Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pyramid of Nyuserre/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2019 [1].

Pyramid of Nyuserre

edit
Nominator(s): Mr rnddude (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back with my third nomination of a pyramid article, although I had originally anticipated that this would be my second FA nom. I created this article last year, built it up for DYK and GA, and then left it alone for many months. I came back to it multiple times, and after refining it further, I think it's ready to be reviewed for FA. Some eye catching facts: 1) Nyuserre had to complete not 1, not 2, but 3 other pyramids before building his own. This included completing the largest pyramid built in the Fifth Dynasty, which was about equal in size to one of the Great Pyramids of Giza. 2) The last people ever to enter the pyramid risked having 90,000 kg blocks collapse onto their heads. 3) Nyuserre employed a pink granite lion to guard his privacy after his death. No I don't know his hourly rates/salary, nor his current place of employment. 4) Nyuserre invented the pylon (okay I'm stretching that a bit), two of which exist in his pyramid complex. And 5) 7 dynasties or ~500 years after his death, Nyuserre's cult had lived on/been revived. How many cults do you know of that have stuck around for 5 centuries? Weird flex, but ok. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

edit

Bagging a place in the queue. Detailed comments will follow shortly. Looking very good at first glance. Tim riley talk 20:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the necropolis map
  •  Done - upscaled 30%
  • File:Abusir_map.png: source link is dead
  •  Done - replaced with archive link
  • File:Cross-section_of_Nyuserre's_causeway_by_Borchardt.png: the CC license at the source site appears to refer to the digitization - should include an explicit tag for the original work. Same with File:Restoration_work_inscription_from_Nyuserre's_mortuary_temple.png.Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria - The, uh, let's say, art program of the article has been vastly expanded. As a result, it's been suggested that a new image review would be wise. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is Ludwig Borchardt's date of death? Also, are we certain that he is the author of all the images from his book? For example, File:Borchardt_(Blatt_4).png is attributed to two other people. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Q1) He died in 1938, so definitely Old-PD-70 in Germany. Q2) The images are from his book. Would he not have the copyright? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, it would depend on what agreement he or the publisher made with the original creator, if they made one at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I expect they'd had some arrangement, particularly given the label of "Rekonstruktion von Ludwig Borchardt" or "reconstruction by Ludwig Borchardt" on the images. How would I go about finding out if there was an arrangement? Mr rnddude (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have access to the book from which the images were taken, you could see if there is any mention, either adjacent to the images or elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can access the book here, albeit it's entirely in German. It was digitized under a CC-by-SA 4.0 license. I don't see anything useful on or around the images to identify copyright holdings. E.g. Blatt 1 just has "Ausgeführt" meaning "Credited" for the creators. I've managed to identify some of the creators: "Th. Schinkel" is a Theodor Schinkel, died 1919. "A. Bollacher" is an Alfred Bollacher, b. 1878. "W. Büring" is a Wilhelm Büring. "O. Rubensohn" is Otto Rubensohn. "O. Völz" and "E. Decker" are too obscure though. Damn, it'd be a real loss if those images were unuseable. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I figured out why Völz and Decker are obscure, they are a couple of workers from a construction company hired(?) by Borchardt: "Die Leitung der Arbeiten lag in allen drei Grabungsperioden in den Händen des Verfassers des vorliegenden Bandes. Ihm zur Seite standen im ersten Jahre die Kandidaten des Hochbaufaches Decker und Völz, welche bis zum 7. April in Abusir tätig waren." Mr rnddude (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so works by those two would be considered a work for hire, most likely. Is Bollacher's death date known? Are there any other of these images with unknown/unclear authorship? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Q1) From this source: 1877–1968. So, if Bollacher holds the copyright, PD-old-70 will come into effect in 2038. Although, the painting is credited to both Bollacher and Decker. Büring was born 1878 as well, but I can't find a death date. Q2) None of the photographs credit anyone else, and the substructure drawings are credited to Borchardt. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking up something for Sahure's pyramid in one of Verner's works (Forgotten Pharaohs, Lost Pyramids (1994) p. 63) when I came across the painting by Bollacher and Decker. Verner labels it as being by Borchardt. That's left me wondering if I've misunderstood "Ausgefürht" here, because Verner is fluent in German and so I can't imagine that he's mis-attributed the work. As I mentioned, the painting does also have the label "Rekonstruktion von Ludwig Borchardt". Mr rnddude (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Ceoil

edit
  • In the lead, the "first, second, third" stuff may follow too close to the break down given in a source; and anyway it doesn't fit how a lead should read, as the article body doesn't mirror. Would restructure.
