Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Menkauhor Kaiu/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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2015.

Menkauhor Kaiu

 * Nominator(s): &#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Menkauhor Kaiu, the seventh ruler of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt, ruling in the late 25th century BC. The present article includes absolutely all that is known of this relatively shadowy pharaoh, covering every aspects of the king's reign and its legacy (activities, monuments, surviving artefacts, historical sources, family, funerary cult etc.). I thank the Egyptologist Filip Coppens for helping with the article by providing the latest published material on the subject. Article passed GA on the 17th of July and received a thorough peer review after that. Menkauhor Kaiu is part of a series of GA and FA articles on the 5th Dynasty (see Unas, Shepseskare, Sahure, Pyramid of Userkaf) in view of a future Featured Topic.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK license-wise (PD, CC) - 1 minor point
 * I have improved some of the license tags and added an archive for a dead PDF-link - OK.
 * File:Map pyramid Lepsius XXIX.jpg should have a reference to verify the map. Assuming the original uncropped map was re-drawn from a book, a citation to that book (or any reliable book where such a map is shown) should be added to the image description page. GermanJoe (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! I just added a reference for the map in both the article and on wikicommons from J. Berlandini's article showing the location of the pyramid Lepsius XXIX in the wider Saqqara plateau.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, point updated above. GermanJoe (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Support – I reviewed the article at GAN and commented at PR. It has been no hardship at all to read it again for FAC, and the polished work presented here seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Very happy to support.  Tim riley  talk    15:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you and thanks again for your help!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat
I'm afraid I'll have to do this in chunks as RL is a little hectic at present.


 * Lead
 * I'm not terribly fussed on this point, but I,thought we were supposed to eschew BC in favour of CE?
 * No. According to WP:ERA, either style is acceptable as long as it stays consistent within the article. In some topic areas, like Judaism, there may be a loose consensus to use only BCE/CE, but WikiProject Ancient Egypt has never chosen one style or the other. A. Parrot (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine - I prefer the old style anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You have Fifth dynasty and Fifth Dynasty – best to make this consistent.
 * Done it should be "Fifth Dynasty" everywhere now, thanks for pointing this out!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

More to follow... – SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Historical
 * "reigning for 9 years" -> nine
 * Fixed!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Family
 * The false titles (Name ) are a no-no: either scrap them or use level three headings
 * Ok I changed them to level three headings


 * Reign
 * "between 8 and 9 years" -> eight and nine
 * Fixed!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "are known to us": you can lose the last two words
 * Fixed!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sun temple
 * "We know of its existence" -> "Its existence is known..."
 * Fixed!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

More to follow anon. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I am looking forward to it!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Final batch for you:

Pyramid
 * "the Headless Pyramid was the Pyramid of Merikare, a pyramid dating": I think we can lose at least one of these with structure, building, etc!
 * Fixed.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "indicating that a burial did take place": "took place" would work slightly better
 * Fixed.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Refs
 * FNs 27, 48 59 should be pp., not p.
 * Fixed 27 and 59. For the num. 48, there is only one page specified, the number "59" being the beginning of the section title in the book, i.e. the ref 48 is p. 136, paragraph "59. Inscription of ...."&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * FN 99 should be p., not pp.
 * Fixed.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * FN 89 is probably better expressed as pp. 292, 299, 381, 390, 394, 400 & 412.
 * Done!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

An interesting read – many thanks for getting it into such good shape, and for dealing with the previous comments so promptly. – SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for your help!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent read and very informative. Meets the FA criteria in my not opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Support - just a rephrase suggestion and some nitpicks, not preventing support for this well-written article:
 * Lead - "Menkauhor Kaiu (also known as Ikauhor and in Greek as Mencherês) was an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh, the seventh ruler of the Fifth Dynasty at the end of the 25th century BC or early in the 24th century BC, during the Old Kingdom period." ==> Consider a slight rephrasing: "Menkauhor Kaiu (also known as Ikauhor and in Greek as Mencherês) was an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh of the Old Kingdom period. He was the seventh ruler of the Fifth Dynasty at the end of the 25th century BC or early in the 24th century BC.", bringing the most basic information up first and splitting the lengthy dynastic information in digestible portions.
 * Ok I did it. I found the previous version more agreable to read though but I understand the hierachy of information here.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "following king Nyuserre Ini [on throne]" ==> "on throne" sounds redundant in context - it's clear that rulers are listed in order
 * You are right, done!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Historical - "and it is known [to us] only through later" ==> redundant
 * Fixed.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Contemporaneous - note 3, ref 29 <-> ref 31, note 4 ==> "note first" or "refs first", order should be consistent (not sure if there is a preferred variant), please check throughout
 * Fixed throughout, I chose to put notes first.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Filiation - "ref 40, 38" ==> refs should be listed in ascending order, please check throughout.
 * Fixed throughout.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not perform an in-depth source check, but referencing appears to be thorough and based on academic sources. GermanJoe (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support All my concerns were dealt with at the peer review, and having read it over again this morning I can say that it's even tighter now than it was a few days ago. Nicely done! RO (talk)  17:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Has there been a source review for formatting and reliability? If not, please request at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok I have asked for it. Note that this was done when the article became GA and I believe also during the peer review.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Support on sourcing. I've looked over the sources and spot-checked a couple of references. Most of the sources are impeccably reliable: Egyptologists, most of whose names I recognize, writing in journals and books from academic presses. A handful aren't quite on that level, but they are all unobjectionable. The Seipel source seems to be a PhD thesis, though it's significant enough to be cited in Kanawati's book. The Lepsius, Mariette, Petrie, and Murray sources are very old, but they're all simply listing and reproducing cartouches and don't make any outdated interpretations of evidence. Kratovac and Wright are both based on Hawass' press release. I'm not the best at spotting inconsistencies in ref formatting, but they all look consistent and neatly organized to me.

The only significant snag is that the Kratovac source is a dead link, but I found the same AP story reproduced on ABC News' website: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5014538. Because I'm not familiar with the use of news sources, I'm not sure if you would attribute it to ABC News or the Associated Press. It's really not necessary to include Kratovac at all, though, as the story by Wright supports the same text. A. Parrot (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok so I have removed the Kratovac reference as proposed by A. Parrot. Thanks for the review!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.