Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Userkaf/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2019 [1].

Userkaf

edit
Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Userkaf founder of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt and pharaoh for 7 to 8 years during the early 25th Century BC. Userkaf built a pyramid of himself in Saqqara, however his main claim to fame is his sun temple, the Nekhenre, the first of his kind, a construction that set in motion a long tradition of building such temples during the subsequent Dynasty. This temple was essentially a mortuary temple for the setting sun. Its construction, separately from the king's own mortuary temple, shows a novel distinction between the king and the sun god that did not exist so clearly in the preceding Dynasty.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

edit
The article is excellent overall.
  • I don't understand this sentence in the lead "He had at least one daughter and one son, who would succeed him as pharaoh Sahure" - hesideancy followed by a statement of fact.
Ceoil So what is the issue with the sentence ? Is it that the first part reads like something uncertain while the second is an affirmation ? Would "He had at least one daughter and very probably a son who would succeed him as pharaoh Sahure" be clearer ?Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iry-Hor, yes, that seems better to me. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cults performed in the temple were primarily concerned with Ra's creator function as well as his role as father of the king - not sure what "cults performed" means. Should we mention rights.
Done I changed it to "cultic activities performed". I am sorry I don't understand what you mean by "Should we mention rights" ?Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DoneIry-Hor (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to his probable immediate predecessor, Shepseskaf, as well as the other pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty, Userkaf built a modest pyramid for himself at Saqqarah-North, at the north-eastern edge of the wall surrounding Djoser's pyramid complex. - This a stated a bit backwards (contrary..as well as...) - maybe "Contrary to other pharaohs..." Drop "for himself" (this informality is my main issue with the prose here).
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input!Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil Do you have further comments about the article ?Iry-Hor (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the statement the consensus among Egyptologists is that he ruled for seven to eight years need four refs - surely there is a source that summaries the positions.
  • Same for much longer than the modern consensus.[11][53][54][55]
  • Beyond such historical evidence - uh, is the tale of the papyrus Westcar "historical evidence".
  • considered particularly important as it is among the very few sculptures in the round from the Old Kingdom that show the monarch wearing the Deshret of Lower Egypt. - explain "in the round".
  • Another head which might belong to Userkaf - "represent" rather than "belong to"?
  • I am leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude

edit
I mean... obviously I'm going to help with the review process for this article. I'll get a start on tonight. Just finished work, will be heading home soon. I haven't before, but I can do the source review for the article too. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude Thank you for your help!Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and Spot checks

Considered to be resolved. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The general sourcing standard of the article is excellent and uses primarily authoritative sources. I do have a few specific comments on sourcing.
  • There are a few potentially outdated sources used: Breasted (1906), Daressy (1912), Gauthier (1906), Mariette (1889), Petrie (1897) and (1917), and Sethe (1903).
  • Breasted citations 56, 84–85 and 109. None of these appear remotely controversial, and the first cite is to Breasted's opinion.
  • Daressy citations 57, 68, 83 and 88. Cite 57 is to Daressy's opinion. I feel like cite 68 can be replaced with something more recent, will check my sources for such. Citations 83 and 88 are backed by other sources. I'm not sure Daressy is needed for these, and I'd almost certainly remove cite 88 which is backed by two other sources.
Done, I have removed 88.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gauthier citations 123 and 133.
  • Cite 123 is to the image caption. I'm going to call the caption into question here. Currently the caption tells the reader that Sekhemkhet, Teti and Userkaf own each of the cartouches from left to right. Gauthier says of the first cartouche that the pharaoh to whom it belongs is "absolument inconnu par aillers" (pp. 6–7) meaning "absolutely unknown". The second cartouche can refer to either Sekhemkhet's other throne name, listed in the Abydos King List as Teti ("Teti de la IIIe dynastie"), or to Teti ("Teti de la VIe dynastie"). The third cartouche is definitely Userkaf. The first cartouche reads, I think, (D45-D21-Y1-S12) transl. dsr-r-md3t-nbw or djeser-medat-nebu. I have no clue who that might be, and neither Leprohon 2013 nor the Abydos king list turned up anything even remotely similar. In any case, the caption is incorrect, the first cartouche is an unknown, the second is either Sekhemkhet or Teti (but not both), and the third is Userkaf.