  • Same with words like "tolerable". Dated sources?
  • I'm a bit confused re Lepsius XXIV - we say The pyramid was constructed during Nyuserre's reign, as evidenced by Ptahshepses' name[l] appearing on blocks, and then No name is found inscribed anywhere in the complex Ceoil (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead begins with a very strong and engaging opening sentence, followed by an okish (only) follow up sentence, and then a para break. Impact totally lost here...would bulk up and throw in a few hooks.
  • The second paragraph of the lead reads (to me) as Nyuserre, Neferirkare, Nyuserre. Its very hard to follow; we even have "and brother, Neferefre. Nyuserre's monument..."
  • In the lead, the word "core" appears in the narrative before you mention "complex" (which you do not explain). Ceoil (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restructured and fleshed out the first three paragraphs of the lede. I have a brief comment on: "... monuments of his father, Neferirkare Kakai, mother, Khentkaus II, and brother, Neferefre, completed". I had the option of writing it as "... monuments of Neferirkare Kakai, Khentkaus II, and Neferefre" but this leaves out their connection to Nyuserre, or "... monuments of his father, mother and brother" but this leaves out their identities. If it's too difficult to follow, maybe moving the sentence has impacted readability, then perhaps "... monuments of his father, mother, and brother" might work, but it feels a bit easter-egg-y. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, in this new structure, giving the names in generational order, makes sense. Before they were a bit thrown about the place. Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose, excellent stuff and first rate as usual. Ceoil (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from caeciliusinhorto

edit

A few comments:

  • Nyuserre's monument would have had to have been placed south-west of Neferefre's complex: I don't quite understand this. Why could the pyramid not have just been slightly to the northwest of where it in fact is, between Neferikare's and Sahure's pyramid, and therefore on the same axis?
  • Though Nyuserre reigned for around thirty years, he built a smaller pyramid comparable in size to Sahure's: smaller than what?
  • the cornerstones of the lowest layer specially anchored to improve the structure's stability. what does "specially anchored" mean here?
  • Verner didn't bother to explain: "In order to increase its stability, the lowest cornerstones were anchored in the foundation in a special way." No footnote, no explanation. I'd had that in the back of my mind, but it didn't come up in other sources. So, I've removed specially. To my mind, unless I can explain what's special about the anchoring, it doesn't belong in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chambers of the Abusir pyramids and their mortuary temples were ransacked for valuables: a separate thought entirely to the differences in construction between the Abusir pyramids and earlier ones; I would give this a separate paragraph.
  • I don't follow the "at full size" bit. The necropolis map, substructure map and causeway cross-section are difficult-ish for me to read as is in the article, but when I click on the image to enlarge then it's effortlessly readable for me. This is true for both my laptop and my mobile phone. I know some editors change setting in their preferences to make images inherently smaller or larger. 220px is the default, and that's what my preferences are set to. I also have "media viewer" enabled. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, not sure what the problem was, but viewing it in media viewer it is okay for me now... Striking as nonsense.
  • Based on Borchardt's expeditions in combination with their current sondage: what does "sondage" mean? Gloss as a term of art or use a word understandable to lay readers.
  • Although the embankment was excavated to a depth of 10 m (33 ft) below the crown of the causeway, uncovering 12 layers of casing in total, Krejčí believes that the base of the causeway is ~3 m (9.8 ft) deeper still. Based on the results of the excavation, Krejčí concludes that the base of the causeway must have been at least 21 m (69 ft) wide. With regard to the causeway, the key finding of the dig was that the causeways "represented huge, voluminous constructions". There are an overabundance of "causeway"s in this section, but these sentences are particular offenders – five uses of the word in three sentences is definitely too many.
