Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pyramid of Sahure/archive1

Pyramid of Sahure

 * Nominator(s): Mr rnddude (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This pyramid's unimpressive physical proportions – roughly 1:30th the size of the Great Pyramid of Giza – and ruined state, deterred much exploration until the turn of the 20th century. When Borchardt finally pulled it out of the desert, however, he discovered a quite remarkable pyramid complex. Spread across its walls were an estimated 10,000m2 of masterfully crafted relief art. Special mention must be made of a scene of Sahure hunting for the brutality of its imagery. Unfortunately, the relief is fragmented. Of the section presented in the article, I'd draw your attention to the bottom left where a horned herbivore has an arrow impaling its forehead while a hyena, equally speared, leaps at its throat. The quality of the artwork was such that for two millennia, pharaohs returned to copy the artwork for their own constructions... and to steal limestone, there was a lot of stone-thieving. Special thanks to Ceoil for their copy-editing, sorry for the prolonged delay [~ 2 years]. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
Before I give the article a close perusal may I ask whether it is meant to be in English or American spelling? At present it is a mish-mash of the two, with "centre", "colour", "colourful", "metres", "mould", "sceptres" and "symbolising" in BrE and "centering", "equaled", "funneled", "gray", "program" and "skillfully" in AmE. Either is fine, but not a mixture of both.  Tim riley  talk   09:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * British English. Although I didn't know program was AmEng, would 'scheme' be acceptable as replacement. I thought you meant the word. Programme. Got it. I've fixed most of the ones you've brought up. 'Equaled' is in a quote, by an American. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Good. Point taken about the quote. I'll run a swift eye over the text for remaining Americanisms (if any) that are not within quotes. [Later: now done and all is fine]. Meanwhile here are my few comments and suggestions:
 * Lead
 * pyramid building in Abusir by Sahure's successors, which had also previously been used by Userka – does this mean pyramid building by Sahure's successors in Abusir, which had previously been used by Userka?
 * Yes. Changed.
 * excavated by Ludwig Borchardt between March 1907 and 1908, who penned the seminal work… – could do with rejigging as excavated between March 1907 and 1908 by Ludwig Borchardt, who penned the seminal work… And "penned" strikes a rather twee note: wouldn't a plain "wrote" do?
 * Done.
 * Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Sahu-Re – needs an in-line English translation.
 * Done.
 * the enormity of these constructions – the word "enormity" doesn't mean bigness of proportion: it means "extreme or monstrous wickedness" (OED) as in the enormity of a crime.
 * Replaced with immensity.
 * a mere 150 m2 (1,600 sq ft) – WP:EDITORIAL
 * 'A mere' removed.
 * The valley temple is situated on Abusir lake, which is unusual for having two entrances – you mean, I think, that the temple has two entrances, but this actually says the lake does.
 * Quite. 'which' replaced with 'and is'. Thus the valley temple is situated on Abusir lake and is unusual ...
 * destruction that was visited up the Abusir monuments – "upon" rather than "up"?
 * Fixed.


 * Location and excavation
 * Perring was also the first person to enter the substructure of Sahure's pyramid – the first person in modern times, perhaps, but what about the people who built it?
 * Added 'in modern times'. Cause you're quite right. Builders, the king, looters and stone thieves all entered the tomb long before Perring.


 * Layout
 * adjacent its east face – adjacent to?
 * Fixed.
 * The complex is the most expertly decorated and containing the most thematically diverse relief-work yet discovered from the Old Kingdom. – WP:DATED: safer to pin the date down, e.g. as at 2021.
 * Fair comment. Will come back to this.
 * The last king of the Old Kingdom, Pepi II's mortuary temple contained 200 running metres – this needs a comma before "mortuary" but that looks a bit odd, and it might perhaps be better to rejig the sentence on the lines of "The mortuary temple of Pepi II, the last king of the Old Kingdom, contained 200 running metres"
 * Done.


