Wikipedia:Peer review/Menkauhor Kaiu/archive1

Menkauhor Kaiu
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review as suggested by the reviewer who passed it as a Good Article. The purpose of this peer review is to make sure that the prose and layout of the article is of FA quality as I wish to nominate it as a FAC. I would be very happy to update the article according to everyone's remarks!

Thanks, &#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Khruner

 * I'm not sure if I have to write in the linked archive, so I will write here. Good work as usual, practice gathered making GA/FA Old Kingdom pharaohs surely makes perfect. I can suggest you to standardize the way you write the dynasties, as you have both "Fifth Dynasty" and "18th Dynasty". Another thing is about the ownership of the Headless Pyramid: scholars have spoken, but maybe it should be mentioned that the pyramid didn't provide any name of its owner and the attribution to Menkauhor was a consequence of its datation and exclusion of the others 5th Dynasty rulers (but maybe I am wrong here!) --Khruner (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you these are very good points so I modified the article accordingly (also I moved your post to the PR page).&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
These are my thoughts on polishing the already very adequate prose:
 * Lead
 * "few artefacts datable to his reign have survived to this day" – I suggest omitting the last three words.
 * done!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Historical sources
 * "with 8 years of reign" – perhaps "with a reign of eight years". It isn't wrong as it stands, but this would flow more naturally in English, I think.
 * I agree, it is better.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Second para: numbers – there's no hard and fast rule, and in my own drafting I go to the opposite extreme (writing "fifty", "a hundred" etc), but I think there's a general expectation that one to nine are in words and 10 + are in figures.  Same in the lead and later, e.g. at Reign  – Duration, and Building activities – Pyramid. Entirely up to you, though.
 * I agree, my opinion is to write integers one to nine in letters and the rest using numbers. I apparently had forgotten those.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Contemporaneous attestations
 * "have survived to this day" – you could simplify this in the single word"survive"
 * &#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "as well a few sealings" – I think this should probably be "as well as a few sealings"
 * Well spotted!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Consorts
 * "The Austrian Egyptologist Wilfried Seipel" – I wouldn't bring in Seipel's nationality unless it's relevant.
 * .&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Tenses – "Seipel argues" … "Seipel attributed" – be consistent; I think the historic present, as in the former, is conventionally used as the norm in English.
 * Done!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Descendants
 * "either pro or contra" – purely on the grounds of plain words I'd make this "either for or against".
 * This was apparently corrected by someone else already.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "At the opposite" – I think the sentence would be stronger and clearer without these words.
 * done.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "deems this hypothesis unlikely however" – I'd lose the "however" (a word that creeps into everyone's prose – mine included – and usually adds nothing of value.)
 * I remember you pointing this out already in a previous article and I agree, I don't know how this one when under my radar.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Activities
 * "mines of turquoise and copper located in the Wadi Maghara." – this would be crisper without the "located"
 * done.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "dating to Menkauhor's lifetime" – would, I think, flow better with just "his" rather than the repetition of "Menkauhor's"
 * .&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * End of last para: I'd lose the unnecessary "as well".
 * .&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pyramid
 * "Menkauhor Kaiu's" – do we want the genitive here? Just "Menkauhor Kaiu" seems right to me.
 * Yep that is a typo, a remnant of a previous version starting with "Menkauhor Kaiu's pyramid...". I corrected it.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Funerary cult" – New Kingdom
 * "Menkauhor enthroned besides four other deified kings" – I think I'd make this "beside" rather than "besides".
 * Done, I realise I don't know the difference between the two! I shall read on this.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)k.
 * I apologise for the vagaries of the English language. In brief, "besides" usually means "in addition to", but "beside" normally means "alongside" or "adjacent to" but, er, is occasionally used to mean "besides". Oh, dear! It comes of being a mongrel language, I think.  Tim riley  talk    18:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Only a Brit apologizes for his mother tongue. Am I right? Being a French living in the UK, I have come to appreciate this kind of humor.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "all of whom built their pyramid" – probably better to pluralise to "pyramids" if they had one each.
 * yes.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. You bring what is to many of us a potentially dry subject vividly to life. This is top-notch stuff. Keep me posted, please, when you go to FAC.  Tim riley  talk    21:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you for your observations and efforts! I now feel much more confident about the quality of the prose in the article. It is with great pleasure that I will inform you when I bring it Menkauhor Kaiu to FAC.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from RO