  • ambulatory w/l despite our dreadful article? Or gloss at least.
  • North of the chapel is a square chamber – which the architect Jean-Philippe Lauer named the antichambre carrée; a reference to its square shape Lauer called the square antechamber "square antechamber"? Imaginative man!
  • "Antichambre carrée" is the name that is used in RS regardless of whether it's in French or English. If you don't know a word of French, most likely you're going to miss out on that detail. I've revised the formulation of that explanation to "North of the chapel is the antichambre carrée – so named by the architect Jean-Philippe Lauer in reference to its square shape – ...". Briefer and more direct. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • consummate form Not quite sure what is meant here?
  • The latter meaning of consummate, of course: "ultimate/completed/perfected/final" form. I don't know why I went all out on vocab there. I suppose "Antecedents to the antichambre carrée have been traced to the mortuary temples of Sahure, Neferirkare, and Neferefre" works as well and is more explicit about what is being discussed. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nut ate the sun at sunset and rebirth-ed it at sunrise: not sure about "rebirth-ed". The OED does allow "rebirthed" as a verb, but specifically links it to rebirthing (breathwork).
  • His successors Menkauhor, Djedkare Isesi and Unas abandoned the site in favour of sites elsewhere.: repetition of "site... sites". Perhaps "chose to be buried elsewhere"?
  • the Abusir papyri: what these?
  • My first thought is to wikilink it. The Papyri are administrative documents found primarily in Neferirkare Kakai and Neferefre's complexes. I might add a footnote or couple sentence when I check it again tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Egyptologist Jaromír Malek... The Egyptologist Ladislav Bareš: I know other people like these constructions, but I really don't. Anyone arguing about the exact date the funerary cult of Nyussere ceased is obviously an Egyptologist. If we must keep them, can the sentence structure be varied so we don't have two consecutive sentences beginning "The Egyptologist John Doe..."? (There's another instance of loads of Egyptologists together in the section on excavations, too...)
  • Moreover, if this is the case, then Nyuserre's cult survived through to at least the Twelfth Dynasty, under the priest Inhetep. I don't see how this follows from there being priests of the cult between the ninth and tenth dynasties? More explanation needed?
  • This may take a bit of time, but very briefly. Harshefehetep I and II were alive anywhere between the Ninth and Eleventh Dynasties. Malek, iirc, put them at the Eleventh Dynasty. There's also the priest Inhetep of the Twelfth Dynasty. I'll leave a second comment here when I've reviewed the relevant literature again. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have reviewed Malek (2000), Morales (2006), and Daoud (2000), and having done so, I don't see that there's much to do here. Malek, who doesn't believe that Nyuserre's cult survived from the Old to Middle Kingdom, himself concedes that if Ḥry–š.f–ḥtp I and II belong to the Herakleopolitan Period then ... the estates of Nyuserra's pyramid and the King's funerary cult survived through the Herakleopolitan Period and continued in the Twelfth Dynasty. All three sources date In-htp to the Twelfth Dynasty or Middle Kingdom. The crux of the debate is whether Heryshefhetep I and II are Herakleopolitan Period or Eleventh Dynasty (i.e. Middle Kingdom). Mr rnddude (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still a little confused, tbh. Am I understanding you rightly that: (1) nobody disputes that the cult was active until the end of the Old Kingdom. (2) it is disputed whether the cult was active during the First Intermediate Period. (3) the cult was definitely active in the 12th dynasty. Therefore (4) if the Heryshefheteps were active during the First Intermediate Period, then the cult was continuously active from the fifth to the twelfth dynasty? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) Yes, sources agree that there is clear evidence of activity up until the reign of Pepi II, the last effective king of the Old Kingdom. (2) Quite, it's down to interpretation (usually contentious dating of tombs). (3) Yes, there's evidence for this for many Old Kingdom rulers including for Sahure, Nyuserre, Unas, Teti, Pepi I and Pepi II. The best (imo) example comes from a priest Ihy's tomb near Teti's pyramid which bears inscriptions with the names of Teti and Amenemhat II's (Twelfth Dynasty) pyramid. It's not, to my knowledge, in dispute that these cults were active during part of the Middle Kingdom. (4) Yes. The FIP is a rather short period of ~100–150 years. The Seventh and Eighth Dynasties were very short lived (Manetho's well known "70 kings for 70 days" comment about the period, but more likely being ~20–40 years (range borrowed from Malek and Grimal)) and then came the Herakleopolitan Period (~100-120 years). Thus, if you consider that the cult was active till Pepi II, active during the Herakleopolitan Period (Ninth-Eleventh Dynasty), and then also active during the Middle Kingdom (Eleventh–Twelfth Dynasty) then that's pretty well continuous. There's also the priestess Satimpi, mentioned at the end of that paragraph, who Daoud dates to the FIP based on the style of writing on her false door. