Talk:Sahure/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Dudley Miles (talk · contribs) 12:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I will take this one. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments
 * "Close-up of the gneiss statue of Sahure showing him seated besides the local god of the Coptite nome. Now on display in gallery 103 of the Metropolitan Museum of Art." Full stops (periods) should only be used for sentences; and confusing to mention local god who is not shown and not mentioned in the article. Maybe "Head of gneiss statue of Sahure in New York Metropolitan Museum of Art"
 * Fixed!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Reign in infobox. The list of dates is confusing. I would just say first half of the 25th century BC.
 * Actually this needs to be kept as it presents essential informaiton on the reign. This format has been used in other GA articles of pharaohs, see Amenemhat IV and Neferhotep I. I would really appreciate if this could be kept as it is however to clarify things I added "uncertain dates:" before the list of proposed dates for his reign.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Sahure was so pleased at the success of this venture that a unique relief" "so pleased" is too colloquial. Perhaps "Sahure celebrated the success". Also how was the relief unique?
 * Fixed! The relief is unique is that it is the only one (of all the reliefs in Egyptian art) to show the king gardening. I have clarified this in the lead.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "This decision was possibly motivated by the presence of the sun temple of Userkaf, the first of the 5th Dynasty." The presence where?
 * In Abusir. I clarified this.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Pyramid of Sahure is much smaller than the pyramids of the preceding 4th Dynasty but its decoration was more elaborate." Inconsistent case- starts "is" and ends "was"
 * Fixed.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Continuing excavations". This is presentism (if someone reads it in the future when the excavations have finished it will be wrong).
 * Fixed.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Westcar Papyrus, dating to the 17th Dynasty but probably first redacted during the 12th Dynasty". I do not understand what redacted means in this context. My dictionary defines it as removing sensitive details from a document before it is made public. The same comment applies to other places where the word redacted is used.
 * I meant "written". I changed it.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "provide a better picture of the royal family of the early 5th Dynasty" I would delete a better picture - at this stage it is unclear what is it better than and you explain below.
 * You are right, I removed it!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph is too detailed - we do not need to know so much about a theory which has been abandoned.
 * How much shorter do you want it?&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How about trying 2 or 3 sentences and seeing how that works.


 * Descendants paragraph. This usually comes at the end as part of the legacy section.
 * I would prefer to keep the section here since it is about the family of Sahure (his immediate children), whereas the legacy section is about what was remembered of Sahure in later Egyptian times. Another GA article on a pharaoh where this format is used is Neferhotep I. I changed the title to "Children".&#32;Iry-Hor (talk)


 * "known to have been succeeded by Neferirkare Kakai" He is mentioned above and should be linked at first mention.
 * I fixed it, now Neferirkare Kakai is linked only once in the lead and once in the infobox.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "the first pharaoh to have a prenomen different from his nomen" I do not understand this.
 * Ancient Egyptian kings had a total of 5 names, the prenomen, the nomen, the horus name, the golden horus name and the two ladies name. Up to Neferirkare Kakai, the nomen (i.e. the birth name of the future king) and prenomen were the same. After him, kings chose a different nomen upon ascending to the throne. I have added a sentence to clarify this (this is important as it suggest religious changes at the time, although it was not the point of the article to go too much into this).&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Verner and el-Awady also speculate that Netjerirenre may have later taken the throne as Shepseskare." Do they suggest that Neferirkare and Shepseskare are the same person or one ruled before the other? This needs clarifying.
 * Actually if your read carefully we are not talking about Neferirkare here but Netjerirenre (unfortunately these names look a bit like each other). Neferirkare definitely succeeded Sahure, but the later part of the 5th Dynasty is a bit confused and it seems that an ephemeral pharaoh, known as Shepseskare reigned for a short while. Verner and El-Awady believe this pharaoh is Netjerirenre, another son of Sahure and thus possibly a brother to Neferirkare. Note how again Netjerirenre is the nomen (birth name) while Shepseskare is the throne name (prenomen), yet possibly the same person. I have clarified this by adding a small sentence re-explaining who is Netjerirenre.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "The absolute datation of Sahure's reign" - "datation" is usually considered a French word - I think "dates" is better in English.
