from Djedkare to Unas.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok there is possibly one exception to that, the Den seal impressions dating to the reign of Den of the 1st Dynasty and which present Narmer as the first of a list of kings. So it seems the Ancient Egyptians did recognise Narmer as a founder of sort.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had read that Dynasties as we refer to them are concepts useful to us that don't reflect Egyptian views. I've also read that the First Intermediate Period is effectively an invention of our own to help explain the transitional period between the Old and Middle Kingdoms. It doesn't really exist. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Iry-Hor, I found where I'd read it. It's on p. 297 of Verner's The Pyramids: The Mystery, Culture and Science of Egypt's Great Monuments (2001): "Why did Neferirkare decide to break with earlier tradition and to return, after about two centuries, to a tomb in the form of a step pyramid? Were the reasons connected with religion or dynastic and power politics? In the Nineteenth Dynasty king list on the famous Royal Canon of Turin, Neferirkare is considered the founder of a new dynasty. Is there some connection between that view and the unusual character of the original project for Neferirkare's pyramid?" He ends by saying that to answer that question and others, new sources would be required. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Holy hell. Well this is contradicted by a number of sources who argue that the canon does not follow dynasties. Malek explicitely says that such breaks in the Turin canon coincide with change of location of the capital between the various settlements that flourished near Saqqara and would later fuse into Memphis. I don't know what to think.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • First appearances of Neferefre and Nyuserre in the body of the article should be wikilinked. These are in the 1st paragraph of the mortuary temple section.
  • First apppearance of Khentkaus II in the body of the article should be wikilinked. It is also in the section on the mortuary temple.
  • "which would have otherwise long ago disintegrated buried under the mud" this reads weird to me, maybe a comma is missing between disintegrated and buried ? I am no native speaker though so I will let your native sense of English be the judge here.
  • "tomb construction in the Abusir necropolis appears" do you mean royal tombs or all tombs ? I doubt this is true for "all tombs" but in any case you need a citation here. If you only mean royal tombs then there are plenty of sources confirming that Nyuserre was the last king to be buried in Abusir.
  • "Activities by the cults, however, had ceased by the First Intermediate Period" this is explicitely contradicted by Morales and to a lesser extend by Malek, at least in the case of the cult of Nyuserre. See the article on Nyuserre for a summary of this problem. I think you could use a less sweeping statement, e.g. by making it clear that you talk specifically about Neferirkare's cult and not about royal cult in Abusir in general.
  • Hmm, that one is on Verner's head: "During the First Intermediate Period, there were no royal mortuary cults at Abusir" Although I'll be fair to him and note that Morales work is newer. I'll notify when I've fixed this. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude Then we must state everyone's opinion on an equal footing. I don't think Morales should win only because he published the latest on the subject. We could say : "Verner believes that royal cults at Abusir stopped during the First Intermediate Period, but the Egyptologists A. Morales and J. Malek argue that Nyuserre's cult did continue during this era."Iry-Hor (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've presented the views of Verner, Malek and Morales in a small paragraph dedicated solely to that discussion. Morales' paper should be very handy for the article on Nyuserre's pyramid. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section "Pyramid of Khentkaus" Raneferef is wikilined but this should be removed in favor of the earlier mention of Neferefre in the section on the mortuary temple. In addition, I think it would be better to either write Neferefre or Raneferef throughout and not change in the article as this might cause confusion.
  • Section "Pyramid of Khentkaus": Nyuserre is wikilinked but this should be removed in favor of the earlier mention which appears in the section on the mortuary temple.
  • "a primeval mound" this might need a one sentence explanation (possibly in footnote). This was notably asked in the FAC on Neferefre. You can use what I wrote there.
  • "and far away from the Nile delta." I think you mean "Nile valley" or more specifically "Abusir lake" and not "Nile delta".
