Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pyramid of Unas/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2019.

Pyramid of Unas

 * Nominator(s): Mr rnddude (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the smallest of all Old Kingdom pyramids, but perhaps also one of its most significant. The walls of it's subterranean chambers are covered in hieroglyphic inscriptions, the first of their kind, which guided and guarded the deceased's soul into the afterlife. I think it's about on par with my previous FAC nomination, so I'm taking the opportunity to nominate it. I've undertaken several copy-edits, and I think my writing has perhaps even improved from last time – which I hope will reduce the burden for reviewers this time around... I hope. Thanks and Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley
A couple of points on spelling etc from a first canter through, before I get down to a thorough scrutiny of the article.
 * We avoid contractions like "don't", "who'd" and so on. See MOS:N'T. There are a few in the current text, which would be better as whole-word phrases.


 * "antichamber carrée" looks to me like a misspelling of the French "antichambre carrée", though I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.

This looks an interesting article, which I think I'll enjoy reviewing. More soon.  Tim riley  talk   23:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll just insert green text between pointers I believe I've dealt with. Thanks. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Location and excavation
 * "Entry into the pyramid, though, was first gained by Gaston Maspero who examined the substructure of the pyramid" – I think you could remove the last three words and avoid repetition without damaging the sense.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Nationality of various Egyptologists – I wonder what is gained by knowing that they were variously British, Prussian, Italian and so on. I can never find anything in the Manual of Style when I'm looking for it, but I think I have seen advice to avoid mentioning people's nationalities unless they are relevant.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Pyramid
 * "small size, thus it is more likely" – "thus" is not a conjunction. A simple "and" would do the job.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "the extensive quarrying that was necessary" – I think I'd omit "that was"; "that would have been" would work, but "the extensive quarrying necessary" is clear.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "cartouche" – could do with a blue link.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Substructure
 * "….a small chapel. The chapel…" – perhaps "It" to open the second sentence?
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "stela" – another word unfamiliar to the lay person – can it be linked?
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "for 'offering table.'" – The MoS asks for double, not single, quotes, and punctuation after the closing quotes.
 * "a 'corridor-chamber'" – more single quotes. A few more later.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "Near burial chamber's west wall" – missing a "the" before "burial"?
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "painted, however, whereas" – stronger stop than a comma needed before "however" (or you could leave the comma and change "however" to "but", perhaps)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Pyramid Texts
 * "Unas' Pyramid Texts are the oldest" – Just "They" would avoid repetition, and might flow more smoothly.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "from whence" – although you can find this construction in very respectable sources (including the King James Bible) some people object to it as a tautology, as "whence" means "from where". Fowler advises against using "whence" at all (a bit antiquated), but recommends that if it is used, it should be without the "from".
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you prefer "whence", I suggest you stick with it. Fowler's view (like mine, too) is only a matter of personal preference.  Tim riley  talk   08:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "journey toward new life.[46][45]" – do you want the references in this order? (I ran across one nominator recently who preferred to list citations in order of importance rather than just in numerical order, but the latter is usual.)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Tenses – "the Ba leaves" but "the Ba faced" etc – a bit inconsistent in this para.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Valley temple
 * "evidence their high quality craftsmanship" – I don't think I've seen "evidence" used as a transitive verb before, but a quick check in the OED confirms that use.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "south sides, each had a portico" – stronger stop than a comma wanted.
 * . Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Causeway
 * "preexisting" – the OED hyphenates this.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "A 'slit' was left" – not sure why the word is in quotes.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "Archaeologist Peter Clayton" – You have avoided false titles so far, and this one rather sticks out. In the following para you have another, followed by the Grimal reference, where you avoid it.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "a team led by Egyptologist Christiane Ziegler" – I wonder if it is necessary to introduce every expert with the tag "Egyptologist"? It occurs 15 times in the text and one begins to notice the repetition. In the case of C Ziegler, for instance, I think it is clear from the context that she is an Egyptologist.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Mortuary temple
 * Storerooms – you refer to them extensively, but I'm curious to know – I don't think you tell us anywhere – what they would have been designed to store.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Notes
 * I found footnote C fascinating. I suppose it wouldn't fit easily into the main text, but it's a pity.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Sources
 * If you have authorlinks it would be best to have Verner linked from the first, rather than the second, mention. I'm also not sure how you pick which authors to link. If Altenmüller, Grimal and Verner, why not Allen, Budge and Dodson (and possibly others who also have WP articles – I haven't checked them all)?