 * Main pyramid
 * Its outer faces were framed using massive – at Neferefre's unfinished pyramid the single step contained blocks up to 5 m (16 ft) by 5.5 m (18 ft) by 1 m (3.3 ft) large[59] – roughly dressed grey limestone blocks well-joined with mortar. – That's a helluva parenthesis; I think you're trying to make the sentence (and the reader) do too much work. May I suggest something on the lines of "Its outer faces were framed using massive roughly dressed grey limestone blocks well-joined with mortar. By contrast, at Neferefre's unfinished pyramid the single step contained blocks up to 5 m (16 ft) by 5.5 m (18 ft) by 1 m (3.3 ft) large"?
 * Afterthought. I assumed "well-joined" is a technical building term, but now I check I don't see it in the OED. If this just means they were joined well, you don't want the hyphen.  Tim riley  talk   11:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not meant to be contrasted. The blocks at Neferefre's pyramid are taken as representative of those used in the other Abusir pyramids. Neferefre's is used plainly because it's easy to see how that pyramid was built owing to its incompleteness. A single, solid 5x5.5x1m limestone block weighs many (~ 60) tonnes. I'll come up with something. Also Hyphen removed.
 * using significantly smaller blocks – what did they signify? Plain Words has this to say about "significant": "it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'" The word "significant" occurs eight times in the article, and with one possible exception is in my view misused.
 * Well... Plain Words would not be happy with my use of the word at all. I've replaced with important and considerable as appropriate.
 * information regarding its dimensions and appearance contain a degree of imprecision – singular noun with plural verb. And is "regarding" an improvement on a plain "about"?
 * Changed.
 * A ditch was left in the north face of the pyramid during construction which allowed workers to build the inner corridor – could do with a comma before "which", I think.
 * Added.


 * Valley temple
 * An alternate entrance – one might expect "alternative" rather than "alternate" here.
 * Changed.
 * Then an even narrower, recess in the first's rear wall – stray comma?
 * Comma removed.
 * trampling captive Asiatic and Libyan enemies – are we sure about "Asiatic"? The OED makes no comment on the point, but I have the feeling it is nowadays regarded by some as offensive, or at least not politically correct.
 * Later, after a rummage on my shelves, this is what the latest edition (2015) of Fowler's Modern English Usage has to say: Asian, Asiatic. The standard and accepted adjective when referring to people is Asian rather than Asiatic, which has offensive connotations. However, Asiatic is standard in scientific and technical use, for example in biological and anthropological classifications, e.g. Asiatic lion/lily/Greeks/ Peoples.
 * Asiatic is dated, so I've changed it to Asian. I am dubious on it being genuinely offensive as opposed to offensive because old.


 * Corridor and courtyard
 * The sedated posture of the king's courtiers – sedate rather than sedated, perhaps?
 * Changed.
 * may have originally been sheathed with metal, that was eventually stolen by thieves – no comma wanted. If you want the comma, "that" should be "which".


 * Drainage system
 * Comma removed.
 * intricate network of copper pipes laid beneath the temple, which lead down the length of the causeway – is "lead" (present tense) rather than "led" (past tense) meant here?
 * Yes, past tense.


 * Cult pyramid
 * centring around the burial – some people get very exercised about "centre around", insisting it must be "centre on". I think it's a bit of a fuss about nothing, but the objection has a certain logic to it.
 * Mmm.... no, there is indeed a logic there. It is isn't exactly centred if its around. Changed.


 * Cult of Sekhmet
 * Its influence likely waned – in AmE this is fine, but as you are going for BrE this is not a normal usage, and "likely" should be "probably".
 * Corrected.

That's all from me by way of query or quibble. I enjoyed this article and learned a lot. I'll look in again and, I confidently hope, add my support.  Tim riley  talk   11:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always for the review Tim. I think I've addressed all but two comments which I'll come back to after some consideration. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude, I'm happy to leave the blocks at Neferefre's pyramid in your hands (so to speak) and am ready to support promotion to FA:

Support: It is a close-run thing between Mr rnddude's Egyptian articles and Dudley Miles's Anglo-Saxon ones as to which contain more names that make my eyes glaze over, but as both are top notch I cannot possibly complain. The present article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It is evidently comprehensive, widely sourced, balanced, proportionate, splendidly illustrated, well constructed, in a consistent variety of English, and a pleasure to read. –  Tim riley  talk   13:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry about that. The excavation section I imagine is particularly brutal: this person did this in this year, and then these people did that a few years later. It's my least favourite section to write. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments (incl. source review) from A. Parrot
A solid article. I've made a lot of minor adjustments to the prose already, so as not to leave too many prose queries here; feel free to revert or adjust any you disagree with. Here are my remaining points about prose and content:


 * The passage in the lead about Borchardt's work is a little odd. "Properly" sounds somewhat opinionated, and I think of "seminal" as a work that reshapes a field of study, which I don't think Borchardt's work would qualify for unless it marked a major change in how pyramids in general were studied. You could simply use the same descriptors as in the body: "thoroughly" instead of "properly", and "standard" instead of "seminal".
 * Yes, that works.