  • Done - You are correct, it's Nile valley. The point was to illustrate the cost of moving material and people over land and into the desert for the construction. I'll see if I can dig up something on the materials and where they were quarried from. That might be a nice addition to the Pyramid of Nyuserre article. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine quality limestone was invariably quarried from Tura. I don't know about the granite and diorite for sure, but I know that during Djedkare's time quarries for these were exploited in Lower Nubia.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tura is a place?!?!, every time I read that I thought it was a type of limestone "Tura limestone". Oh my... I am a muppet. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ahah! Yes it is a place, with the quarries still visible and they can be visited ! This kind of misunderstanding happens to me all the time with spoken expressions in English. This shows that we should wikilink Tura whenever possible.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Abusir plateau fell into disuse" this sentence is actually in the article on the Pyramid of Nyuserre. I just wanted to mention that while sources may say things like this, this is not quite correct see e.g. here for a recent discovery (Ptolemy IV)! I just wanted to mention that we should be careful with statements regarding the end of Abusir as a necropolis.
  • Fair point and I've revised it to just say that burials took place in the late period. Believe me, that section needs a whole lot of work before it's ready. I still haven't worked out whether Ptahshepses mastaba, which is near to the pyramid, deserves just a mention or a dedicated section. I also need to get some appropriate images for the article, which coincidentally, I've been working on translating inscriptions from a granite column found by Borchardt (pl. 13 I think). The work is in my sandbox. I've managed to crack Cols 2–4, but, I can't make heads or tails of Col 1. I'm wondering if you have any clue what it says. I figure it would be a nice addition to the article: an image with translation provided. Overall I'd say the article is about 70% of the way to GA. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
THe problem is the article needs to stay on focus so I would be more inclined to say that Ptahshepses' mastaba cannot be given a whole section for itself in the article on the Pyramid of Nyuserre (of course you can always edit the article on the mastaba to have more info). I will take a look at the sandbox inscription, however I don't think we can really put up the translation on the article as this would clearly be original research. PS: Ptolemy IV is actually after the Late Period, being the Hellenistic Period.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had considered the OR problem, and my strongest defence is that "nobody would accuse me of OR for translating a work from English to German... how is this any different?" Though I doubt that defence would hold up "in a court of law". I used a dictionary for most of it, though the cartouches with pharaoh's names are obviously available translated from many different sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can always put up the translation and see what people say. However, you have to admit that knowing Germand and English is a lot more common than being proficient in English and Old Kingdom Egyptian so you might not convince everyone with this. I personally wouldn't make a fuss over it since I agree with your translation (I added the 1st column as well).Iry-Hor (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is all !Iry-Hor (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a deep pleasure to read your pyramid articles and therefore to support the article reaching FA status. In fact, it fills me with joy to see these monuments get the treatment they deserve at last, here on wikipedia. This article is not only of FA standard, it is amongst the best FAs I have read. I hope you will continue to produce this kind of work!Iry-Hor (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I am humbled to receive such praise. I look forward to working with you in future and getting the pharaohs, pyramids, and the Fifth Dynasty as a whole to FA. Thanks for your review. Let me know if there's more work to be done. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well not on this article, I think you really nailed it. There is definitely a lot of work that could be done on other pyramid articles while I bring Sahure to FA standard from its current GA status. Once I have done Userkaf as well, I will start the article on the Fifth Dynasty and I hope you will agree to contribute to it, especially a seciton regarding pyramid building.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