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

That's all from me. I enjoyed this article and look forward to adding my support for its promotion.  Tim riley  talk   10:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly for the review, and I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article. Let me know if you have any other items for me to address. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Clear, evidently comprehensive, a good read, balanced, and beautifully illustrated.  Tim riley  talk   08:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil
Would like to see the lead tightened ; though think the article from a first pass is rather terrific. Some trivial stuff:
 * a tradition that carried on in the pyramids of subsequent rulers, both kings and queens; maybe simplify by saying 'monarchs' rather than 'rulers', so "kings and queens" becomes redundant and we have less words, if that is indeed the case
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is all very fine and interesting, but for the article body, not the lead. Sentence now reads "This tradition carried on in the pyramids of subsequent rulers, both kings and queens, through to the end of the Old Kingdom", without the context you mention here. Ceoil  (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Features of the texts - vague, say that it is either the contents or the style of the hieroglyphics.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Unas situated his pyramid - fussy - "built"
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, makes sense. I obv need more coffey. Ceoil  (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 *  which themselves formed  - drop "themselves"
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * comparable to the one that Khufu had built for his pyramid - comparable to that leading to Khufu's pyramid
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * A long wadi was used as a path for the causeway. The terrain here was difficult to negotiate and contained previously built structures. - "A long wadi was used as a pathway. The terrain was difficult to negotiate and contained previously built structures." Still, older structures needs to be explained as to what there were and how the impeded pathway, if included in the lead. Ceoil  (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Another factor that inhibited the monument's size was the extensive quarrying necessary to increase the size of the pyramid. The words "Another factor" make this sentence seems fragmented and separate for the narrative thrust; can you weave in better.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds fantastic. Ceoil  (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The core of the pyramid was built up six steps - is there a better word that core; "foundation" or something. To note none of the six steps are explained, so its kind of a tease.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. Ceoil  (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nebet's mastaba contains four niches. Schoolboys will have a field day with this if it hits main page and they get this far, but not sure what you can do to distance the noun from "four niches"
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Adjacent to the north face of the pyramid was a small chapel. - construct is backwards, can you say "A small chapel was situated...." Ceoil  (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

To note, to delegates, very interested in this article and will do the source review separately, at latest by end of next weekend. Ceoil (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I have many of these sources on hand and intend to do a source review this weekend, so you don't need to feel obligated to do it. A. Parrot (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You would have a far more firm grasp than me, so that seems sensible, thanks. Ceoil  (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Entry was first gained by Gaston Maspero who examined its substructure in 1881 - some clarification of terms needed here; mostly around "studied" vs "physically" entered. Its clear in the body of the article, but maybe not in the lead. Ceoil  (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * but significant due to the discovery of ritual and personal spells – Pyramid Texts – incised into the walls: This is a bit disjointing and uneven for the lead, which should be crisp and clear for the disinterested skim reader; should it be ritual and personal spells or something. You need to be mindful that the lead later jumps to "Features from the texts", maybe place these two claims closer together, so there is a logical flow. Ceoil  (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems much better. Ceoil  (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Supporting on prose, on the basis that my remaining issues above are quibbles, and this article is rather excellently written. Not that your off the hook on the points above rnddude, but the page is certainly very impressive and certainly FA standard. Noeting that the source review is being conducted by an editor very familiar with the literature. Ceoil  (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review, and all the work you've done on the article. I am always quite stunned that you can remove 40 bytes from a single sentence while I struggle to remove a similar amount from an entire section (I seem to add at least half as much as I remove). I think I've addressed everything, let me know if I missed anything or you find anything else. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is fascinating and really well put together. More please. Ceoil  (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from A. Parrot
