Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abuwtiyuw/archive1


 * 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 GrahamColm 09:49, 3 November 2012.

Abuwtiyuw

 * Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 10:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC), ♦ Dr. Blofeld, Malleus Fatuorum

A dog named Abuwtiyuw. If you mean this is nothing special then you are mistaken. Greatly expanded by Malleus Fatuorum and Dr. Blofeld. Initially translated by me, Tomcat (7) 10:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Unusual article, most interesting. A few issues:-
 * Understanding the second sentence of the second lead paragraph requires two departures from the article, via links. While the links are essential, could the sentence incorporate a modicum of explanation for the benefit of the casual reader?
 * Not quite sure what you are referring to?
 * I mean that the words "spolia" and "mastaba" will not be understood by general readers unless they use the links, which means two departures from the article when they've only just started it. I should be possible to reword the setence to avoid this. For example: "It was apparently part of the spoil material incorporated into the structure of a 6th-Dynasty mastaba (pharaonic tombs) after the demolition..." etc Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Better?♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine now. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Where does the hieroglyph as illustrated come from? It differs from the description in the lead ("ten vertical rows of hieroglyphs, separated by vertical lines"). Also, is the bottom line of the illustration a pronunciation guide? If so, this should be clarified.
 * The hieroglyph in the lead/infobox is the transcription of the name Abuwtiyuw, rather than the 10 line hieroglyphs explaining his burial on the stone. its fairly standard practice in Ancient Egyptian articles to have the name box and name transliterations in the lead. Thought this was clear, not sure how to say "this is not referring to the 10 line message".♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree it's clear enough, given the title on the infobox. Can you say where these hieroglyphs came from, and also confirmation that the last line in the box is a pronunciation guide? Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked the person involved with adding it if he can comment.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It can be found in the Reisner reference, see Talk:Abuwtiyuw. --Tomcat (7) 14:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Dr. Blofeld asked me to comment here—apparently he thinks I'm "the person involved with adding" the glyphs—but my grasp of hieroglyphs is very weak, and I haven't been involved in this article except to give one apparently erroneous reply in the discussion that Tomcat just linked. The PDF provided there seems to confirm that the hieroglyphs are correct, or at least that those glyphs appear in that order within the inscription. If there's still uncertainty about the hieroglyphs, I suggest asking User:GDK, who gave a more knowledgeable answer in that discussion. A. Parrot (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is not uncertainty about the hieroglyphs, it's just that I wanted them attributed to a reliable external source. I see they are now attributed to "Gardner's sign list", with a link to the WP article. But I think the Garner source, presumably Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, sould be given, otherwise it looks as though the Wikipedia article is the source. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Second line of "Background: why "but"? What follows is additional rather than contrary information.
 * Not addressed, but too trivial to pursue. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It might be worth saying where Ashkelon is, as he rest of the sentence implies it is in Egypt
 * Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "the owner with their dog": problematic. Perhaps "owners with their dogs"
 * Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Discovery": Some of the writing is a bit heavy-footed, e.g. successive sentences beginning: "It was discovered by" and "It was found on", and close repetition of similar dates. I suggest you combine the sentences: "It was discovered on 13 October 1935 by Egyptologist George A. Reisner during a joint Harvard University-Boston Museum of Fine Arts expedition, and removed from the site four days later".
 * Well spotted, reworded as suggested.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "discovered ... discovered" in second paragraph of "Discovery", and "Part of ... part of" later
 * What do you mean?♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean that the close repetition of "discovered" in the sentence: "Neither the dog's grave nor mummy have been discovered, but the tomb in which the tablet was discovered..." reads poorly. One of these could be "found", for example. Likewise, "Part of a leash is visible on the upper-right corner, suggesting that the tablet is part of..." could be slightly reworded to avoid repetition. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, well spotted, reworded.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "It is believed that Abuwtiyuw, given the high-profile nature of his burial, would have been a royal guard dog of some kind..." Surely, the inscription translated above makes this explicit rather than a matter of specultion? Also "would have been" → "was"
 * Transcription makes it clear, agreed. Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Richard Lobban claims that Abuwtiyuw was "provided with his own coffin, linen, and incense for the trip to the afterlife" - again, the inscription gives this information, so why is Lobban "claiming" it?
 * Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "common throughout of Ancient Egyptian history" - delete "of"
 * Oops, not sure how that slipped through, removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that "claim" is the right word in "Edward C. Martin Jr. claims that..." The word "claim" usually implies that a contradictory opinion exists. Perhaps "suggests"?
 * Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Brian. Yes, it is a shortish article in comparison to most candidates but I scraped together everything I could find about it in google books and JSTOR and I believe its about as comprehensive as it can get on a dog which lived in 2300 BC! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sure there can be very little more that can be said, and you have done well to produce this much. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments - very interesting read, only a few points (all points Done):
 * lead "Abuwtiyuw was [probably] a lightly built hunting dog ..." ==> the main text has "...the text characterizes him as Ṯsm (Tesem), a lightly built hunting dog" with no sign of doubt. If the characterization as Tesem is commonly accepted, "probably" in the lead is too cautious.
 * Affirmed♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Discovery - Why is the lengthy footnote about Reisner needed? Were his observations disputed? (If it's just an interesting anecdote, it would be better moved to Reisner's article).
 * Removed, it was actually in the text originally, I thought it was good to give a little background into his work and esteem, but it was changed to a note and I can see how it appeared offbeat.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Neither the dog's grave nor mummy have been discovered,[23] but the tomb in which the tablet was discovered is close to the western side of the Great Pyramid of Giza (Pyramid of Khufu/Kheops)." ==> "discovered" twice in close proximity (as noted above), but my bigger problem with this sentence is, i don't see the connection between its two parts. What does the second part try to add to the first with a "but"?
 * Changed in answer to Brian above, removed but, made two sentences.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "The tablet is now held by the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (inventory number JE 67573)." ==> that last bit of discovery information seems out of place at the end of this para, the article has already moved on to a physical description of the object with the 2 preceding sentences. Not sure about the optimal order, but i think, all discovery details and its current location should be together before the object description.
 * Moved it up to the end of the first paragraph.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be useful for anybody researching into the Egyptian museum who might have access to a catalogue. I think its relevant.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The Egyptian Museum info should have a citation (probably already covered by another source).
 * Sourced.