edit
  • This moment is the result of a whole saga of coincidences. It started just after the new year. We lost two of our long time contributors. One who had their TBAN extended on a technicality that was unclear in the TBAN. The other was given a TBAN from AP2 for conduct that did not transpire in that topic area. They were being hostile at AN/I and AE. The TBAN was purely punitive. I went to a former admin and experienced editor for some advice on what could be done to overturn the AE decision. In the interim I received a notification, on that admins talk page, that we had in fact lost a third editor: Tony1, the same Tony1 who wrote a guide for writing at the FA level. Via a fourth discussion I end up reading that guide for a few days. It's a very good guide. I was wondering if I could apply what I'd learned to an article. I figured an FAC would be the most appropriate venue for this exercise. Looking through the then current FA noms I read the name "Neferefre" and immediately figured out that he had to be an Egyptian king –my interest is in ancient history. I was correct, and after reading just the lede of the article, I was interested enough to do a full prose review for it. Coincidentally, Iry-Hor had put up Neferirkare Kakai for a GA review. When I finished the prose review for Neferefre I took on that GA review as well. I was struggling to follow the pyramid section of the Neferirkare Kakai article; couldn't make heads or tails of which phase of construction was which – the rest of the article was impeccable save for a few phrasings and an NC CC-by-SA image that had to be removed. I ended up going through the sources and doing some research to get the full picture and then decided why not write the article? Originally the plan was to just clean up the article somewhat, but, that's snowballed out of control as you can see and now after a GA review and some more prose work, I find myself here. Not entirely coincidence, but, not at all pre-planned. In fact we're going in opposite directions. Iry-Hor will be working on Sahure next (predecessor) and I'll be working on Pyramid of Neferefre (successor) Mr rnddude (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, that's quite a convoluted series of events. I'll continue my review when the one above is over, so there won't be potential overlap in observations. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pixel size forcing for images is discouraged, so should be removed. You can add the upright parameter to vertically long images, though.
  • There are various seemingly important people, places, and other terms (especially under " location") which are not linked at first occurrence outside the intro.
  • Not all units are converted yet, for example "four kilometres".
  • Not all historians, writers, etc. mentioned are presented yet. Some get an occupation listed, some get nationality, others get nothing.
  • "His findings were published in the Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Abusir: 1902 - 1904 (Band 5): Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Nefer-Ir-Ke-Re (1909) part of Volume 11 of Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft written in German" Why do we need this long title listed? Other publications aren't listed in-text. I presume you could give an equal amount of details for other publications, so this one seems arbitrary.
  • I was actually asked to add this in at GA. It's a rather important work and the first properly in-depth excavation work conducted at the Abusir necropolis. I can reduce the title to it's shortened name, if that's preferred. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you should state the importance of the work, and simply give its title(s)? Not sure why we need volumes, journals, and language listed in-text. It doesn't really help the reader, especially since it isn't even in English. Maybe Iry-Hor can chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who asked this at GA, although to be precise I only asked for the title of the work to be mentioned in the text because it is still the reference on the pyramid of Neferirkare. I would back the idea of simply stating that Borchardt published his findings in Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Nefer-Ir-Ke-Re and remove the rest from the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've shortened to just the title and date. I originally included the journal as well because Verner cites the journal by name. I'll do the same at the other two articles. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any theories as to why it was changed from being a step pyramid? Or why it was supposed to be a step pyramid to begin with?
  • To your first question, not that I've read. To your second question, Verner has a speculation, but, even he says that further evidence is required. I'll have a look and leave a new comment here when I'm done. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll be ready to support afterwards. Could be interesting to mention, while noting it is speculation. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've added in a couple sentences on it and a long footnote explaining a contested issue. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ad a slope of about 74 degrees" Why not use the symbol, like you do elsewhere?
  • It seems slightly misleading to use a coloured version of this[2] image instead of the original. I also find the sourcing a bit questionable, but I'll leave that to an image reviewer.
  • "published by Paule Posener-Kriéger" Present.
  • Should the "Significance" section be changed to "papyri"? This seems to be pretty much all it's about.
  • Done - I think "significance" wasn't misleading, but, if we want to be technical, yes that section is dedicated to the papyri.