I'll get to the source review later today, but for the moment I want to point out that the terms for components of the soul are usually italicized and lowercased in Egyptological writing: ka, ba, akh. That would also be consistent with how you format another foreign term, serdab, although it's Arabic and not Egyptian. Ancient Egyptian concept of the soul, the article that covers these concepts, isn't in good shape but needs to be linked here. : should ka, ba, and akh be linked to the respective sections of the article, or would that count as duplicate linking? A. Parrot (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A. Parrot, I wouldn't know and will leave it up to you; duplicate linking is small stuff to worry about, and have faith in your opinion. Anyhow, very pleased to see you here, am familiar with your work and informed content reviews are hens teeth. Ceoil  (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The text would have to be reworked a bit to provide an organic place to link the overall article, so it seems easiest to link to the individual sections. A. Parrot (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems fair and np with the duplicated. Ceoil  (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To correct myself: ka and ba are already linked to their respective sections, but akh needs to be. As does akhet (hieroglyph). A. Parrot (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hard to say. Egyptologists always seem to capitalize Duat, usually but not always without italics. There isn't any consistent practice for the horizon: Akhet, Akhet, and akhet all have precedents in Egyptological writing. Lehner, for example, always italicizes it but isn't consistent with capitalization. I'd say it's up to you. A. Parrot (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "From soon after Thutmose III moved the capital of Egypt from Thebes to Memphis in the Eighteenth Dynasty…" Although I can't preview the pages that support this statement, the notion that there was one capital that different kings moved from place to place is perpetuated by many RSes but not really correct. Pharaohs had multiple residences. It's exactly in the Eighteenth Dynasty that the split is most pronounced. Setting aside the aberration of the Amarna Period, Memphis and Thebes were the most important royal cities during the Eighteenth Dynasty, and while the proportion of royal institutions in Memphis may have increased over time, it seems to have been a gradual process. You can dodge this problem by saying "Beginning in the reign of Thutmose III in the Eighteenth Dynasty…"
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Although Egyptian terms like ka and ba are explained well enough, some other terminology needs a bit more explanation, such as "apotropaia" and "ferry spells". I know what they mean, but the causual reader won't. Regarding "apotropaia", when somebody asked for explanation of "apotropaic power" at the FAC for Isis, I changed it to "protective magical power". Maybe something like "protective spells" or "spells to ward off dangers", with that same link to apotropaic magic, would work here? For ferry spells, maybe "spells to allow the king to travel through the afterlife by ferry". A. Parrot (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * . Mr rnddude (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Both changes look good to me. A. Parrot (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Source review
 * The sources used are excellent, incorporating some of the most authoritative sources for this topic (especially Verner). Only two are remotely questionable, and both are used carefully: Budge, the modern Egyptologist's bugbear, is used only as a source for one possible translation out of three, and PhD theses are sometimes dubious but Ćwiek isn't used to source anything remotely controversial. I'll spot-check them this evening or tomorrow.
 * Best avoid using theses if possible, and esp if uncontroversial should be easy to swap out. Ceoil  (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There's a problem with the entry for Jiménez-Serrano. This seems to be an entry for a journal article that he published in SAK, but it uses the "Cite book" template rather than "Cite journal", and the title of the article is missing.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. A. Parrot (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There's also some inconsistency in capitalization of titles. Very finicky, I know, and I've fixed most of it myself, but for future reference: book titles are capitalized, unless they're French, because French seems to have different capitalization rules. Journal articles and chapters within larger books can be capitalized or in sentence case, but they should be consistent either way. Most such entries on this list are in sentence case, but the title of Wegner 2001 is capitalized; would you rather decapitalize it or change the other titles to match? A. Parrot (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. A. Parrot (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of points about the Pyramid Texts that the sources cited here definitely say but are, unfortunately, questioned by other sources. "Though [the Pyramid Texts] first appeared in Unas' pyramid, their archaic writing style indicates that many of the texts were already ancient by this time" and "These consist of some of the oldest texts, dating back to the early archaic period" are both questionable. There is widespread agreement that the PT are older than this pyramid, but nobody knows how old. The dates that Lehner gives for different categories of texts are very conjectural, and I don't even know what they're based on. The strongest evidence of the existence of some parts of the PT before Unas's time is an offering list from the reign of Sahure that closely parallels a passage of the PT, but that's little more than a century before Unas, not exactly ancient from Unas's perspective and certainly not the Archaic Period.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Good job of getting up to speed on this stuff. Bad luck that you picked a pyramid on which the scholarship is in flux! Maybe next time you can pick a nice boring one like Neferefre's. A. Parrot (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The second point is Allen's argument that the PT are organized based on the spirit's movement out of the Duat and into the Akhet. Harold M. Hays challenged this hypothesis in a 2009 paper that you can read here. According to Hays in The Organization of the Pyramid Texts (2012), Allen admitted in an academic discussion (though not to my knowledge in writing) that the hypothesis was unsound, and Following Osiris (2017) by Mark Smith treats the hypothesis as dead. A. Parrot (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of the citations look good, but I've found a couple of irregularities. The text "…the main pyramid, constructed six steps high from limestone blocks" is cited to Verner 2001d, p. 332, but I don't see mention of the six steps on that page. It could easily be on the following page, which isn't included in the Google Books preview that I'm able to access, but if so the range of the citation should be expanded.