 * "Farmed" for stone is unusual terminology; I've seen "quarried" used in this sense, but not "farmed". (When "farm" is used in a more metaphorical sense, it usually still has the meaning of cultivating something, which obviously isn't the case here.)
 * Fair.


 * Although Verner calls it an obelisk, we don't actually know whether the ben-ben in Heliopolis was obelisk-shaped (e.g., Arnold 2003, p. 30, calls it "a pillar-like monument, having an irregular conical shape").
 * I don't think the word 'obelisk' is vital to comprehending the sentence since the focus is on the pyramidion. So I've removed it.


 * The section on the layout says "the main pyramids were dramatically reduced in size and adopted simplified construction techniques", as if that were one of the innovations introduced by Sahure's complex. But the chart in Lehner (p. 16) shows that Userkaf's pyramid was of similar size to Sahure's. I don't know if you can cite sources that say exactly this, but it seems that Userkaf established the modest size of Fifth Dynasty pyramids while Sahure's temple complex established the layout.
 * The base length Sahure used [taken as 78.75 m] is fairly consistently used in later Old Kingdom pyramids as well, with the exception of Unas. Though the kings did favour a slightly taller build of 52.5 m. You are quite right to point out that Userkaf's is equally small. I've changed it to 'From the outset of the Fifth Dynasty ...' and added a cite pointing to Lehner's table.


 * "The complex is the most expertly decorated and containing the most thematically diverse relief-work yet discovered from the Old Kingdom" — I'm not sure how to re-word it, but the clauses in this sentence don't quite fit together.
 * You make a second comment about this later on, I've responded there.


 * "A stark departure from the Fourth Dynasty." is a sentence fragment, and it's not clear what aspect of the complex is a stark departure from the Fourth Dynasty.
 * Removed. I'll take a look at rewording the whole. Note - I've added a sentence at the end explaining the intent behind the enlarging of the storeroom complexes.


 * "The pyramid had a, probably horizontally layered, core comprising six ascending steps, five of which remain." I think the passage about horizontal layers should be placed at the end, or even in a separate sentence clarifying its meaning (horizontally laid courses of stone).
 * Moved to own sentence.


 * I'm not sure of the purpose of the sentence about the size of the blocks in Neferefre's pyramid.
 * The intent is to answer the potential 'how massive are these blocks?' question the reader may have, but that's only really possible from reference to Neferefre's pyramid. It didn't work within the sentence as it overburdened the reader. So I moved it to a lone sentence. It's not exactly a vital sentence to keep, so I can remove it if that would be better.
 * I think it would be better to remove it.


 * Re: Asiatic vs. Asian, to Americans "Asian" tends to connote people from East Asia. "Near Eastern" seems to be the term most commonly used in Egyptology other than "Asiatic".
 * Changed. I settled for 'Near Eastern peoples' rather than 'Near Easterners' in a couple cases.


 * I pointed out in a previous FA nomination by Iry-Hor that "Bedouin" is an anachronistic term, although Egyptologists sometimes use it; in that FAC it was replaced by "nomad" or "desert dweller".
 * Replaced with Nomads.


 * "The architect Mark Lehner suggests that the corridor represented the untamed wild, surrounding a clearing – the open courtyard – of which the king was guarantor." Lehner is an Egyptologist, is he not? And "untamed wilderness", or perhaps even "natural world", would work better here than "wild".
 * Yes, he is. I think I wanted to say archaeologist for variety and then bungled it and ended up saying architect.
 * OK. There's still the slightly awkward use of "wild", though.