 * Fixed!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "The Turin canon, a king list written during the early Ramesside era (1292–1189 BC)" Mention of the dynasty might be helpful - perhaps "The Turin canon, a king list written during the 19th dynasty Ramesside era (1292–1189 BC)"
 * Fixed, I added the dynasty.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "In contrast, the near contemporary annal of the 5th Dynasty known as the Palermo Stone, preserves his regnal years 2–3, 5–6 as well as his final year on the throne." I would delete the comma after Stone and I do not understand "regnal years 2–3, 5–6".
 * I deleted the comma. Egyptians did not have a calendar as we do but counted only the years on the throne of the current king (so called regnal years in Egyptology). Thus a typical date on a document would be "2 Shemu 28, year of the 10th cattle count" meaning second month of the Shemu season, day 28, in the year where the 10th cattle count took place since king X started reigning. In the Old Kingdom, these counts were typically made once every two years so this would mean the king has been reigning since 20 years. I changed the phrasing to clarify this.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Sahure's highest date" - a bit odd as it would have been the lowest number BC. How about "the last year of Sahure's reign".
 * This is standard terminology in Egyptology, again because dates were only recorded from the accession to the throne of the current king. Thus the "highest" attested date makes sense: it is the highest surviving figure of any dated document from the king reign. For example it might be a "year 9", which is highest in that it is larger than other surviving documents which could be dated to year 3,4 and 6 for example. Furthermore the highest date is not the last year on the throne: most of the time, because so few documents survive 4500 years, the highest date is somewhere during the king's reign: for example it might be the 5th year on the throne while the king reigned 7 years in total. It is only that we have no document to this day dated to his years 6 and 7. A striking example of this is Pepi II Neferkare: his highest attested date is the 62nd year, while both the Turin canon and Manetho tell us that he reigned 94 years. This is the Egyptological equivalent of the Signor–Lipps effect.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The end of the first paragraph of chronology and the second paragraph are unreferenced.
 * Added references.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Other ships are represented loaded with "Asiatics", both adults and children." What does Asiatics mean in this context? Foreign slaves? Also you are inconsistent whether it is Asiatics or asiatics.
 * Asiatics = people from the north-east of Egypt, from Canaan, the coast of modern day Lebanon and possibly Turkey. Egyptians called these peoples with a term translated as "Asiatics" in Egyptology. Thus I propose to keep the term which is standard in Egyptology. I have added a capital to all "Asiatics" in the article.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Nonetheless, the reliefs from Sahure's pyramid complex remain the "first definite depictions of seagoing ships in Egypt"." The author's name should be given for a quote.
 * Added.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "in the Sinai" It is normally "in Sinai" or "in the Sinai peninsula", as in the book title in note 27 and the Wiki article on Sinai. This applies to all mentions of Sinai.
 * I put "in Sinai" everywhere.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "the fixation of daily offerings of bread and beer to Ra" What does fixation mean here?
 * To fix the quantity of bread and beer to be offered to the god everyday. I clarified this.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Activities in Egypt. The last part of the second paragraph is unreferenced.
 * I have added the two references for the discovery in Neferefre's temple and the location of Sahure's palace.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "include a relief showing Sahure gardening a myrrh tree in his palace in front of his family". "gardening a myrrh tree" does not sound right - pruning?
 * I put "tending for" since he is taking care of the tree.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Some of the low relief-cuttings in red granite are masterpieces of their kind". Masterpieces is POV and should be attributed to a scholar.
 * Actually I agree it is POV so I removed it anyway.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The lead says that the decoration on his pyramid was more elaborate than previously, but this is not stated in the section on the pyramid.
 * I changed the phrasing of the lead, actually it is the mortuary temple which had a decoration much more elaborate than those of the preceding mortuary temples (this temple was next to one of the faces of the pyramid). I have added a sentence on this in the section on the mortuary temple as well as a reference (Borchardt).&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Niankhsekhmet. Note 25 presumably is for the quote, and should be at the end not before it.
 * Done!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Sahure is also mentioned in the tomb of his contemporary Nesytpunetjer,[47] in Giza." It is not clear why this is in the court officials section and why it is worth mentioning at all.