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While working on Djedkare Isesi's pyramid, I came across a work by Veronika Dulíková (2018) in a journal I was referencing where she made the following remark: Jméno Niuserreova pyramidového komplexu „Trvalá jsou místa Niuserreova (kultu)“, jako by předznamenalo jeho nesmrtelnost ve smyslu jejího aktivního udržování po několik dlouhých desetiletí až do Střední říše approximately translated: The name of Nyuserre's pyramid complex ... "Lasting are the (cult) places of Nyuserre", really foreshadowed his immortality in the sense of her [the cult's] active maintenance for many long decades until the Middle Kingdom. It's probably not a remark to include in our article, but it's from a very recent article (which is entirely about Nyuserre's reign) and may indicate a shift in views on the matter of cultic activity in the FIP (and references Morales' 2006 article in AS2005). The article focuses on other matters, and this was really just an aside remark about the pyramid's name though. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just re-read the relevant section and it does make sense to me now. I think you have now dealt with all my queries. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Djedkare Isesi buried various members of his family and officials on the slope south-east of the mortuary temple We've just been told that Djedkare Isesi abandoned the Abusir site!
  • The members of the royal family buried there are Khekeretnebty with her daughter Tisethor, Hedjetnebu, and Neserkauhor, along with the officials Mernefu, Idut and Khenit, and one unnamed tomb. It is jarring to have "one unnamed tomb" in a list of people buried at the site.

Also made a few hopefully uncontroversial changes to the prose. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the easy to fix issues right now, the rest I'll get to tomorrow. Thank you for your comments. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have dealt with all of my queries, and I am happy to support. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all appear to be working
  • Formats:
  • Ref 46 requires pp.
  • Likewise 68
  • Likerwise 94
  • Likewise 132
  • Likewise 139
  • From the Sources list:
  • Retrieval dates should be in a consistent format – compare, for example, Barta 2015 with "Discovery of a unique tomb..."
  • Edwards 1975 – "Harmondsworth" is the location, the publisher is Penguin Books
  • Grimal 1992 – "Blackwell Publishing" rather than "Blackwell publishing"
  • Gros de Beler 2000 – location is Paris, not France
  • Malek 2000 and Malek 2003 missing publisher location
  • Verner 2007 requires retrieval date
  • Quality/reliability: I can't see any issues here. The sources are extensive and appropriately scholarly, and appear to meet the required FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that attention to detail. I have a script for picking up p/pp errors, but it apparently ignores cites with & symbols. Oh, and Malek 2000 was already tagged as published in Prague. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sup random, good to see you again and with a bloody nice article to boot. What think ye of following a colon with semicolons? As in complex encompasses: a main pyramid;, etc. Hope all's well and good luck with this one! ——SerialNumber54129 17:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch. Typically semicolons should only follow a colon in lists where there are internal commas – I must plead ignorance on the rule for numbered lists (e.g. the mortuary temple (left) image caption). I see you've brought a new baron to FAC. Book me in for a prose review. Thanks for the compliments, and all is well here. I hope you are well too. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Received. Couple o'more: Krejčí, Jaromír (2011) needs page numbers? And above, in your amusing intro, you mention 90000K of stone ready to collapse on some bods. I'm sure I've misread something, but I couldn't see that in the article, and it sounds v. WP:READER-friendly. Lastly, I suppose if we don't know what a cult pyramid is for, it's difficult to expect an accurate name; but, as you call it a cult pyramid, do the sources give reason to believe that that was the most likely scenario out of a number? ——SerialNumber54129 18:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re 90,000 kg: I suspect you missed it because I wrote 90 t in the article rather than 90,000 kg. Seemed more professional. Refer: Each stone in this structure was about 10 m (33 ft) long and weighed 90 t (99 short tons) in Substructure.