  • Addendum comment: Actually, I think it might be Djoser in the first cartouche. It'd make perfect sense. Userkaf's pyramid is inside Djoser's pyramid complex, and guess who else is near by... Sekhemkhet. Hence Djoser, Sekhemkhet, and Userkaf. It wouldn't be the first time a transcription error rendered something unreadable. I'll see if I can dig something up on this image. More: Well, still going through Gauthier and one of his proposals is indeed Djoser: S'il ne faut pas y voir simplement, ecrit avec une variant orthographique, le roi Djousir de la IIIe dynastie (anquel cas Teti serait egalement le Teti de la IIIe pyramide), nous devons essayer de lui assigner une place dans le serie des souverains. He has much more to say bringing in the 11th, 12th and 18th dynasties up as well, but again, straining my abilities in French. In any case, as Gauthier says, "ce n'est la cependant qu'une pure hypothese" meaning "this is purely a hypothesis".
Mr rnddude I fully agree with your second reading, because the cartouche actually reads Djoserit Nebu, which is definitely Djoser. I don't know why I wrote Sekhemkhet since I meant Djoser since the start. My apologies for this strange mistake. Note that at the time of Daressy, these names of Djoser weren't well known and Sekhemkhet was completely unknown.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 133. Gauthier mentions the Ramesside origin for the tomb, but I can't find anything relating in Gauthier that fits with the rest of the sentence. Presumably Wildung 1969, pp. 74–76 is the main citation for this sentence, so perhaps it should come first.
I agree but per MOS the order of the citations must be numerical, hence I cannot invert the two references. This point was raised in previous FACs, always to have me put references in numerical order. I too regret that the order of the citations cannot reflect the order of importance with respect to the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... *Looks at citations* Given that Gauthier is cite 133 and Wildung is cite 134, and neither cite is used elsewhere, if you switch their order Gauthier will automatically become cite 134 and Wildung cite 133. The order will remain numerical. That said, not all your cites are in numerical order as is: The identity of Userkaf's parents is not known for certain, but he undoubtedly had family connections with the rulers of the preceding Fourth Dynasty.[25][10][26] There are a couple other instances that I'd noted, but I'm focusing on sources atm.
Fixed Actually Gauthier is also cited in 123 so I cannot switch them. All other cites should be in numerical order so I am fixing this as well.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... I've done it myself because we're miss communicating here. Gauthier is now cite 138, and Wildung is cite 137. Numerical order has been retained. You can look at cite 28/29 and 30/31 for a perfect example here. Cite 28 is Grimal, Cite 29 is Rice. Cite 30 is Rice, Cite 31 is Grimal. They retain numerical order. Revert if there's a problem, because I don't understand the concern.
  • Mariette citation 129. I'm not sure why this citation is here. Also, the name marked at the top of the page in pencil reads Ra-ne-kau, which fits with the hieroglyphs there, rather than Nykuhor. Wrong page?
Fixed I found a more recent and more reliable sources with more details about Nykuhor : Hayes 1978 book freely available. See p. 102 -103. I have replaced Mariette with this cite. Thanks for spotting Mariette's oddity!Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you've replaced the citation, Mariette isn't cited in the article anymore. You can move it to a "Further reading" section, remove it from the article, of find a random place to use it as a supporting cite. Up to you. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude I have added back several references to Mariette, citing ancient officials who served in either Userkaf's mortuary temple or in his sun temple.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Petrie citations 71–73
  • Citation 71a appears to check out against the source.
  • Citation 72: The seal is now in the British Museum cited to Petrie 1897. 1897 it's been 120 years who knows where that seal is now.
Fixed I wrote the factual "The seal was in the British Museum at the end of the 19th century".