Source Review by Lingzhi

edit
  • sort order of sources is a bit off. Names are in alpha order, but articles by the same author are sometimes ascending by date and sometimes descending. Or something like that. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No not necessarily, not according to Wikipedia's rules. The rule here is consistency, and if everything is arranged consistently as you say, then it is OK. I just didn't notice they were sorted by title after name, mainly because I have never seen that method used before.. If you have seen that method used in publications, then don't change anything. If you haven't, and you just did it that way yourself, then it might be kinda nice if you sorted by name-date (that is the most common way out in the real world, I suppose), but it still is not required. No one could oppose over that. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent use of Location parameter (15 with; 17 without);
  • Missing date(s) for Bárta, Miroslav. "Abusir in the Third Millennium BC"
  • Altenmüller, Hartwig (2002). Missing isbn
  • Fakhry, Ahmed (1969). The Pyramids. Pub. too early for ISBN (probably reprint, use |orig-date=) ; Missing OCLC; 

Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Verner, Miroslav; Zemina, Milan has an error message; "CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown" and a link to Category:CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown, which has a bit of explantory text... I have never seen that error before and am not sure how serious it is. I clicked your linked pdf twice and couldn't get the download to complete, but that may be my slow internet or whatever... I read the dead-url stuff in the documentation for {{cite book}} and didn't find a clear answer. I dunno... but just for the sake of completeness maybe you should do something to fix it... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked the pdf link, it still works. It just takes a while to load. The error is a result of "deadurl=bot : unknown" in the citation. I'll see what should be done about it. I think I've fixed it, but, check anyway. It seems to be a result of archiving. A bot couldn't work out if the link was dead or not, or something. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lingzhi, are you doing a sources review for this article? If so, could you head your comments accordingly, in bold? Otherwise I, or someone like me, may think such a review is necessary and do the work all over again. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Brianboulton: I apologize; I was never doing actual source reviews. I am using all these FACs and Milhist A-reviews as guinea pigs for my source-checking script. If you would like me to help with source review load, i can do that later today, bt my better half is sweetly calling me at this very moment. So let me know if you want me to chip in with some full source reviews. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • chapters of books, when listed in the Sources, should include page numbers. Forex, Lehner's "pyramids (Old Kingdom), construction of" seems to be 644-46, tho the Index says his contributions start at 639. Other examples found. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verner & Zemina 1994, Zemina is just a photographer not author.
  • The authors/editors of "Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids" seem to be incorrect. Online sources differ; perhaps Arnold, D. (ed.), 1999. Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids. New York (NY): The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
  • Altenmüller 2002, p. 270. ref a, abusir papyrus, five statues. Can't find "five statues" in source, but source does mention abusir papyrus. ref b all info found: :
  • Wikipedia says

    A second record is the existence of at least four funerary boats at Abusir, according to which, two are located in sealed rooms while the other two are to the north and south of the pyramid itself. The southern boat was discovered when Verner unearthed the funerary boat during excavations.

  • [BTW, That's some strained grammar there...according to the funerary boats? boat was discovered/unearthed the boat..]
  • source says

    The papyri indicate that two of these ships were situated in sealed rooms, and two other ships buried to the south and north of the pyramid. A single ship to the south of the pyramid was brought to light by the excavation of M. Verner.

  • Source also says: In the Abusir-Papyri of Neferirkara, there is mention of at least four boats. I'll fix the grammar. It's according to the papyri that there are ^. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No online access to Lehner The Complete Pyramids, unfortunately.
  • Leprohon Texts from the Pyramid Age (pub. Brill?) was actually written by Nigel Strudwick and ed. by Leprohon, and published by Society of Biblical Literature. But I was able to find info from Wikipedia text in source on page indicated...
  • Edwards 1999 [In Bard, Kathryn. Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt]. has 9 cites to p. 98; I can't find text on Neferirkare on that page... but my amazon is screwed up tonight so... pages seem different for Goelet from same book too.. are we looking at different editions?
  • For me it's on pages 97 and 98. I can give quotes if you like. Goelet is page 87. You may be right about editions. Mine says copyright 1999 but I've just noted that it says "This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005" elsewhere on the same page. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly, Isler on p. 201 has detailed descriptions (attributed to Verner) of the geometry involved in selecting the pyramid's location, its geometric relation to Giza and Heliopolis, to the equinox (also explained on p. 106 etc.). I'm not sure this info is or isn't repeated in our article. Forex, no mention of "equinox", plus our article mentions Heliopolis twice: "the site may have been intentionally selected to build the pyramid in line with Heliopolis" (cited to Krejčí 2000, pp. 475–477) and "Instead of being seated on the Abusir-Heliopolis axis, Nyuserre's pyramid is..." (cited to three sources). I'm just not sure the connection to Heliopolis is clear at all in our article. I haven't checked; is our article too long already to go into detail? If not, may be a 1b "comprehensive" concern.
  • I can put in a footnote on the significance of Heliopolis – it'll be a bit longish to incorporate directly into text. There isn't a "geometric relation" per se between the Abusir pyramids and the Giza pyramids. They sit on separate lines that appear to intersect at Heliopolis. I did expound briefly on this at Pyramid of Neferefre and can do so here as well. I'll aim to have this done tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