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Citation 100, to Strudwick 1985 p. 57, looks like it should be p. 56, and citation 102, to p. 67 of the same book, looks like it should be p. 57.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Support on sourcing, after finally getting around to finishing the spot-checks. But I'm not entirely done with the review; I have a few suggested wording changes, so look for them to show up late tomorrow. A. Parrot (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, this one has been quiet for a while but doesn't look so far from promotion. I really would like to see at least one more comprehensive review though, so would you be able to return soon? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * So you want me to look over the prose? I guess I can do that over this weekend., I'll put any prose comments I have below this one. A. Parrot (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Di-did you just ping yourself . I suspect that that was meant for you. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (smacks forehead) Yes, that was what I meant to do. A. Parrot (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The most significant problem I see is that the numbers on File:Unas' Mortuary Temple.png don't entirely match up with the caption. In the caption, number 12 is supposed to be the cult pyramid and 13 the courtyard surrounding "the pyramid" (not sure if you mean the cult pyramid or the main one). In the image, number 12 is missing and number 13 is labeling the cult pyramid. The caption is missing number 14, which appears on the image.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sometimes new versions of images take a while to display properly. A day or two, even. I know from personal experience that it's very frustrating! A. Parrot (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which, I think it would be helpful to make clearer the relationship between the temple and the main pyramid—that the offering hall with the false door sat next to the base of the pyramid. If possible, you might even want to alter File:Unas' Mortuary Temple.png to include a label for the main pyramid, as a diagram is often easier to understand than a text description.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks good. I think I'd prefer the numbers within the image file itself to be a little larger, but I won't insist on it. A. Parrot (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the Pyramid Texts should be named in the lead, especially because the Coffin Texts and Book of the Dead are as well. Ancient Egyptian funerary texts is more important to link in the lead than the CT or BD. Perhaps "…significant owing to the discovery of the Pyramid Texts, spells for the king's afterlife incised into the walls of its subterranean chambers. This tradition of funerary texts continued…" ? A. Parrot (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * : My apologies for not participating in several days. I really doubt I'll be able to do a comprehensive review and am relieved to see Jens Lallensack picking up the slack. I don't know if I'll have anything else to add to this FAC, except to raise a problem with this sentence: "They are the oldest, smallest and best preserved corpus of religious writing from the Old Kingdom." This is an inaccurate conflation of what the two sources cited in this sentence say. The PT are the oldest large body of religious texts from ancient Egypt, as stated by Malek in the page cited for this sentence, but they aren't the earliest religious texts period (if nothing else, the short funerary inscriptions from private tombs in the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties also count as religious texts). Unas's copy of the PT is, as Allen writes on the page cited here, "the oldest, smallest, and best preserved of the Old Kingdom sources" for the PT (some later copies of PT spells are probably shorter than the original pyramid inscriptions and might be better preserved). I have an idea for how to fix this problem, but it's a bit complicated to explain in an FAC comment; would you object if I make the edit myself so you can see what you think? A. Parrot (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - Mr rnddude (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, it's done. A. Parrot (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - Mr rnddude (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I wrote "283 spells" to distinguish it from the 1,000 also mentioned in the preceding sentence, but maybe "These spells" is clear enough. Feel free to change it if you think so. A. Parrot (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Unas_Pyramidentexte.jpg: when/where was this first published, and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ? Mr rnddude (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Either of those should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Support by Jens Lallensack
1) Lead
 * Nothing in the lead about the pyramid itself. Type and dimensions would be helpful. On the other hand, structures like the causeway appear to be discussed in excessive detail.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not completely convinced; dimensions give the reader a first impression (to know what is "small" you need background), and the IB should be an addition, not a substitute. But it might be more a matter of taste, the decision is yours, of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Just south of the upper causeway – It does not help to give geographical directions when the orientation of the causeway was not discussed beforehand. I think you need an introductory sentence listing the components of the complex and how they are located.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Access to the site required the construction of a long causeway – would be helpful to add "from the lake".