    Re Krejčí, Jaromír (2011): Quite right, page numbers added.
    Re cult pyramid: Unfortunately, some names used in Egyptology are misnomers. For example, the causeway isn't technically a causeway of any kind. It's more like a rectangular tunnel. Now, the cult pyramid is a special kind of enigma. It's like a miniature of the main pyramid outfitted with a substructure and a small burial chamber. The thing is, it's always been found empty. A more accurate summation of what Egyptologists know, rather than hypothesize, about the structure is: squat. The main guess (really), amongst sources, is that it was a "purely symbolic place to hold the king's spirit (i.e. ka)". In this sense, it can be related to the primary function of the royal cult: enabling the transformation of the king into an akh by way of uniting his ba and ka (refer footnote j for a detailed explanation). It's given two names by Egyptologists: satellite pyramid and cult pyramid. German sources favour "kult pyramid", French sources favour "pyramide satellite", English sources seem to use whichever the author picks. I use cult pyramid because it's the first name for the subject that I came across (Verner's work), and also because satellite pyramid is also often used to refer to queen's pyramids (refer for example Setibhor's pyramid, specifically: A satellite pyramid complex is located at the north-east corner of the wall of the complex of Djedkare's pyramid). Mr rnddude (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by JJE

edit

Sourcing seems reasonably good and well formatted. Prose, I am wondering if "The main pyramid constructed from seven steps of limestone.[38] A cult pyramid near the south-east corner of the main pyramid.[39] An unusual L-shaped mortuary temple placed on the southern end of the pyramid's eastern face.[5][39] " is supposed to be some kind of list as in its current form it's ungrammatical. "It was further hemmed in by a group of mastabas to the east that had been built during Sahure's reign.[2][28][c] This combination of factors may have constricted the size of Nyuserre's pyramid." and "As with Sahure's temple, there were two columned entrances into the valley temple.[57][58] In contrast with Sahure's temple, the columns here depicted papyrus stalks instead of palm trees" - perhaps these would flow better if the two sentences are merged? Turah does not link to the correct page. Rest of the prose seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re point 1) It is a list, isn't it. I've rewritten it to form complete sentences to avoid having two lists back to back.
Re point 2a) The preceding two sentences before "It was further hemmed in" are part of the "combination of factors" that are mentioned in the last sentence. So I'm not sure on merging the last two sentences together.
Re point 2b) I thought about using "but" as a conjunction to merge the two sentences, but I'm not sure it works: As with Sahure's temple, there were two columned entrances into the valley temple, but in contrast with Sahure's temple, the columns here depicted papyrus stalks instead of palm trees. Also a lot of "temple" in the sentence. Perhaps: As with Sahure's valley temple, there were two column adorned entrances, though Nyuserre's columns contrast with Sahure's in that they represent papyrus stalks instead of palm trees. It's a bit tighter, and only once mentions temples.
Re point 3) The two common spellings for Tura, are Turah and Tura. For whatever reason, Wikipedia's article has it as Tora, and I just didn't realize that. That's my bad, and I've fixed it to correctly link to Tora, Egypt. Thank you for looking at the link and noting that blunder.