  • Citation 71b-73 are cited to an image caption. The image is definitely of a seal from Userkaf. As to translation, I couldn't find it in Petrie 1897 and don't know where to look in 1917, but I'm personally of the philosophy that translations don't need to be explicitly cited (if they did, that would present challenges of their own). I note that Petrie dates Userkaf's reign to 3721–3693 B.C. Quite interesting how different they'd calculated the dates to be.
Old Egyptological dates were very much in the wrong, see e.g. Champollion's estimates for widely wrong dates. These shows how much the discipline has progressed ! As for the translation, it is sufficiently straightforward I think to be quoted as such. It is a very typical formula on seals.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voẞ (2004) is a PhD thesis, however the Gutachter (expert/assessor) for the dissertation is Hartwig Altenmüller, a recognizable expert. It is cited to two statements.
  • Statement 1:This observation is contested by Goedicke[100] and Voß for whom "the supposed proximity to Heliopolis for the choice of the site hardly played a role".[101] - Appropriate attribution of opinion for both Goedicke and Voß, but is Voß's opinion significant enough to be included? Also, what's the procedure for attributing quotes that have been translated? I typically put a footnote that a quote has been translated from the original, but, as this is already in a footnote, that's not going to be possible.
Yes since we are in a footnote and since the quote is not of primary importance to the article, I propose that we leave out the original non-translated version. I removed the name of Voss in the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statement 2: The sun temple of Userkaf first[106 - Voß] appears in Karl Richard Lepsius' pioneering list of pyramids as pyramid XVII in the mid-19th century.[107 - Verner/Zemina] - I recognize that Voß is cited at "first" because "erstmals", but she does basically say everything else that's in the sentence. The designation for the sun temple appears on p. 7 footnote 38 in Voß's work, but not in Verner/Zemina 1994. You can refer to p. 131 of Lepsius' Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien for more information, albeit he wouldn't have known what it is.
Ok I added the reference to Lepsius original work, but I don't see the issue with the other two citations. the point of putting Voss with the "first" was precisely because this is the one fact that she states and backs it, while the rest of the sentence is in Verner and Zemina. Is that ok or not ?Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[T]he point of putting Voss with the "first" was precisely because this is the one fact that she states and backs it - Are you sure about that? The sentence in question is: The sun temple of Userkaf first appears in Karl Richard Lepsius' pioneering list of pyramids as pyramid XVII in the mid-19th century. Voß says Das Sonnenheilig tum des Userkaf taucht in der Literatur erstmals auf LEPSIUS‘ Pyramidenplan ... [footnote 38] and [footenote 38] LD I, Bl. 32 mit LD Text I, 131: Pyramide XVII. That seems to me to be basically the whole sentence as written in the article. That and Voß gives the designation of the pyramid explicitly in the footnote, but Verner/Zemina doesn't (not that I saw anyway). Mr rnddude (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get the problem : the sentence is not a copyvio in any way, it isn't the same sentence after all. The info is correct and cited, what should I do ?Iry-Hor (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I... never said it was a copyvio. What? The point was simply that as Voß gives all the information in the sentence and also the pyramid designation, which I can't find in Verner/Zemina, then I don't see why Voß is cited at the first half of the sentence instead of at the end of the sentence. Nothing else, and certainly not calling it a copy-vio. Hope that's clear? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's only one source that appears genuinely questionable here: IMDb which, per WP:UGC, is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. It's not used for anything controversial, but it would be highly advisable to find a better source.

Initial comments on sourcing. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I picked this soruce because it gives the exact dialogue were prince Sahu says he is the son of Userkaf in the Sesame Street episode. I haven't found this quote elsewhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks
  • Sources that I'll be spot-checking as I have them readily available: Grimal 1992, Clayton 1994, Verner/Zemina 1994, Verner 2001abc, Altenmüller 2001, Dodson/Hilton 2004, and Lehner 2008. This should be sufficient for a spotcheck as it covers about 20-30% of all citations.