Source review
All sources look entirely solid, citing a wide variety of Egyptologists and including the most authoritative scholars on the subject (Borchardt, Arnold, Bárta, Edwards, Lehner, and especially Verner). There are a couple of oddities in the formatting, though:


 * Why is it necessary to specify the title of Bárta 2015 within the citations? I'd expect an unpaginated source to be cited by author and year alone.
 * Loc parameters emoved.


 * Arnold 2005 is a duplicate of Arnold 1997. Presumably 2005 is a reprint, but there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in pagination.
 * I only have access to the 1997 edition and the material is there on the same pages so I've just removed the 2005 version and changed the footnotes to 1997.

I've also carried out 15 spot-checks and found no unambiguous errors, though I have a few that raised questions:


 * Citation 18c: Verner's text does say the diverse subject matter and artistic quality together make Sahure's reliefs "the highest level of the genre" from the Old Kingdom, but it doesn't quite say that the subject matter was the most diverse ever found.
 * I've modified the sentence and introduced Verner as a direct quote.


 * Citation 3h: The citation accurately reflects Lehner's text, but his measurements differ somewhat from Verner's (e.g., Lehner's slope of 50˚11′ 40′′ as opposed to the 50˚30′ in Verner 2001d, p. 463). It's particularly a problem because Lehner doesn't note the slightly off-square dimensions of the base, mentioned in the article's next sentence, which means the pyramid can't actually be 78.75 meters square. Verner gives 78.5 meters; in neither case do they specify whether they're measuring the longer or the shorter side. I don't know what to do about that problem.
 * The obvious thing to do is to consult Borchardt (see. p. 27 of the 1910 source). He notes that the measurements are imprecise owing to the error but gives a length of 150 cubits / 78.75 metres [same as Lehner] ; an angle of 50.5°, i.e. 50°30′, [Same as Verner] ; and a height of 91 cubits / 48.31 metres [closer to Verner]. Borchardt's height has an error. 91 cubits is 47.75 m not 48.3 m, but 47.75 m mathematically matches the slope of 50.5 [47.765 so off by 1.5cm]. I can add a '~' in the infobox to denote an approximate measure. In the body this causes a complication. Borchardt is an older source so both Lehner and Verner would be preferred. Lehner/Borchardt have the same base measure ; Verner/Borchardt have the same angle ; nobody has the exact height [or Borchardt does if we accept his royal cubits measure and convert from that]. I would personally favour: base = 78.75 m, slope = 50°30′, height = 47.75 m. I could say something like: 'had an intended base of 78.75 m, converging at 50°30′ to a height of 47.75 m.' The next sentence would then explain why 'had an intended' rather than 'had'.
 * You might also list the range of figures given by the three sources.


 * Citation 161: I'm wondering why you render the priest's name as Ny-ku-re, as Scott 1952 does, rather than Ni-ka-re, as Allen 1999 does. I would expect a preference for the more recent of the two transcriptions.
 * I probably found it in Scott 1952 before Allen 1999. Changed to Nikare.

A. Parrot (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and the source review. It may take me a while to resolve all your queries and comments. I will post a second note below when completed. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I've gone through all of your comments though there are a couple you will want to comment further on. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've replied to three of your replies, but all other my comments look to be resolved. A. Parrot (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, done, and done. Sorry, I had seen your comment about the wild but it slipped my mind as I was changing other things. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, all looks good to me. Support. A. Parrot (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber
looking now....


 * Sahure's monument represents a milestone in the development of pyramid construction - why? comes across as a bit vague and puffy - I generally let facts speak for themselves i..e. "First ...."


 *  The complex is expertly decorated, containing thematically diverse relief-work identified by the Egyptologist Miroslav Verner as "the highest level of the genre" found in the Old Kingdom - "expertly decorated" is puffy - I am sure all tombs were decorated by experts. Why not just "The complex contains thematically diverse relief-work identified by the Egyptologist Miroslav Verner as "the highest level of the genre"...."


 * I'd link subsoil, adze


 *  There is a largely unexplored necropolis found through the side-entrance on the transverse corridor's southern end.... - dumb question, why is it unexplored?