edit

Support

Reading through, gripping stuff. Comments shortly, mostly around prose. I expect that I will eventually support this excellent article. Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • the unusual circumstances in which it was built - give some indication
  • The 'unusality'. Cliff hangers yes are good, but too little meat here yet. Ceoil (talk)
  • known to the Old Kingdom - during
  • Neferirkare's pyramid deviated in construction from its contemporaries - deviated isn't right. Do you mean the design or the build. Also, "Neferirkare's pyramid's construction" is better.
  • Revised - Please check and tell me what you think. I meant that the design of the complex differed from those of his contemporaries: Sahure and Userkaf. Granted, the construction was a departure from standard practice in parts as well, not least of all because it took at least three pharaoh's lifetimes to build: Neferirkare's, Neferefre's, possibly Shepseskare's, and Nyuserre's. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • originally erected - how many times was it erected. Nine times out of ten the word 'originally' is redundant.
  • Twice technically. It was built as a step pyramid, and then effectively encased in a second step pyramid which was to form the base template of the final "true pyramid". Refer to the image in "Main pyramid" for clarity. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later alterations were intended to convert it into a true pyramid - All alteration are "later". 'True pyramid' should be explained here rather than blue linked. "were" is redundant.
  • Revised - Dropped "later" and "were", but, how exactly do you want me to explain what a "true pyramid" is? It's really just referring to the geometric shape that we call a "pyramid". You're effectively asking me to explain what a sphere or cube is. The term "true" is used to distinguish it from the step pyramid. Effectively what I'm trying to say is: it was converted from a stepped pyramid, into an actual pyramid. Except step pyramids are actual pyramids, but, they aren't pyramid [shaped] pyramids? you catch my drift? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Dont assume that readers know the technical difference between a sphere and cube, not to mind that the term "true pyramid" refers to purity of form. We should aim to write for the comprehension level of reasonably intelligent teenagers, so I'd spell it out here, no disrespect to reasonably intelligent teenagers. Ceoil (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a footnote next to the first mention of "true pyramid" clarifying that the term refers to pyramids with a basic pyramid geometric shape. I've also described the shape: square base with four triangular faces converging at an apex. I've also dropped the link as no longer necessary. Tell me what you think. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thats good; like. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • untimely death - all deaths are untimely; early maybe. Unfortunate I could live with if there was a timing issue.
  • Revised - It's an issue of timing. He died before the pyramid was completed, leading to a rush to finish it so that it could hold his mummy. I don't like "unfortunate" because it implies "regrettable". I mean sure, most deaths are unfortunate, but, that doesn't really have anything to do with "bad timing". Malapropos?... I'm kidding, how about: inconvenient? The central point here is how well-timed it was, not how sad. If he'd died the day it was completed, while probably regrettable, it would have been perfectly timed. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • and a "cheap" outcome - "cheap" is not the right word, too modern, and vague as to the intended meaning.
  • It is to this fact - "Because of"
  • Done - I did actually mean that it was discovered more than once. Graverobbers found some fragments in the 1890s in the storerooms, Borchardt found an entire archive in the 1900s while excavating elsewhere. Two separate discoveries. There's been more discoveries since then: one archive in Neferefre's complex and one in Khentkaus IIs complex. The sum of these discoveries all refers to the Abusir papyri. Though I get what you mean. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Location and excavation