Thanks for the brief but attentive review. I'm off to bed soon, but will check in tomorrow morning. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment amended to include point 2a at 02:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC). I missed it on first reading. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section also has more potentially mergeable sentences such as "Nyuserre was the last king to be entombed in the necropolis. His successors chose to be buried elsewhere. " and "The temple has additional new features."; in general it seems like there are many of these short-ish sentences. Anyone seasoned enough with its prose is engaging and of a professional standard to comment on whether they are a problem? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the first sentence, and I've removed the second as unnecessary. To my knowledge, short sentences appear at the start or end of a paragraph, or following a longer explanation. I've identified a bunch of merge-able sentences, which I've subsequently merged. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding an explicit support, per the points raised in my analysis and image review by Nikkimaria.

FunkMonk

edit
  • "The Nyuserre pyramid is situated in the Abusir necropolis, between Saqqara and the Giza Plateau" You could state where in Egypt this is, northeast, etc.
Maybe both for clarity? For example "Lower Egypt (the northernmost region of Egypt)". FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Abusir gives great import in the Fifth Dynasty" I have no idea what this means, "was given great import" maybe?
  • "working for the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft or German Oriental Society" WHy is this needed whe you don't give such info for the other people mentioned?
  • Except I did, the other major project that has taken place at Nyuserre's pyramid is run by the "Czech Institute of Egyptology" or "Cesky Egyptologicky ustav" (there's tone marks left out). Perring and Lepsius were brief visitors, though Perring did clear the entrance. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can add, if preferred, that Lepsius' expedition was sponsored by King William IV of Prussia, and that Perring was an engineer working under Howard Vyse, a British army officer and colonel stationed in Egypt. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Ok, I just went ahead and did it. Thinking about it, it seemed significant enough to warrant a mention. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good with the balance. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His results are published in Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Ne-User-Re (1907)" Likewise. The other authors mentioned undoubtedly also published their finds in some or the other journal.
  • There's a qualitative difference here. Borchardt's is the seminal work on Nyuserre's, Neferirkare's and Sahure's pyramids. Yes, Lepsius published his findings in "Denkmaler aus Agypten und Athiopien" (a very important work in its own right) covering about a page of basic information (bottom of p. 134 to p. 135). Borchardt pulled the pyramid out of the dirt and wrote the book on it (I mean that literally, it's a 200 page book and the most extensive source written about the pyramid). Mr rnddude (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that should be stated specifically then? Now it just looks like a randomly mentioned book. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an attempt at this. It's difficult to overstate Borchardt's contributions at Abusir. Verner, the former director of the Czech Institute of Egyptology and head of the Abusir excavations, said: One can only, perhaps, emphasize the aspects of [Borchardt's] achievement which far transcended the limits of his period and today still represent a standard which many excavations at the end of the twentieth century are a long way from reaching (written in 1994). Mr rnddude (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Czech Institute of Egyptology has had a long-term excavation project at the site since the 1960s." Still?
  • Yes. They're still toiling away at Abusir; recent news. I've changed it to "at Abusir" though since that's more what I meant. It's more than just a group of pyramids, there's an entire ancient necropolis (several even) there to consider. Similar story at Saqqara with the Franco-Suisse (originally just France) project that started in the 1960s as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The valley temple and causeway of the complex were originally intended for Neferirkare's monument, but were co-opted by Nyuserre for his instead" How is this known?
  • It's inferred from the fact that the causeway heads for Neferirkare's mortuary temple for more than half its length, and then diverts towards Nyuserre's pyramid instead. The causeway is a bit like a driveway; you might imagine that if it's heading straight for house a and then changes direction to end at house b, that the driveway was probably intended for house a at one point. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should be stated specifically, if it isn't already later in the article? FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned later under Causeway: The causeway's foundation had been laid about two-thirds of the way from the valley temple to the mortuary temple when Neferirkare died.[43] When Nyuserre took over the site, he had it diverted from its original destination to its new one.[70] As a result, the 368 m (1,207 ft) long causeway travels in one direction for more than half its length then bends away to its destination for the remainder.[5][70][71]. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if it would be good to show this image[2] which makes its proximity to another pyramid apparent?
