Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shepseskare/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC).

Shepseskare

 * Nominator(s): &#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Shepseskare, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh, the fourth or fifth ruler of the Fifth Dynasty (2494–2345 BC) during the Old Kingdom period. Shepseskare lived in the mid 25th century BC and probably reigned a few months at the most. This article includes virtually everything that is known about this pharaoh and is part of an effort to improve all articles pertaining to pharaohs and pyramids of the 5th dynasty. It is my first FAC, all comments welcomed! P.S: the article has been promoted to GA on February 7th, 2015, I do not know why the GA icon does not show up.

Support. I reviewed for GAN and thought then that this impressively comprehensive article was suitable for FAC. Rereading it I remain of the view that it covers a little-known figure about as thoroughly as is possible; the prose reads admirably, the sources are wide-ranging and well cited, the balance is fine. This article far surpasses anything I can find elsewhere on the web, and I am happy to support. I imagine a spot-check of sources will be wanted if there is a consensus for promotion, and as I am going to the British Library today or tomorrow will carry one out. (Iry-Hor: the GA symbol shows all right on my machine: try clearing your cache.)  Tim riley  talk    07:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks I now see the icon. Let me know if you find anything new on Shepseskare during your British Library trip!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment You should simplify the Reign column of the infobox to something like "Uncertain; likely for less than a year or seven years in the 25th century BC". All that detail and citation doesn't belong in an infobox; move it to a footnote or two.—indopug (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok done! This indeed clarifies the infobox.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see the FAC instructions and avoid using transcluded "done" templates-- they cause problems in archives. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Source spot check: I checked a 10% sample: refs  6a–b, 12, 26, 28a–c, 31a–b and 50. All absolutely fine. I haven't done the general source review as I find others are better at that task than I am. –  Tim riley  talk    14:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by RHM22
This is a nice article with much useful information about a very obscure subject (my favorite kind). It's nearly there, but I do have a few comments which I think are important to the quality of the article.


 * Lede section: "...and is likely the owner of an unfinished pyramid..." This isn't really correct, since Shepseskare has been dead for over four millennia. Maybe change it to something like "...and was likely the owner of an unfinished pyramid..." or "...was likely the owner of an unfinished pyramid..."
 * Ok!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Lede section: "Fifth Dynasty" is used in the lede, while "5th Dynasty" is used in other parts of the article. Additionally, the capitalization varies throughout the article; sometimes "dynasty" is capitalized, and sometimes it's not. This needs to be standardized throughout the article. My suggestion would be to Capitalize, based on our article on the subject and the various Egyptology templates used.
 * I agree, it should all be capitalize now, as in "Fifth Dynasty".&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Historical sources: "...Remarkably, Shepseskare is..." I'd probably remove "remarkably" here.
 * Ok I have removed it.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Duration: This is worded strangely: "...had a reign of only between one to two years." First, "only" adds a bit of awkwardness before "between." Second, "to" would normally be "and" in this context. I suggest "...only reigned between one and two years."
 * Corrected!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Pyramid: This section describes Verner's team as "Czechoslovak archaeologists," while he is himself referred to as a "Czech Egyptologist" earlier. I know that Czechoslovakia existed at the time of the 1980 expedition, but it might be a good idea to reword it a little bit to make that clearer to readers who might be familiar. Something like "a Czechoslovakian archaeological team...", linking "Czechoslovakia" for the unfamiliar reader.
 * Good point, I have updated the sentence with a wikilink to Czechoslovakia.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * General comments: Nowhere in the body of the article does it say that Shepseskare was a pharaoh. Keeping in mind that the lede section is a summary and not an introduction, it is essential that everything in the lede be found also in the article. Once you've gone past the lede, the article seems to assume that the reader knows who Shepseskare is. Also, the lede and infobox are the only places in which the era of his reign (the 25th century BC) are given. The century doesn't need to be wikilinked, by the way.
 * I agree, I have added a small section "Identity" with references about him being a pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That's all that I found on my read-through, other than a few typos and such that I've corrected.-RHM22 (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Support I'm changing to support, as all of my concerns have been addressed. I would consider integrating the 'Identity' section into one of the two succeeding sections, as it is a bit small. However, as it is, I think it meets our standards of quality. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I merged the "Identity" subsection in the "Contemporaneous sources" one. It is now the first 2 sentences of the subsection. This looks better since there is little to say about his identity.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks excellent. Very well done.-RHM22 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Great article. I also learned that Memphis is not where I thought it was... Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by A. Parrot

 * Source check

I've spot-checked the citations to every source available to me, including Shaw 2000, Clayton 1994, and the linked online sources. I found several irregularities.