 * If the tablet translation is taken completely from Reisner's work, name him in-text as author for the quote (even if the translation is probably not disputed).
 * I added that the inscription may be found in the Reisner reference. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The Janssen & Janssen ref has lost its usage with the latest changes. Maybe you can still use the source or open a "Further reading" section.
 * Removed it, wasn't much.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Images both images are OK (PD very old and museum cooperation with additional OTRS). GermanJoe (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input GJ.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim short and interesting, just my sort of article  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  08:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 *  unlike most of the others, which were typically consumed as meat, it is highly unlikely
 * Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The text of the inscription describes the gifts offered by the pharaoh in tribute at Abuwtiyuw's funeral: &mdash; very nitpicky, but should we say somewhere that it is a translation?
 * Mentioned.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mummified, mummy &mdash; not sure that both need links, leave it with you
 * Reduced to one link.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Reisner, the name "Abuwtiyuw" is not fully translatable &mdash; that was a long time ago, is that still the case?
 * Reisner couldn't decipher it, but
 * Edward C. Martin Jr. believed it to mean "With Pointed Ears" at a later date, I thought this was clear?♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In the translation, we have "honor" Are we committed to Reisner's AE, or, since it is a translation, should we translate to BE "honour"?
 * Honour it is!♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no cite to the Jansen book
 * Removed, citation was removed when addressed one of Brian's points.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does Merton's opinion matter, he's redlinked, no idea why membership of a Rotary Club makes him an expert on Egyptology, Egyptologists or people's characters. Seems to have as much weight as a drunken "you're my best friend"
 * Removed as above.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting soon  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  08:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your input Jim, glad you all enjoyed reading it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, you are right about Martin, I didn't read carefully. I've changed to support above. If you are collecting scripts, here's one for checking duplicated links. importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); // User:Ucucha/duplinks   Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  14:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Support - Remaining polishing not with-standing, the article appears well-written, comprehensive and well-sourced for such a topic. Some more minor points:
 * Notes subheader is empty, should be removed when not needed.
 * Leach 1961 is no longer used as ref.
 * And a short ad break: not sure if you know this already, but User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js is a great tool to check for harv template problems. Any inconsistencies in the citation structure are immediately shown in red, when this script is installed. GermanJoe (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting tool. Removed the notes header, readded the Leach book. Thanks for your support.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Leaning support. Just a few points. Most are minor, though one sentence raises some tangled issues. A. Parrot (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Explaining mastaba as "pharaonic tomb" is a little problematic; although mastabas date from the pharaonic era in Egypt's history, by the Sixth Dynasty actual pharaohs were buried in pyramids and not tombs. Perhaps call it "pharaonic-era tomb", "noble tomb", "nobleman's tomb", or "official's tomb"? (Anyone buried in a mastaba would have been a member or relative of the literate class of officials, who are often called "nobles" because they ran the country and were effectively a hereditary class.)
 * Changed to era.☠ Count de Blofeld  08:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "It was believed that by doing so, Anubis would reunite owners with their dogs in the afterlife" is my only point of serious concern. First, the source looks like a children's book and isn't ideal for supporting statements about Egyptian religious beliefs, which are extremely complicated and easily misunderstood. Second, the source doesn't say that it was Anubis who did the reuniting. Third, the wording is awkward: "by doing so" refers to the actions of humans (wrapping bones and putting them next to Anubis statues), but the structure of the sentence makes it seem that Anubis did the "doing".