 * You are right I have removed this. Nesytpunetjer definitely was an official of Sahure but I don't know what office he held so it's better to remove this.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe I am up to date!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "A total of 22 agricultural domains". What does domain mean here? Farms? Estates?
 * In this context it is synonymous with "Estates". I have put "estates".&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Khuyemsnewy: served as wab-priest". What is a wab-priest?
 * A priest serving a particular function of purification (and of pouring libations) in the cult. There is no translation for this title and no wiki article on it either. I have removed the word "wab" so it reads simply "Khuyemsnewy: served as priest".&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "priest of Ra in the sun-temple of Userkaf and royal acquaintance" Is royal acquaintance a title? What does it mean?
 * Yes it is a title (this is a standard term in Egyptology). It means that the official was a court official. To clarify I added "and holder of the title of royal acquaintance".&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "palmiform". This term needs explaining (where it is first used in the lead but I missed it there).
 * It means "in the form of palms". I have added a sentence explaining this.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "A similar statue made on the orders of Senusret I is that of Intef the Elder, a nomarch of Thebes in the early First Intermediate Period and later considered as a founding figure of the 11th Dynasty, which eventually reunited Egypt at the start of the Middle Kingdom.[59]" Why is this relevant? I would suggest deleting and merging with the next paragraph, which I assume is about the same statue.
 * Ok done.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to check the references. There are some typos, such as Satue of Sahure and Datation. Also date of ref 12 missing. I think title case is preferred for book titles, but you are inconsistent how they are shown - this is probably not compulsory for GAN.
 * Actually the date of ref 12 is written, it is 2012. I have checked the typos, corrected them, and put capitals in book titles.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No problems so far as I can see with copyright of images.
 * Ref 3 needs more details.
 * done.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref 11. Should say in German and what does king no 2 mean?
 * It means "king number 2", the kings are given numbers in the book, this is now clarified. I have added "(German)".&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref 13. Should have separate refs with relevant page numbers for each citation, not just one ref for all the citations presumably to different pages. Ditto ref 25. Ditto refs 54 and 57, which should also say in German.
 * Done for ref 25, 54, 57, however I don't have the book of Ref 13 available right now (I am away from my library). I will put up the page numbers when I can.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref 16. I get a dead link.
 * I have replaced this reference by the article by Awady on Sahure's family.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref 17. Need page numbers.
 * Ref 17 has page numbers.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref 20. Is not a book published in 1890 too dated to be WP:RS? Also does not say in German.
 * There is no general guideline on this question. The book in question is the founding study on the Westcar papyrus and remains a reference on the subject, you will notice that I have also provided a recent work on the papyrus by Miriam Lichteim.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You are inconsistent whether book dates are in brackets. The recommended Wiki style is to put the date in brackets immediately after the author, e.g. Smith, Fred (1980). The Book... This is not compulsory, but whatever style is adopted should be used consistently throughout.
 * Done.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref 33 needs page number. Also ref 40.
 * done.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref 36 should say Walters Museum.
 * done.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Refs 39, 58 and 60 should say in German and 59 in French.
 * done.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref 61. This is for 3 citations and gives 3 page ranges. Unless all 3 page ranges apply to all 3 citations, you should give separate citations for each with the applicable pages in each case.
 * Done I have specified which page is for which citation.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a good article which should pass, but referring to whole books rather than specific pages in each case is not acceptable referencing.
 * Is this required for GAN? This look to me like a FA requirement.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have raised this at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and page numbers are required. Sources must be verifiable, and unless they are very short they are not verifiable without page numbers. This applies to refs 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 24, 28, 32, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 52, 55. In some cases there are page numbers but I do not know whether they cover all the citations. In ref 22 there is no citation for Verner's change of opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood me: I am not at all against putting page numbers for all references and I have already done so for those you specified this morning. I will do so for the ones above tonight. I was only wondering if this was a requirement since I have GA article for which this was not raised.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that is the problem with the system. Some reviewers do not understand the rules and with so many GAs - which is a good thing - it is not possible to make sure that reviewers do not miss things. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: References should only be grouped when the page numbers are identical. When they are different, you need separate references, as you have done with refs 23 and 25. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok I will implement the change, this is going to take me some time.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have done it for all references except Ref 16 to which I don't have access at the moment.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Great. Do you know when you will be able to access Lehner?