 * The link for Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2005 is a duplicate of the link to Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000.
 * Yes it is a mistake, I don't have an url link to "Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2005". I had copied the entry of "Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000" and then filled up with the details of the 2005 one when I wrote the article but forgot to remove the url.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Why does the link for the Kratovac source lead to a video of an AP report that doesn't involve Kratovac? Shouldn't it link to this, or something similar, instead?
 * All the AP report came out the same day and the same day as the video with Kratovac as the author so I put her up. I thought the video was nice to keep but I have now replaced the video by the link you provided.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Clayton citation should be page 61 rather than 60, unless the pagination of your copy is somehow off from mine by one page.
 * Well I have the book as a pdf and it is clearly p. 60 on the book. Note that it shows up as p. 61 in the pdf reader.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's odd. It's definitely 61 in my copy, but if it's just a pagination difference, it doesn't matter. A. Parrot (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What's the page number for the Redford 2001 citation?
 * Unfortunately I have not noted it when I had the book. However the book is an encyclopedia organized in articles and the articles are rather short. This one is a couple of pages long and, with the title, would be easy to find for any reader with the book.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article title is missing. Which one was it? I suggest specifying the article's author, as well. The Morkot citation template in Eye of Ra is an example, if you're not familiar with how to specify chapter and author in an edited book. A. Parrot (talk)
 * This was due to an error of formating in the sfn template, so that the article name was not showing up. I have corrected this, the location is now visible, being the article "Fifth Dynasty" written by Hartwig Altenmuller. I have also located the page numbers and I have added those.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Verner 2000 transliterates but doesn't translate the inscription on the serpentine seal. (I can recognize the words "beloved of the gods… beloved of Hathor" in the transliteration, but my knowledge of Egyptian is so limited that I couldn't say with certainty that that's what it means.) Because translation of Egyptian requires such specialized knowledge, it would be preferable to find a source that does translate the text, although I know that may not be practical.
 * Yes Verner does not translate and I know of no source which does. The text is extremely simple, being a few words long, so I did the translation. I don't think this constitutes original research since the text has only four words that anyone with a bit of Egyptian can understand. Feel free to remove it if you prefer, but I think this would be a loss for the article.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'll let it be. A. Parrot (talk)


 * The Lehner citations are kind of mixed up. Citation 30a (in the caption of the illustration of Abusir) should refer to p. 142, not 148. 30b and 30c should probably be consolidated with the current Citation 52, as they all belong in that 146–148 page range.
 * Done.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find support in my copy of Verner 2003 for Citation 33. Page 58 is nothing but a photo. More concerning, I can't find mention of Khau-Ptah anywhere in the book, so 33b needs a substitute ref. The sentence supported by 33a ends with a direct quotation that I assume is from 34, so it's probably best to have only one citation at the sentence's end.
 * Again it is a matter of edition: my page 57 is a photo but the p. 58 (i.e. probably your 59) is text, as in the Goog books version here. About 33b, I had put it for "his reign must have been very short" for which it provides a reference. I realize that this is in the context of the tomb of Khau-Ptah, however refs 43 and 44 both already indicate that Shepseskare's name is omitted in the tomb, thus referencing the first part of the sentence. I have reorganized the refs for the sentence but I have kept it.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. The second-to-last sentence in the paragraph still concerns me, though, as it's not supported by a reference and isn't quite as obvious as the sentence that follows it. I'd be more comfortable if it were removed. The paragraph would still imply that Khau-Ptah's biography supports a short reign, without slipping into original research. A. Parrot (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, I have removed the sentence as you advocated.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Some sentences at the ends of paragraphs lack citations (the first paragraph of the Historical sources section and the second-to-last paragraph of Duration). I realize they're rather obvious statements, but it's best to have a source at the end of every paragraph.
 * Done, except for the second-to-last paragraph of Duration, I actually do not know what to put here: while we have refs stating that Shepseskare is not listed by Khau-Ptah and that Neferefre is, I don't have one reference stating that this Five-Dynasty account is more accurate than Manetho. Yet it is quite obvious.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. That sentence can stay. A. Parrot (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please check over your other sources again, to make sure all the links go to the right place and that everything is cited to the right page. I know it's easy to make mistakes because you think there's something in the sources that isn't there, or is actually somewhere else. I had to re-check the citations for Eye of Ra about three times.
 * About Eye of Ra, you have 6 problems with the sfn template for refs 10, 14, 18, 22, 25, 28. You can see these thanks to a special script for this, see User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I'm afraid I don't have time today to look over this article again, but I'll have time on the 16th to reply to you in detail. A. Parrot (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Other points


 * Should the lead section mention the alternate spelling "Shepseskara"? It's not a major difference, so I don't think it's absolutely necessary to include, but I thought I'd bring it up, especially as Verner uses it some of the time.
 * Done, I agree, I have added the alternate spelling in the lede.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I know that Verner's views are going to predominate in this article, as he's done the most recent and detailed work on the pyramid site, and that attributing his hypotheses to him is better than omitting his name and treating them as fact. Nevertheless, the frequent mention of his name might give the reader the feeling that it's slanted toward his views. To avoid that impression, I've made some edits to avoid the repetition of his name, and I toned down some of the language about his disagreements with Kaplony (here). See what you think of my changes, and consider whether you might want to do more along the same lines. Not a necessity, just something to consider.
 * Good point and well done!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe I can support this article if the referencing flaws are cleared up. A. Parrot (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. I've looked at the new references for the image, and they all check out. Good work. A. Parrot (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * What is the source of the information presented in the map? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. The image is entirely similar to the plan of the Abusir necropolis given by Miroslav Verner in the following source:

See in particular p. 602. I added this ref to the picture caption.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Added this info to the map's image as well for future re-users. Ideally all maps, graphs and other images depicting data should have source information (in theory at least). GermanJoe (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks like everybody is supporting this as FA, so what next?&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Iry-Hor: Once consensus is achieved, one of the FAC coordinators will come by and promote it. However, the process often takes quite a bit of time, so that plenty of consensus can be achieved. The reviewers might also request an image (already completed) or source review prior to promoting.-RHM22 (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I am discovering the FAC process so I wasn't sure what to do next. &#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.