Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Userkaf/archive1

Resolved issues from Squeamish Ossifrage

 * I think there are some template shenanigans going on? There's a lot of content apparently intended for the infobox that isn't displaying. I'm not going to get into the weeds here, but among other things, it means that quite a few references don't actually connect to anything in the article. For example, I don't think any of the Leprohon 2013 references actually resolve (and more on that source later). Whatever is going on in this sense needs to be cleaned up.
 * I'm guessing, but it may be something else, that you're getting tripped up the formatting of the IB. The royal titulary section of the IB is by default hidden. You need to click on "show" (right side) to open it. It's closed by default because it takes up a lot of space. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes everything that you are pointing to is hidden in the royal titulary box, you need to click [Show] to see it. The Leprohon citations are in there.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No one likes fixing this, and I hate to be the bad guy about it, but you have a lot of examples of multiple references where they do not appear in numerical order ([25][10][26], for example). Sorry.
 * Fixed no worries it's done !Iry-Hor (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Any time you cite multiple page numbers, the reference should read "pp." rather than "p.". See: #8, 31, 32, 33, 47, 52, 60, 62, and so forth.
 * Fixed!.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You have some page ranges with the wrong dashes. Page ranges need endashes. At the very least, #33 is an emdash. I didn't audit these very carefully, you may want to do a pass through all of them.
 * I think this has been fixed ? Although I am not 100% sure because for the life of me I can't see the difference between the two dashes.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * David 2001 should have the title in title case.
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * El-Shahawy and Atiya 2005: title case.
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Grimal 1992: You can safely omit "publishing" in the publisher here.
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Leprohon 2013: The title of this book needs to be in title case, as does the series title. I'm sort of going to AGF that a work published by the Soceity of Biblical Literature is a reliable source for an Egyptology article, at least for now (which I guess also applies to Strudwick 2005).
 * Fixed. The work has been cited by in other FA articles, Leprohon and Strudwick are both professional Egyptologists.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Magi 2008: title case.
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Mahfouz 2006: title case.
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The Mariette 1889 source in the Bibliography appears unused. If you do wind up retaining it, this title needs to be in sentence case (while watching for proper nouns) because the rules are different for French titles.
 * Fixed and it is used now.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Nuzzolo 2007 should have the book title follow French titling rules.
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Petrie 1897: title case
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Petrie 1917: title case.
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Quirke 2001: title case
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Rice 1999: title case
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "Sahure's Causeway": I don't think this reference is complete. The "Sahure's Causeway" section appears to be p. 9 of "New archaeological discoveries in the Abusir Pyramid Field" by Miroslav Verner, with a publication date of 2007-09-03. Also, for what it's worth: ISSN 1973-2953.
 * Fixed thanks!Iry-Hor (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * So, for the "Digital Egypt" thing, what I would do here is make Digital Egypt the "work" parameter, and add University College London as the publisher, which helps make it clear that this is a reliable source.
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Verner 1994: title case.
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Wilkinson 2000: title case.
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Prose
 * I have explicitly made no comment about whether capitalization needs to be adjusted on some of the German titles, because I'm not personally confident I know the rules.
 * The sentence about his daughter and son scans awkwardly for me. The "would" seems superfluous; perhaps instead: "He had at least one daughter and very probably a son who succeeded him, ruling as pharaoh Sahure."?
 * Fixed. I think this is among the prose fixes made by Parrot.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The lede calls the obelisk at his temple "distinctive", but there's fairly limited discussion of why it is so (any more than any obelisk is rather distinctive, I guess). I'm going to assume that the obelisk isn't extant, because otherwise, "distinctive" things are great choices for images.
 * Fixed I have removed the "distinctive" adjective. Actually Userkaf's obelisk was rather different from the one we still see today : it was much much larger and also shorter, a bit squat, and the essentially the size of a building.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "...identified as a Neferhetepes..." is there more than one?
 * Yes, imagine naming people with essentially the same names over 3000 years...Iry-Hor (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * link mastaba and Ptahshepses (unless we actually have an article specifically on the mastaba of Ptahshepses, but I couldn't find one)
 * Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * pipe a link for Hellenized to Hellenization (and capitalize it)
 * Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The George Syncellus / Africanus / Aegyptiaca sentence is awkward, although perhaps unavoidably so. Maybe consider something like: "According to the Byzantine scholar George Syncellus, Africanus wrote that the Aegyptiaca included the succession..."? I don't know, there's only so much we can do here, I think.
 * Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "a substantially higher approximate" is technically correct, but reads poorly. Maybe even "reign" in place of "approximate"?
 * Done covered by Parrot it seems.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * would it be appropriate to link "state-god" to national god?
 * Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a citation needed tag remaining, regarding Userkaf's pre-ascension role; this must be resolved.
 * I put the tag there, but subsequently forgot to mention it. The sentence in question is Userkaf's position before ascending to the throne is unknown, Grimal states that he could have been a high-priest of Ra in Heliopolis or Sakhebu, a cult-center of Ra mentioned in the papyrus Westcar. The only cite in the paragraph is Petrie 1897. I figure you meant to cite Grimal 1992, p. 75. Although, I think that comment in Grimal's book is about Userkaf's father, not Userkaf. Neferhetepes is Userkaf's mother according to Grimal, and her husband may have been a "priest of Ra, lord of Sakhebu". Though perhaps a different page was meant. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed refs added as necessary.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "...he was an older upon becoming pharaoh" needs work; in general, this sentence also does too much. Consider splitting it in two.
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "Userkaf might to have commmissioned"
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "...alterations of the temple in particular during..." needs a comma after temple. This sentence also probably does too much, and I'd break it at the colon. Is the source uncertain about its nature? Because whether it was or wasn't a "small mud-brick chapel" doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that "seems to" be one way or the other, unless that's following sources.
 * Fixed the source is clear: the chapel was there and made of mudbrick!Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There's a "where" instead of "were" in a note about cattle counts.
 * Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)