 * 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.[9]
 * Could "at the end of the 25th century BC or early in the 24th century BC" be shortened to c. 2400? And is there a general preference in Egyptology to use BC and AD? Because I would have assumed they use BCE and CE, which seems more common these days in archeology in general.
 * For the first point, I would prefer to keep it has it is since dates for Menkauhor's reign vary from as early as c. 2440 BC to as late as c. 2360 BC. I feel like putting c. 2400 BC is giving too much credence to those few dates around 2400 BC, in particular since the most often cited and widely found date is 2421-2414 BC. For the second point, I have only seen "BC" so far in sources and in wiki articles on the subject. I don't mind changing but to be consistent this should be changed in all pharaoh articles, a meek 300 to 400 of them...&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Another point is that per WP:LEADCITE, that sentence really shouldn't have an inline citation, since it ought to be included with source in the article body. I'd also avoid stating that Djedkare Isesi was longer lived, as it seems slightly off topic.
 * Done, the information is indeed included and referenced in the body of the article. I also removed the "longer lived" epithet for Djedkare Isesi.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Menkauhor ruled for possibly eight or nine years, succeeding king Nyuserre Ini, and succeeded in turn by the longer lived Djedkare Isesi.
 * I think "approximately" might be better than "possibly" here, and I'd rework this to avoid using "succeeding" and "succeeded" in that clause if possible. Maybe this is the best way to say that.
 * Done for the first bit. For the second, I have kept "succeeded" but I have removed "succeeding".&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Khentkaus III may have been Menkauhor's mother, as indicated by evidence discovered in her tomb in 2015.
 * Since you've just stated that his family line is unknown, I'd leave this out of the lead; it's better in the body only.
 * Actually it is only mentioned that his father is not known for certain and no son or daughter of his has been identified. In contrast, his mother might very well be Khentkaus III.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * expedition to the mines of copper and turquoise in Sinai
 * This might be better as, "expedition to the copper and turquoise mines in Sinai".
 * done.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * well attested
 * If possible, I'd avoid using this phrase twice in the lead.
 * done.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Attestations
 * Order
 * I made a few copyedits and removed a couple instances of "in addition", which are almost always unnecessary. This section looks very good, and this article is enjoyable reading. I'll leave some more comments in a few minutes, but I want to park these here so I don't lose them. RO (talk)  22:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Family
 * The name of Menkauhor is a departure from those of other kings of this time period.
 * It might be nice to remind the casual reader that you mean c. 2400 BCE or 5th dynasty.
 * good idea, done.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You use "indeed" and "instead" to start two sentences, and I can see why you did that, but I think it might be too informal for an encyclopedia. Same with your use of "indeed" in the Filiation section.
 * done, I have changed these two sentences.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No consort of Menkauhor is known for certain
 * I'm not feeling creative enough to find a solution, but please find a less choppy phrasing for this.
 * done! Hope you like the new sentence: "As of 2015, no queen consort of Menkauhor has been identified for certain."&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Based on the datation of the tombs surrounding Khuit's burial,
 * I'll assume "datation" is French, but I still know what you meant. I think "dating" would work here, but I'm not saying it's brilliant. You could try: "Based on radio carbon dates obtained from". Datation also pops up in the Consorts and Descendants sub-sections.
 * actually "dating" is the only correct option here, because as far as I can tell the other tombs have been dated based on their construction techniques and the names of the kings mentioned in them, in particular no source speaks of radio carbon dates for these tombs. I have removed the word "datation" everywhere.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * These arguments are criticized by the Egyptologist Michel Baud, who observes that pharaohs could have had more than one queen.
 * If it's accurate to the source material, "could have had" might be better as "often had".
 * Actually Baud does not say "often had" because Seipel was referring to the "main" queen of the king, the queen consort, the great royal wife of the pharaohs. Some kings had more than one but others had only one (and many minor queens). Thus I would rather keep this as it is.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, they could instead be sons of Djedkare Isesi.[47]
 * As before, use of a word like "alternatively" as an introductory clause is considered un-encyclopedic by some Wikipedia editors. I had to break that habit when I started creating content here, so I can totally see why you used it here in this way.
 * I have slightly rephrased this.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Reign
 * I would do a word search for uses of attested to be certain you aren't overusing it.
 * fixed, "attestation" now appears only twice in the "Reign" section and "attested" does not appear anymore.