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure, what would be the best? I was simply concerned that the purpose of the causeway does not become clear enough. Why was a causeway needed to get access? For me, it makes only sense in light of the connection to the lake, so this should be mentioned. Or I misunderstood something? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * a long causeway, comparable to that leading to Khufu's pyramid, which was anchored at a nearby lake with a valley temple. – Unclear whether the "which" refers to the causeway of Khufu's or that of Unas. Instead of comparing it with Khufu's pyramid (which does not help when the reader doesn't know about Khufu's pyramid) it might be better to describe it instead (was it inclined, leading up a ramp? Was it roofed?). These questions came to mind while reading.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The most important fact, the Pyramid texts of Unas Pyramid are the oldest ones, is not mentioned in the lead.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

2) I think the description of the pyramid itself is too short compared to the info given for the structures surrounding it. Comparing with the German Wikipedia's article, which is featured already, I see several possibilities for expansion.
 * The pyramid's core was stepped, but with the encasing, was it originally a stepped pyramid or a true pyramid? Maybe deserves a mention.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Does not hurt to add a "true pyramid" somewhere, though? This article will be read by people without much background knowledge on pyramids, and since the nearby Djoser pyramid is a stepped one, I would defenitely mention it, probably even already in the lead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * According to the German Wikipedia's article, it was the steepest king pyramid of its time. Maybe this deserves mentioning?
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The pyramid was already plundered during antiquity, with all artifacts removed but some portions of the mummy. This is what I read in the German Wikipedia. I completely miss this information here; the mummy fragments are mentioned but without stating what happened to the rest.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What was the origin of the stone? Tora, Egypt?
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I miss something on the preservation state. Have the missing stones been robbed, or was it natural weathering? As I read from the German Wikipedia, the encasement stone has been robbed, while the core part was of poor quality and was thus eroded by weathering, leading to the very ruined appearance of the pyramid.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The pyramid contains spolia of older buildings. Worth a mention?
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The complex is situated between the pyramid of Sekhemkhet and the south-west corner of the pyramid complex of Djoser, in symmetry with the pyramid of Userkaf situated at the north-east corner, in Saqqara. – This sentence is within the section "pyramid"; info on the complete complex might be better placed in the "Layout" section?
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

3) Location and excavation
 * and connects a line running from the pyramid of Sekhemkhet to the pyramid of Menkauhor – "lies on a line" maybe?
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Person attributes are inconsequent. Sometimes they are introduced with "Archaeologist" or "Egyptologist", but in other cases are not introduced at all.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The pyramid was briefly examined by John Shae Perring and soon after by Karl Richard Lepsius; – both need a date.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * an architect and Egyptologist Alessandro Barsanti – "the" instead of "an"?
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Later excavations by Cecil Mallaby Firth, from 1929 until his death in 1931, followed by the architect Jean-Philippe Lauer from 1936 to 1939 – not the best prose imo, perhaps "followed by those of the architect Jean-Philippe Lauer"?
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Moussa and another archaeologist Audran Labrousse [fr] – needs a comma, and the [fr] is non-standard and not used elsewhere in the article.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

4) Images
 * "Upright" attributes should only be used when a larger image is appropriate according to MOS:IMGSIZE, which is not necessarily the case here? Instead of having very large pictures, I would try to include much more pictures.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to disagree. It is important to keep standard thumb size in order to allow the user to use his personal "preferences" to have the images across Wikipedia exactly the size he wants. This only works when image size is uniform across articles. In my case, for example, the images in this article are way too large and destroy the layout, as I already use a larger image size for my account. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

5) Causeway
 * In particular, we need additional maps, not just the one of the mortuary temple., , would all be very helpful, or even necessary to be really able to follow the description.