Only minor quibbles - a fascinating read and on track WRT comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, . I've effected the latter two changes. After some consideration to your first point, I think the paragraph was poorly structured, but I don't think it unreasonable to say plainly that it was a milestone in complex construction. Here is the full quote from Verner (2001d) p. 46, and you'll note that 'milestone' is not my word choice: Sahure's pyramid complex, built at the beginning of the Fifth Dynasty, was a milestone in the development of royal tombs, a masterwork not only in its fully achieved architectonic balance as a whole and in its individual parts, but also in its decoration and in the construction materials used. With a few modifications, Sahure's complex became the model for the royal tombs that followed during the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties, and to a large extent for later periods as well. I think you'd have to agree that I'm markedly more toned down in my summary than Verner, a foremost expert on the Abusir pyramids [he should be, he is the director of the Czech mission (1975–ongoing) at Abusir]. Arnold is more conservative in language: Under King Sahure, priests and architects designed a new ground plan for the pharaoh's cult complex that served as the prototype for at least nine of the mortuary temples of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties ... All pyramid temples from Sahure to Pepi II are, with only minor variations, based on the same ground plan. Lehner quotes others saying [t]he plan of the mortuary temple has been called the 'conceptual beginning' of all subsequent Old Kingdom examples. You might compare the layout plans at Nyuserre's, Djedkare's, and Pepi I's to that of Userkaf's (sadly, none of the 4th Dynasty pyramids have layout plans, which I think would be a fairer comparison as Userkaf's is unusual even for them). It becomes rather plain why the fuss over Sahure's complex. Regarding your question about the necropolis, I don't have a solid answer. There are some fifty sites in Abusir, and I guess that one just isn't a priority at the moment. It's far from the only neglected one, Setibhor's pyramid has only just started being properly explored, and Djedkare's causeway and valley temple haven't been investigated either (the valley temple is buried under houses and will likely never be investigated). This list might better illustrate just how much work there is in Abusir. As far as I am aware, the only current project at Sahure's pyramid is the consolidation of the substructure to prevent it collapsing.  Let me know if you have further comments. If you still think that line too puffy, let me know if you have a rephrase that would work. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay - I figured the sheer volume of unexplored material or lack of funding would be the issue. Anyway, is good on comprehensivenessa and prose now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Ceoil
Only starting to read through. Leaning support.
 * As a result, sources differ as to whether the funerary apartment... consisted of a single or twin chambers. Efforts to clear the substructure have been made since 2019, confirming that the funerary apartment consisted of two rooms, with the burial chamber still to be investigated. Given the since 2019 statements, do sources still differ, or should it be that until 2019 sources differed?
 * Fixed now.


 * A small point, but watch ref order such as ...Libyan enemies led to him by the gods.[80][24][82]. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Reordered numerically.

Hi Ceoil, did you want to continue? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * hi Ian, yes, over the W/end Ceoil (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * ''s 47 m (154 ft; 90 cu) tall main pyramid comprised six ascending steps of stone encased in fine white limestone,[3][41] with a cult pyramid located at the south-east corner,[42] and a mortuary temple, the standard-bearer for future variants,[3] adjacent to its east face.[43] These elements were connected "were connected" is a sudden tense change - these are
 * Done


 * Early excavators neglected to perform thorough investigations of Sahure's monument - "did not" rather than "neglected", which carries a value judgement
 * Done


 * ''Perring was also the first person to" - "Perring was the first to"
 * Done


 * The pyramid was later re-entered by Jacques de Morgan - drop later in favour of a year or year range
 * Dropped later, but I can't be more specific. Verner doesn't say when and it could be anytime between 1840 and 1860 [at least based on his half-a-century comment].
 * grand, "re-entered " implies after


 *  It then remained ignored for fifty years, until the Egyptologist Ludwig Borchardt visited the site - needless comma, and "ignored" doest seem right, as it was prob a matter of funding rather than ignorance.
 * Done and done


 * In 1994, the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities opened the Abusir necropolis to tourism. In preparation, they had restorative works conducted at Sahure's pyramid. - Tense shift "they had restorative works". Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, I think?