 * Menkauhor Kaiu is known to have ordered the construction of two major monuments during his reign: a sun temple for the veneration of Ra and a pyramid for his burial, known today as the "Headless Pyramid".
 * It might seem pedantic, as this has already been explained, but Wikipedians expect a source to follow pretty much any text that stands alone as a paragraph or section.
 * easy this is well referenced in the following paragraphs so I chose one reference talking about both and added it here.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Building activities
 * There must be a better term for this. Construction projects?
 * I wrote "Construction activities" since it seems that these were completed and thus more than "projects".&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, given the paucity of documents relating to Menkauhor's sun temple,
 * Here's a good example where furthermore adds nothing while decreasing the sense of formality expected in encyclopedic writing. As I said, I'm a real sucker for these myself.
 * Thanks for pointing this out, I shall now hunt them in my edits.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Menkauhor's sun temple was called Akhet-Ra which is variously translated as "The Horizon of Ra" or "The Place where Ra Issues Forth".[64][61]
 * Watch for nonrestrictive clauses without preceding commas, like the one that begins "which is variously translated".
 * comma added. (I am not sure what a "nonrestrictive clause" is).&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It is known to us thanks to the inscriptions found in the tombs of Fifth and Sixth Dynasties officials who served as priests of Ra in the temple.[66][67]
 * This needs a rewrite.
 * done.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pyramid
 * Menkauhor Kaiu had a pyramid built for himself in North-Saqqara, thereby abandoning the royal necropolis of Abusir, where kings of the Fifth Dynasty had been buried since the reign of Sahure, some 80 years earlier.[72]
 * This reads well to a layman, but I think Egyptologists would say he built a pyramid in North-Saqqara, even though he obviously didn't place any bricks or stones. Maybe I'm wrong to suggest you word it like Egyptologists, but that's my gut reaction to it.
 * You are right, Egyptologists do write it as if the pharaoh had actually built the stuff himself. This shocked me somewhat, knowing the effort that this must have represented for the real workers. But I changed it as you advocated since it is the way the professionals talk about it.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Originally named Netjer-isut-Menkauhor by the Ancient Egyptians,
 * If the original namers to which you refer were also the builders, you shouldn't say "by the Ancient Egyptians", because that's been established. Unless you mean the name its builders gave it is not known, but we know what later Ancient Egyptians named it, which would still be confusing.
 * This is the name that was invented during Menkauhor's lifetime (and most probably with his personal input or at least his agreement). The pyramid was then referred by that name throughout history, probably until it fell out of use, possibly when Menkauhor's funerary cult died out some time in the first millenium BC.


 * Owing to the ruined state of the structure, it is known in Arabic as the "Headless Pyramid", a name has since then been retained.
 * "A name" or "the name"?
 * "the name".&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Although the excavations failed to yield the name of the pyramid owner,
 * As with above, I think you should call him the builder not the owner.
 * Actually in Egyptology "owner" is often used to refer to the king who built a pyramid. It is a bit strange though so I changed it to "the king who built the pyramid".&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thus, personified representations of Menkauhor's agricultural domains
 * Drop "thus".
 * done.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This area regroups the tombs of
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "regroups".
 * fixed, I mean that the area "comprises" the tombs of these people.


 * New Kingdom
 * In addition, an inscribed block dating to the later
 * Drop the superfluous introductory clause.
 * done.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

That's all I've got. I made a few edits:, revert any that you disagree with. This is an excellent piece. Nicely done and as Tim said, please let me know when you take this fine contribution to FAC, as I'd love to take another look at it. It was very informative and fun to read, so thanks for your contributions. RO (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you very much for your extensive input. I hope the modifications I made in consequence will satisfy you!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is a fine article. Great job! My last point might would be to remind you to double check for comprehensiveness. I can't speak to the point, as I haven't taken a look at what source material is out there, but if there are any unused sources that add to this fascinating story be sure to include as many of them as is practical and prudent (one need not include all known sources, but be sure all important points are addressed). RO (talk)  15:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is one thing I can say for sure it is that the article is absolutely comprehensive. Not only do I include all the reliable sources that I have found on the web and in libraries on the subject but I have also been in contact with the Egyptologist Filip Coppens, author of a recent review article on Menkauhor Kaiu, in order to have all possible informations on this king before starting the article!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's excellent. Well done! RO (talk)  16:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)