  • the second ruler to join the necropolis - to be entombed in - "join" sounds like modern romance
  • proposes a number of hypotheses explaining - if the propositions were hypotheses, they were proposing rather than explaining
  • particularly the presence of a slope between.. - suggest particularly the slope between.
  • Another practical reason for choosing the site is the presence of a limestone. The phrase "Another practical reason" could be cut. Its clear you are developing arguments, so no need to labour. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't that leave me with a sentence fragment? I've rewritten the sentence as: The site allowed workers to exploit the limestone quarry present just to the south-west of Abusir. I can also drop "just to the" if that's preferred as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Temple:

  • Only the foundations of Neferirkare's intended valley temple and causeway had been laid at this time of his death.[45][70] The causeway's foundation was specifically laid about two thirds of the way from the valley temple to the mortuary. - Can you rephrase "at this time of his death". "Neferirkare's intended..." could be more along the lines of "the valley intended for Neferirkare's". "was specifically" could be "planned to be", or such - there is no doubt that the architects were precise in their calculations. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised - "At this time of his death" was meant to be "at the time of his death"; I can't tell if you want me to rephrase the whole thing differently or just fix the error. If you want to drop the rephrase I can replace "at the time of" with "prior to". I've made the second change as requested. With regard to "was specifically" to "planned to be": there was no plan, the thing had been laid two-thirds of the way when he died. I've changed it to "had been laid". Let me know if these changes, and my proposed alternative fix, meet your expectations. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead, its ancient name translated - from what language, would be interesting to know. Ceoil (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh... it'd have to be Old Kingdom Egyptian, better known as Old Egyptian. Unfortunately the source doesn't say that. It can't, however, be Middle Egyptian since it wasn't spoken until about 500 years later. I'll see if I can find a suitable reference specifying the dialect. If not, then, per OR, no. Can I invoke WP:BLUESKY? Because it's not controversial and it's not going to be from a dialect that did not yet exist. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Abusir papyri document contains details" - don't like "contains details", maybe just "details"; next sentence "attestation", dont like that either.
  • A second record in the papyri - "in the papyri" is repetitious given the preceding sentence
  • two of these boats - "two of which"(given the preceding sentence)
  • are located to the North and South of the pyramid itself - drop this second instance of "located".
  • Apologies for delay in coming back to this, got side tracked. Given the all the work since my last comments, aided by the evident willingness of the nominator to engage in the threads above and below, this now certainly cuts the mark. Support, with enthusiasm. 22:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

edit

This is an interesting, and as far as a layman can see, comprehensive article, but the prose needs a bit of work if it is to achieve FA standard.