I wonder if it could replace the image under Main pyramid? It seems to show the exact same angle, just with more context. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, done. I've moved the image to the left and up a bit as well. It looked a bit weird with the image in the layout section directly on top of it. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty striking, I think. Especially relevant because the adjacent text does go into its proximity to the other pyramid. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "left it in a ruinous, formless mound" As a ruinous, formless mound?
  • "was careless and unsafe" Why?
  • I'll get back to you on this, but off-the-cuff, the core of the pyramid was built by just placing little stone blocks where-ever they fit and putting mortar on the top. The structure was held together mostly by the limestone casing which was much more carefully cut and properly joined. Remove the casing and what you're left with is the willy-nilly construction of the core. It lacks structural integrity, and risks a cave-in. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded the section to better detail the manner of construction. I've changed "unsafe" to "unstable". Verner says "less safe from the point of view of stability", which I took to refer to the risk of collapse. This would be congruent with the concerns that Maragioglio and Rinaldi of a cave-in whilst in the substructure of the Abusir pyramids. However, I don't see similar language in other sources – Lehner goes so far as to say, basically, "ok so it's sketch, but it gets the pyramid form and its cheap" –, so I've opted for an alternate expression. Link to rewrite. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The burial- and ante- chambers" Why are these terms linked here in this somewhat confusing way, when both terms are used earlier in the text without being linked? Should be at first occurrence of each.
  • "Based on Borchardt's expeditions in combination with their recent findings, the Egyptologist Jaromír Krejčí estimates" Recent is a bit iffy to use in an article like this, better to give a more precise date. If this article will be read fifty years on, what will recent mean?
  • Terms and names could also be linked in image captions.
The first one only. Ceoil (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's what I meant. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fragments of the wall reliefs from the temple are often exhibited in German museums" Often, or in many museums? Often seems a bit unclear; is it meant they are often put on and off display?
  • In the image captions with descriptions following numbers, should the first letters really be capitalised after the semi colons? For example "(5) an altar; (6) Transverse corridor; (7) Chapel with (8) a set of storage rooms; (9)". There are no full stops to be seen, so looks a bit odd?
Looked odd to me, but no big deal if it isn't actually inaccurate and no one else cared. FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any photos of these wall reliefs or reconstructions of them?
  • File:Berlin 122009 016.jpg is probably the best example, it's the only one where detail can be made out easily, at least from the reliefs taken out of the mortuary temple, there's a couple from the sun temple but that's a different building altogether. There's already three images in that section though, so where to put it? cause it'll sandwich the text if I slot it in anywhere under mortuary temple. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see there's not much room left. Doesn't seem like it would fit without replacing another image (the article has a whole lot of maps, but that makes sense for the topic). FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prototype of pylons" Why is prototype of part of the linkk, and not just pylons?
Not a big deal, but to me it looked like it would link to an article about pylon prototypes... FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amended links to just pylon, because your comment makes sense. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a pyramidion?
  • The top (or capstone) of a pyramid or obelisk is called a pyramidion. It has an article, so I've wikilinked it.
  • "It may have hosted the pharaoh's ka" The term could probably be explained in parenthesis.
Could be helpful. FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she did the same to king" The king?
  • "He argues that archaeological trace evidence, including from near Nyuserre's monument," Evidence such as what?
  • Some examples given, though the mainframe of the case for cultic persistence is found in the paragraph below, and is based predominantly on Morales' hypothesis, with reference to Daoud's and Malek's works. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but should "may be associated to the royal cult" say associated with instead? FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "connected to" originally, but changed "connected" to "associated" whilst cleaning it up without fixing "to" to "with". Done now. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could it be stated when Nyuserre was entombed, and how much of the pyramid was completed before he died?