 * where gaps formed as a result of the wadi – I do not understand this part. Was the wadi eroding the causeway, resulting in gaps?
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I miss some general description how the causeway was constructed. It had side walls, and a roof?
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You mention them, but only while describing them in detail, assuming that the reader already knows they are present. It already would help to add the word "roofed" somewhere right at the beginning of the causeway section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The discovery of a similar relief painting on the blocks of Sahure's causeway casts doubt on this hypothesis. – But why?
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Grimal briefly mentions the same scene – the same scene elsewhere? Or precisely the one seen in Unas pyramid?
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, so why do you need to state this after all? You could just write "Grimal suggested that this scene foreshadowed …", which feels more concise to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

6) Additional points
 * Comma usage seems to be a bit off:
 * Their irregular placement, resulted in the northern storerooms being twice as numerous as the southern.
 * Remnants of a granite false door bearing an inscription concerning the souls of the residents of Nekhen and Buto, marks what little of the offering hall has been preserved.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Please check for other instances.
 * In this case, it too has been completely destroyed. – why is "in this case" needed? How do we know the dimensions if it has been "completely destroyed"? Maybe change to "largely destroyed"?
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Leaning oppose for now, as issues appear to be too numerous. I will be happy to switch to support when things are addressed, however. First comments above; comments on other parts may follow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to address all of your comments. I've acted upon some of your comments, and left comments under others. I've skipped the maps for the time being because I will need to check them myself for accuracy. The third map, for example, that you link is almost certainly wrong. Unas's causeway was about 720-750m long, the scale of the map implies around 450m in length. On top of that, the causeway looks very weirdly drawn and conflicts with other images of the causeway I've seen. There's several things that I would like to have been able to resolve, but can't because citation needed. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will take a new look soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems that access to literature is a problem. The work "The pyramid of Unas. A Piankoff, 1968" also is not cited, although it appears to be one of the principal sources. I understand that such sources are difficult to get, but did you try the resource exchange? For the Piankoff book, I should be able to access it via my local library if you are interested, but not before the second week of January. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure how to respond here. With regard to Piankoff... it's a translation of the Pyramid Texts found in Unas's pyramid. It'll make an interesting read if you want to know what the texts say, though I already have a book on precisely that from 2005 (which also covers the PT's in Teti's, Merenre I's and Pepi I and II's pyramids). I don't know if the book also contains any particular information of the pyramid itself (maybe on the pyramid and substructure, but not on the temples or causeway). Feel free to check it out, but I don't think it is what you think it is. I strong disagree that "access to literature is a problem". I've used 50 different sources, and was unsuccessful in getting 1. Oh well. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I was unreasonable. Good catch with the robbed contents, this is important. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * There is something I do not understand about the "Pyramid text of Unas" section, even after several reads:
 * The north and south walls are dedicated to the offering and resurrection rituals – The walls of the burial chamber, right? Or is this about the gable only? (maybe state for clarity)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The writings on the west gable in Unas's burial chamber – aren't the hieroglyphs preserved only the eastern half of the burial chamber? (maybe something to add as well?)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Egyptologist James Allen identifies the last piece of ritual text on the west gable of the antechamber – but nothing more on the antechamber?
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The penultimate paragraph again describes the different walls. Are these the same walls that have been discussed in the paragraph before? Or is this now about the antechamber? Is not clear to me.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The passage before the antechamber also has hieroglyphs, what about those? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * A small chapel was situated adjacent to the pyramid's north face – but none can be seen in the picture of the entrance. Maybe add that this chapel is poorly preserved, and was inferred based on the offset of the pyramid? Anything about the function of the chapel?
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding the double mastaba, maybe add that no pyramids for queens are present, in contrast to some other complexes? This might be an interesting background information, explaining the significance of the mastaba.