 * Fifth and Sixth Dynasty, making it a milestone in pyramid complex construction. - "making it" is weak, also alliteration, while "milestone" is a very 21st c word
 * You made this change, it originally said '... thereby representing a milestone ...'. I don't see a problem with milestone, it is described as such by Verner.
 * I didnt introduce thereby, nor milestone
 * No, of course not, I did. I'm saying you changed 'thereby representing a milestone' to 'making it a milestone'. You suggest 'making it' should be changed, but if I did, I'd just change it back to what it said originally since I don't know your reasoning for changing it. I could obviously drop 'thereby' and have it say 'representing a milestone', but I don't know if that is satisfactory.
 * Good with me, and obv revert any changes i make at will. Ceoil (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * After some consideration, I've gone for 'marking' instead of 'representing' as I think the latter term might be a misuse. I mean, it doesn't depict or show a milestone, it is a milestone.
 * Frankly, I shouldn't have raised this in this context, my objection/prediuce came from alt album articles where journalists, gratingly, throw the word around like chocolate (see also "embarked upon" and "critically recieved"). Ceoil (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure how to couch this but logically "is a late-26th-to-25th century BC pyramid complex built for the Egyptian pharaoh Sahure of the Fifth Dynast" would be better as a pyramid complex built c the late-26th-to-25th century BC for...."
 * Done


 * The mortuary temple was a voluminous, rectangular building oriented along the east–west axis,[45]: voluminous? also drop "oriented" maybe for "positioned". Ceoil (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant expansive. Done and done.


 *  Beyond the courtyard is a transverse (north-south) corridor which separates the public outer from the private inner temple. What does beyond actually mean. The sentence seems a bit guide book
 * Beyond as in past, after, behind. Would any of those work as an alternative?
 * no, on 2nd thoughts is fine as it is Ceoil (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Changes and replies above are good, all on minor points, overall the article is excellently written, very well sourced as noted by others, and am happy to support. Ceoil (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review
All images are well placed, properly licenced and sourced but I often wonder where the captions come from. OK ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for checking those. Can you give an example of what you mean regarding the captions? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For example, File:Sahure Pyramid Complex annotated.png - how do we know which part is which? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a few ways that you can attempt to verify. The easiest is going off similar images in one of the main sources which in this case are Borchardt (1910), Lehner (2008), and/or Verner (2001d). The image in question is derived from Borchardt (1910) Blatt 4 [Plate 4]. Lehner p. 143 has a similar image derived from Borchardt (1910) Blatt 5 [Plate 5] – a mirror image of plate 4 – that has annotations which affirms most elements: 'causeway', 'satellite pyramid' [alternate name for 'cult pyramid'], 'entrance hall' and 'open courtyard' [which are elements of the mortuary temple], and 'burial chamber' [an element of the main pyramid substructure, which is also a bit of a bluesky anyway]. That leaves only the enclosure wall, for which the next method is going off written text. You won't find an annotation that directly supports the attribution, but there is Borchardt's description on p. 26. Since you speak German, I'll just quote it: Pyramidenhof: Allseitig, nur mit einer Unterbrechung an der Stelle des Totentempels, umgibt die Pyramide ihr kalksteingepflasterter Hof, der von den Ausgängen in denbeiden Seitenflügeln des Tempels aus erreichbar ist. Die hohe, mit Kalkstein verblendete Mauer, welche ihn von der Außenwelt abschließt, ist oben mit dem bekannten runden Profil abgedeckt. Bei der Kletterfähigkeit der Ägypter wird sie aber keinen wirksamen Schutz gebildet, sondern nur so lange die Ruhe des Königs geschützt haben, wie eine wirkliche Bewachung des Ganzen noch ausgeübt wurde. The second sentence describes the 'enclosure wall'. It tells you that the pyramid is surrounded on all sides by the courtyard and wall except where the mortuary temple lies. If we look at C, the unidentified subject, we can see it matches the description in that it surrounds the pyramid and terminates at the walls of the mortuary temple.Mr rnddude (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You may also check Lehner pp. 18-19 where he gives a general description of the pyramid complex that covers all of its major elements including annotated graphics of both the mortuary and valley temples. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See, my thinking was that you may want to add these references to the images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need given the image can be referenced against cited text in the article body, but I've added citations to the images under layout, substructure, valley temple, and mortuary temple. The map of the necropolis and the causeway are taken from Borchardt and the file name points to both the figure and page in his work, so a citation to those would be redundant. Those are all the layout and annotated images. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for your comments and reviews. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)