  • Eh, no. Consider Djedkare-Isesi for a moment. He has the rare distinction of being discovered in his pyramid. His mummy and the linen wrapping underwent C-14 testing. The results gave a range of dates between 3340 and 2460 BC, and a common range (i.e. lowest high and highest low) of 2886 and 2507 BC. That's three hundred and eighty years of uncertainty. Now I'll check Borchardt, but I don't think anything of interest was found in Nyuserre's pyramid substructure (hell it was missing most of its stone, much less a body or burial equipment). As to completion, you can safely assume all of it. Neferirkare's and Neferefre's have clear indicators that someone else completed them. Neferirkare's was completed with mudbrick and wood, which is short-lived material, and Neferefre's was converted into a mastaba. There's no indications, at least from the sources I've read, that Nyuserre's pyramid received any such treatment. Besides, Nyuserre reigned for 30 years, long enough to complete his monument (well, with the assistance of aliens, of course). Mr rnddude (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have checked Borchardt, and it's rather as I suspected. They found nothing, and could not find anything had they wanted to. Borchardt summarises: Von der inneren Ausstattung der beiden Räume, vom steinernen Sarkophag, dem Holzsarg, von den Kanopen oder den Beigaben, die man dem Könige jedenfalls in reichem Maße mitgegeben hatte, haben wir nichts gefunden, haben aber auch das Geröll, das heute den früheren Platz der Kammern ebenso wie den Gang hoch erfüllt, außer an der Oberfläche nicht darauf hin durchsucht, um unsere Arbeiter nicht in Gefahr zu bringen. Approximately: From the interior decoration of either room, the stone sarcophagus, the wooden coffin, the canopic jars and offerings, which had been given to the king in abundance, we found nothing. The debris, which today fills the chambers and corridors has not been searched, except for on the surface, in order not to endanger our workers. I suggest, as Borchardt's work is easily accessible (follow the link in the article), that you review the images on pages 104–105 and 107. The pyramid's internals are a right mess, and frankly, I'm impressed the team had the balls to stand underneath those gigantic, haphazard looking, stone slabs. I've added a bit to the article on this point. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this article wasn't so image heavy already, I'd suggest adding some of those, they seem to be old enough for public domain. FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are old enough to be PD: PD-old-70 for Germany, and PD-US-1923 for the US. Honestly, Borchardt has some of the finest images available for this article. Alright, alright. What's the rule for galleries? Cause if I'm adding more images, then my absolute priority would be Blatt 1 (which is an excellent recreation of the Neferirkare family necropolis) and Blatt 2 (to replace the Abusir necropolis map? perhaps). I might also have a use for Blatt 3 (Valley Temple), Blatt 4 (Mortuary temple), and Blatt 19 (Substructure). I could also add Abb. 27 (p. 44), Abb. 28 (p. 45), und Abb. 29 (p,46) für den Aufweg (Causeway); Abb. 40 (p. 65) die Löwenkopf (lion's head) für die Totentempel/Pyramidentempel (Mortuary temple); Abb. 83 (p. 104), Abb. 84 (p.105) und/oder Abb. 86 (p. 107) für den Vor- und Sarg- kammer (Ante- and Sarc- chambers [Substructure]); und, endlich, Abb. 89 (p. 110) oder Abb. 90 (p. 111) für den Bestattungen (Burials). Mr rnddude (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main thing about WP:galleries is that it shouldn't just be decorative, so that you make the context of the images clear and enhance the reader's understanding of the subject. A good example of this could be Gothic boxwood miniature. Maybe that relief could be shown then too... But I think a new image review would be needed after adding so many images. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article now contains a total of 28 photos, maps and paintings. I've limited galleries to the substructure, causeway, and mortuary temple, though I've added images into practically every section. I could argue that one, or perhaps two, images are "decorative", but I think they all add something to the article. I'll need to go through the captions once more. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, it gives the article a bit more breathing space now that the images have been spread out, I think. But might be good to request a second image review. Personally I'd crop the borders of some of the images (then they will also become larger as thumbnails), but it's up to you. FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This would be unusual as obelisks were central features of Egyptian sun temples, but not of pyramid complexes." It seems a bit odd that this is important enough to mention in the intro, but in the article body itself it is relegated to a footnote.
  • "and into Middle Kingdom" The?
  • "Whereas the funerary cults of other kings died out" Of kings in general, or only those at Abusir?
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_Nyuserre/archive1&oldid=914364183"