 * On the 8th of January at the earliest. Note that Lehner's book is organized like an encyclopedia and the article on the pyramid of Sahure is less than 2 pages long so that all references comes from these two pages.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow did it (thanks a lot)! So the page numbers are up.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * On ref 4, is this the article on Sahure? If so, you could show it as:
 * "Sahure" in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Volume 2.
 * Actually it is the article "Fifth Dynasty", I have updated in consequence.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Statue of Sahure with a nome god". Presumably a local god but needs a few words of explanation.
 * Explanation added!


 * No page number for refs 38, 43 and 79.
 * Apologies, I had forgotten these. Page numbers added.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ref 55. Author not shown. You have Zahi Hawass and Lyla Pinch Brock as editors, but the book only shows Hawass. Is Brock the author?
 * Author added (Jaromir Kerjci) as well as the chapter title.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ref 57. Tarek el-Awady (2007): King Sahure with the Precious Trees from Punt in a Unique Scene, in: Proceeding of “Art and Architecture of the Old Kingdom”, Prague. I do not understand this ref.
 * This article was published in the proceedings of the conference "Art and Architecture of the Old Kingdom". This is now clarified, the entry now reads: Tarek el-Awady (2007): King Sahure with the Precious Trees from Punt in a Unique Scene!, in Miroslav Bárta (editor): "The Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology", Proceedings of the conference held in Prague, May 31 – June 4, 2004, p. 37.


 * Ref 64. Jean-Phillipe Lauer (1988): Saqqarah, Une vie, Entretiens avec Phillipe Flandrin, Petite Bibliotheque Payot 107, ISBN 2-86930-136-7. Is 107 the page number?
 * Actually no it is the book number in the series Petite Bibliotheque Payot. Page number added.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dudley Miles (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello I have very limited internet access until next Tuesday. I will implement these changes Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest. Thank you.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am now up to date!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I am doing a final check, so apologies for picking up things I missed the first time.
 * "12–13 years, 5 months and 12 days". I think "12 or 13" would be clearer.
 * Done.


 * "Sahure launched several naval expeditions to modern day Lebanon to procure cedar trees, people and exotic items." Does people mean slaves? If so, it might be better to say so.
 * The problem is they are not explicitely identified as slaves on the relief, even though it is very much probable. Thus I added "possibly slaves" to clarify this.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "palmiform columns (that is columns whose capital has the form of palms)". Has the form of palm trees or decorated with palm leaves?
 * In the form of palm leaves. This is now clarified.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I still think the second paragraph of 'Parentage' is too long for a discredited theory, although this would not stop the article passing GA. One alternative would be to relegate it to a note with Template:Efn.
 * Very good idea!!! I moved the details on the old theory to a footnote.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Miroslav Verner has since then changed his opinion and now believes Neferirkare Kakai to be Sahure's son.[18] but this changed with the discovery and description by Miroslav Verner". This is unclear, Verner changed his opinion twice or changed as a result of the discovery?
 * Woops my bad, I messed up the explanation. Verner changed his opinion only once. It now reads "Miroslav Verner has since then changed his opinion and now believes Neferirkare Kakai to be Sahure's son[18] because of the discovery and description by himself and Tarek el-Awady of a relief from the causeway of Sahure's pyramid showing Sahure seated in front of two of his sons, Ranefer and Netjerirenre."&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Other ships are represented loaded with "Asiatics", both adults and children." As above it would be helpful to clarify whether they were slaves or voluntary immigrants. The definition of Asiatics which you gave above would be another candidate for an 'efn' footnote.
 * Actually I do not know for sure if these people where slaves. This is the most plausible explanation but I can only infer this is so. I put ",possibly slaves". I also added an efn for the explanation of the term "Asiatics".&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "held together in many sections with a tick mortar of mud" What is a tick mortar? Should it be thick mortar?
 * Yes well spotted! This was a typo.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the article is nearly there. Good work. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you and thanks for the thorough review.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have passed this now. Well done. It is not required, but for future articles you might consider having a separate 'Sources' section, as for example in Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I will do that from now on. Thanks a big deal for this, it will really improve my articles. &#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)