  • General
    • Dash style – not compliant with the manual of style. You have some en-dashes with a space on one side only. What you should have are either en-dashes with spaces on either side of them – like this – or em dashes with no space—like this—. I noticed this defect only in the lead and the footnotes, but you should check the whole article.
  • Lead
    • "pyramid's deviated" – should, I think, be "pyramid deviated"
    • "pyramid, however" – if you must have "however" here you need a stronger stop than a comma – a semicolon would be usual. I think the sentence would read better if you had a full stop after true pyramid, dropped the however and started a new sentence with "The pharaoh's…"
    • "owed to this fortuity" – I had to look that one up. It is in the OED, but is a most obscure word, and I think the sentence could do very well without it, finishing with "this".
  • Location and excavation
    • "Egyptologist Jaromír Krejči" – rather clunky false title, which I see you have avoided in the next paragraph with the desirable definite article in "The Egyptologist Miroslav Bárta"
    • "dominated over the surrounds" – not quite sure what is meant here. Does it mean "dominated the surrounding area"?
    • "owing to the fact that" – rather a wordy way of saying "because"
    • "In 1838, British Egyptologist" – he and his Prussian confrère suffer from false titles as Krejči does earlier.
    • "long term excavation project" – I'd hyphenate "long-term"
  • Substructure
    • "two turns, but, maintains" – not sure why the comma after "but"
    • "The roof of the corridor is unique and not found in any other Old Kingdom pyramid" – tautology: if it's unique it can't, ipso facto, be found anywhere else.
    • "the passageway preventing collapse" – I'd be inclined to put a comma after "passageway"
    • "width, however, the" – as with the earlier "however", you need a stronger stop than a comma before it, and in my view it would be better as "width; the antechamber"
  • Mortuary temple
    • "a less impressive aesthetic, despite that" – not clear what is meant here. Is "despite that" meant to mean "although" or do you mean that despite the less impressive aesthetic the the layout etc are analogous to the other structure? I'm not sure what a less impressive aesthetic is, in any case. Less aesthetically impressive?
    • "columns, however" – once again, I'd replace the comma and unnecessary "however" with a plain semicolon.
    • "Fascinatingly, it wasn't found" – two things here. You really, really need to lose the editoralising adverb, and we do not use contractions such as "wasn't" in the text (except in quotations).
    • "which: two" – why the unexpected colon?
    • "North and South" – not capitalised earlier and should not be capitalised here.
    • "such columns, however, these" – this is the fifth "however" of a total of ten, and like the nine others it is unnecessary verbal clutter. Blitz the lot and, where appropriate, replace those in mid-sentence with semicolons is my advice.
  • Later history
    • "uncertain, but, may" – another inexplicable comma, after "but".
  • Pyramid of Khentkhaus II
    • "By consequence, Borchardt" – I think you mean "In consequence, Borchardt"
    • "It wasn't" – "it was not"
  • Nyuserre's pyramid
    • "beared heavily the construction" – not English. I'm guessing you mean "bore heavily on the construction", though whether one bears heavily I'm not certain. Perhaps something less flowery such as "seriously affected" or "badly affected" might be safer.
    • "it need to have been located" – a word missing by the look of it: "it would need" or some such?
  • Significance
    • "French Egyptologist Nicolas Grimal" – another unbeautiful false title.
    • "states that; "[t]his" – you could have a comma or a colon here but you can't have a semicolon.
    • "the fragmentary evidence of the papyri indicate" – singular noun (evidence) with plural verb.
    • "The full extent … are unknown": ditto.

Those are my comments on the prose. I'll look in again once you've had time to consider them. – Tim riley talk 16:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The content seems to me of FA standard, and the prose will now pass muster. Happy to add my support. – Tim riley talk 17:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Is the source review now complete? It's not quite clear if we have had a check for source reliability. And on that subject, I believe that this would be the nominator's first FA if promoted. Therefore, a spot-check of the sources for accurate use and close paraphrasing would be required. I wonder if Lingzhi would be able to do this? Sarastro (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should be able to do it w/in 24 hours or so.... more later Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Happy to act as stand-by for Lingzhi if wanted: I live near the British Library and it's no trouble to pop in (unless London vanishes under an Arctic avalanche as threatened by the Meteorological Office, in which case all bets are off). While I'm here, I see the ISBNs in the sources need tidying up: some hyphenated, some not; some 10-digit some 13. Tim riley talk 13:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC) Later: I've done the necessary with the ISBNs. Tim riley talk 14:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be great, thanks Tim. I could say something about Londoners and the weather, but I'll resist. Though I might tempt fate and say that the snow seems to have avoided Yorkshire all winter. I think between you and Lingzhi we should wrap this up quite quickly. Sarastro (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully suggest to the coordinator that if he persists in accusing a Scouser, albeit one resident in Islington, of being a Londoner he had better look out for his hubcaps. Tim riley talk 20:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot check (if still wanted) I've checked a 15% sample and with one small quibble I find everything correctly attributed and a true reflection of what the source says, with due rephrasing avoiding any close paraphrase. Checked refs 3, 8, 11, 15, 46, 47, 50, 51, 57, 63, 69, 81, 83, 89, 98, 100 and 104 against the cited sources Lehner 2008, Malek 2004 and Morales 2006. My only nitpick is that at ref 15 I think page 3 should be page 2. Otherwise impeccable. – Tim riley talk 12:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: From an "official" viewpoint, I'm happy with the number of spot-checks now done and could promote. Lingzhi would you like me to wait until you have done more checks, or could it be done after promotion? Either way is fine with me, there is no great rush, and I'm happy to do it whichever way you feel is necessary. Sarastro (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pyramid_of_Neferirkare/archive1&oldid=1138469468"