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Any info on the cult pyramid? Dimensions? Inclination? Function? Mention/description of the internal chamber? Currently it is mentioned without any further information, I think it deserves more. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, function would be disputed in most cases, but a "the function is unclear" would already be an important information for a reader with little background. As for the Lbrousse et al. book: The local library of the Institute of Egyptology in Bonn has it; no problem for me to go there and have a look. Will do that the next days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it now, its on the way to you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

support now – all the above has been addressed, and the article largely improved. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Support form SN54129
Opposing on the absolute dearth of semicolons, and that "indeed" is not used once. Changing to "support". Nice article, and clearly passes the criteria. —— SerialNumber  54129  15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for input
I'd like to turn your attention to this alt caption, and to the image generally. I used a reference image from Kurt Sethe (1922) (link for convenience) to create the map now in the article. I used the image scale, alongside a measuring tape and "pixel measurements" to try and re-create it as accurately as possible. There are some minor measuring errors of up to 10cm (the antechamber has a difference of .25m and is 3.5m, but that's because Sethe writes that the antechamber is 3.5m long, in contrast to Lehner's 3.75m quoted in the article text). I know the errors are there because Sethe writes that the first three registers of hieroglyphs (PTs 1–203) are spread across 4.065m of wall, whereas my wall is 3.98m (8.5cm/4-5px off). Using a measuring tape on his image I get 3.84m, which doesn't help, but his entire sarcophagus chamber is off by 14cm/7px (7.16m/8.6cm instead of 7.3m/8.8cm) which I've manually rectified. I guess my pixels are more accurate than his hands (but not really as you'll see in a moment). None of this would be overly important, the mortuary temple and valley temple are based off images that have no scale provided for example, except that I'm giving approximate measurements throughout the alt text. My concern here is obviously OR. I don't know how else to explain to the reader, who is reading the alt text because they cannot see the image, that the granite starts a bit ahead of the portcullis, and ends well behind it, except through the approximate measurements provided. I checked the 1.5m and 3.4m measurements and they match the reference image near exactly (1.5m and 3.41m). I also checked the 9.7m measurement and it's off by .62m because I forgot to do a conversion on the scale (I used 1.3cm as 1.3m instead of 1.2cm as 1m = 2*30cm errors = 60cm error). The image has now been corrected. It's now 9.08m which is either dead-on, or off by 8cm – it depends whether my measuring tape reads 10.8cm or 10.9cm which comes out to 9m or 9.08m using Sethe's scale (1.2cm per 1m). Does anyone have a suggestion on what I should do, or should I do anything? I've noted that the measurements provided are based on the scale in the image (50px = 1m). Pinging reviewers:, , , , , and co-ordinator:. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies in advance if I misunderstand your question. But if it's inconsistency between sources which you are unable to resolve, then the simplest course of action is probably a footnote—or perhaps hidden text—pointing this out to the reader; caveat emptor, etc., so at least they can then come to a judgement based on the same evidence you have. Incidentally, the folks yon at the WP:IMAGELAB are good with this kind of thing, if you want to save yourself a job of work. Having said that, they can only be as accurate as the sources (I guess) so might end up with the same issues as you have found.Notwithsatnding the amount of altext :) I recommend you enlarge the image as it has intricate detail (esp. text) that can't be appreciated at that size. See my suggestion here, using an |upright=1.5 parameter; although the image can be enlarged by clicking on it, that does present WP:ACCESS issues for some. Hope all is well!  ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quite prompt response. The source conflict is fine to handle, no it's just that Sethe doesn't give measurements for everything, he gives a scale. I'm wondering if my measurements using that scale and noting them in the alt text is acceptable, particularly given that my measurements can have a 1mm/8cm error. I used a lot more words than necessary to convey that. As to enlarging the image, I actually tried 1.2, 1.3, 1.5 and 2.0. Eh, it's difficult to read at all of those sizes, except 2.0 which is simply too big, and 1.5 conflicts with the header of the next section. I though about enlarging the text, but not all of it can be. I'll think about it. Thanks for your review as well btw. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - reping cause I'm a dolt who doesn't use "Show preview" all the time. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll just leave it as is with a note that this is Sethe's measurements. It'd be quicker for me to catch a plane to Egypt, walk into the substructure of Unas's pyramid with my measuring tape, and redo all the measurements myself, than to try and rectify all the disparities between Sethe's text, Sethe's ungefährer map and other sources. Perfect is the enemy of the good here. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think this is just about ready for promotion, but can I just check that has nothing further to add? Sarastro (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I have nothing to add. A. Parrot (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sarastro (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.