 * A larger problem is that the Background section says little about developments in Egyptian tradition over time. For most of the section, that isn't a problem, as there were dog burials long before Abuwtiyuw's time, and the rest of the section talks about other animal species whose treatment in Egypt is only broadly related to Abuwtiyuw. But this last sentence, being about dogs and their afterlife, implies a direct connection with Abuwtiyuw (and any other dogs who lived in his time).


 * Beliefs about the afterlife in the Old Kingdom (which includes the Sixth Dynasty) are poorly understood even for non-royal humans, let alone animals. I've never seen an Egyptologist directly address how animals related to the afterlife in any period of Egyptian history. The closest thing I can find on the fly is in the OEAE entry on animal cults, where it says "The next step [after connecting individual animals and specific groups of animals with the gods] was to extend the concept of divinity to animals en masse, and there are signs even in the New Kingdom that this was beginning to happen." One of the examples it cites is Prince Thutmose's pet cat, a thousand years after Abuwtiyuw, who was called "Osiris the She-cat". Appending Osiris' name to that of a person was a standard way of indicating that he or she had entered the afterlife, and that tradition dated almost as far back as Abuwtiyuw's time. If the use of the Osiris-name convention for an animal was a recent development in the New Kingdom, would the afterlife have been open to a dog a thousand years earlier?


 * I don't know the answer, and this cursory source isn't enough to decide on one. The inscription for Abuwtiyuw strongly suggests that he was expected to go to the afterlife, but he was a dog with the direct favor of the king, which was apparently not a typical situation. One theory about the Old Kingdom afterlife for non-royal humans is that they needed the king's favor and his grant of a tomb in order to enter the afterlife, so Abuwtiyuw may have been granted a unique privilege that did not apply to other dogs in his time. Unless there's another source available, this final sentence of the Background section feels uncomfortably like synthesis and may need to be removed.


 * I think the article should mention the specific location where the tablet was found. As Giza Necropolis shows, the necropolis is very big and is subdivided into several tomb fields. The article says the mastaba where the tablet was found is near the west side of the Great Pyramid, but the Giza tombs are numbered, so it's possible to be more specific. The Giza Diary entries and the piece in the Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts about the tablet's discovery, linked in the talk page discussion about hieroglyphs, give the number of the mastaba that contained the tablet as G 2188. That would put it in Cemetery G 2100 in Giza West Field. I think this number should be in the article, e.g.: "The tomb in which the tablet was unearthed is mastaba G 2100, close to the western side of the Great Pyramid of Giza…").
 * Done.☠ Count de Blofeld  09:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Should "ka" be italicized as a foreign word? That's how I style it. In any case, the word shouldn't be capitalized as it's not a proper noun.
 * Done.☠ Count de Blofeld  08:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The entry for Lewis Spence's Myths & Legends of Ancient Egypt is given as August 2008. I dislike using the reprint date of a public-domain work as the publication date, as it can make an old work look more reliable than it is. The statement that Spence is used to support is uncontroversial, but I'd still like the original publication date, 1915, to be included. You could write it as "Spence, Lewis (August 2008) [1915]", the way I've done it when citing English translations of older foreign-language books.
 * Done.☠ Count de Blofeld  08:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments  Nice article: small and (nearly) perfectly formed.
 * You have three different date formats in the biblio:
 * "G 2188". Giza Diary, 1935. October 17, 1935. Retrieved 2012-10-14.
 * "G 2188 Y". Giza Diary, 1935. October 13, 1935. Retrieved 2012-10-14.
 * Hinkler (1 February 2006). Discover Ancient Egypt. Hinkler Books, Penton Overseas, Inc. ISBN 978-1-74157-524-8.

Could I suggest changing the publication dates for the two Giza Diary entries to the international format? Although I personally prefer the longer format for the retrieved date too, the shortened form you have used in the biblio is allowable; having said that, if you are going to stick with it, then you need to tweak fn22 to come in line (although I always prefer to see all the dates in the one format regardless of which field they are in). Aside from that all is good. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 06:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All dates made consistent, like you I prefer the international format.☠ Count de Blofeld  08:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.