  • Grimal 1992: cites 22a–g on p. 75, cite 28 on p. 68, cite 31 on pp. 72 & 75, cite 32 on pp. 70 & 72, cite 33 on pp. 72–75, cite 53a–f on p. 76, cite 76 on p. 78, cite 114 on p. 116, and cite 116 on pp. 76–78
  • Well... this is daunting. Cite 22a–d check out. Cite 22e covers the location of the tomb for Nykaankh, but either there's another page or there's a missing cite with regard to the royal decree. Cite 22f and g check out. Cite 31 checks out. Cite 32 generally checks out although "now recognized as non-historical" is merely a statement of the obvious. Cite 33 checks out. Cite 53a-f all check out, although 53d isn't needed since 53e is cited to the same sentence. Cite 76 checks out. Cite 114 checks out, though you might clarify that it's "Table 3" as you do in other cites. Cite 116 for making it the second smallest built during the Fifth Dynasty after that of the final king Unas. Mmm... needs a minor clarification. It's the second smallest, by volume, king's pyramid. It's definitely not the second smallest overall from the Fifth Dynasty. By height it's the third smallest behind Sahure's at 47m (Lehner 2008 p. 17) or 48m (Verner 2001 p. 463). For clarity change "the second smallest built" to "the second smallest [built for a king/king's pyramid built]".
Fixed all the adjustments required were carried out.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clayton 1994: cite 7 on p. 60 and cite 36a–d on p. 61
  • Cite 7, cite 36b–d check out. Cite 36a appears to be a mistake cite. Clayton states directly that Neferhetepes is Userkaf's mother. I believe Dodson & Hilton, 2004, p. 65 is the desired citation.
Fixed, well spotted. This paragraph underwent numerous changes as I was working through all the hypotheses put forth and it seems that in the process Clayton's citation was misplaced indeed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verner/Zemina 1994: cite 38 on p. 118, cite 40ab on p. 119, cite 43 on p. 126, cite 47 on pp. 102 & 118, cite 49 on pp. 68 & 85, cite 51ab on p. 68, cite 93a–e on p. 102, cite 101 on pp. 53, 102 & 111, cite 106ab on p. 217, cite 113 on p. 50, and cite 119ab on p. 53
  • Cite 38 checks out. Cite 40a and b check out. Cite 43 augmented by other citations but does mention Nyuserre and Khentkaus in relation to each other. Cite 47 checks out. Cite 49 checks out, but I'm not 100% on the "Most Egyptologists" thing since I've seen both versions claimed in the same book ten pages from each other (Altenmüller 2001 on p. 598 says brother, while Verner 2001d on p. 588 says son – and this source is 7 years more recent than Verner/Zemina 1994). Cite 51a checks out, but 51b needs to be modified to p. 67–68 as the sentence starts on the preceding page. Cite 93a-d check out, cite 93e extends onto p. 103. Cite 101 checks out. Cite 106a and b check out, but it's a little bit weird to say "[i]t's true nature was recognized by" xyz when "the results of the excavations were something of a disappointment for" xyz. Cite 113 checks out. Cite 119a checks out but "[t]his might be due" is a poor paraphrase of "was almost certainly". Cite 199b checks out.
All Fixed.
  • Verner 2001a: cite 59a–c on p. 386, cite 60 on pp. 388–390, cite 62 on pp. 386–387, and cite 65 on p. 385
  • Cite 59a checks out, but it's in transliterated Old Egyptian, so good luck if you don't read it (heh). Cite 59b should be pp. 386–387 as the statement regarding its unfinished state is on the next page. Cite 59c checks out.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verner 2001b: cite 2a–f on p. 588
  • All cites check out. Minor comment with regard to cite 2e: that Nubia is south of Egypt is common knowledge, but not explicitly stated in Verner 2001b... presumably because common knowledge.
Fixed I added a ref pertaining to the location of Nubia south of Egypt.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verner 2001c: cite 3ab on p. 91
  • The first instance [3a] appears to be a mistaken citation as it should be Verner 2001b p. 588, but that's already there. The second instance [3b] is fine.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Altenmüller 2001: cite 4a–m on p. 598
  • Cite 4a–f check out. 4g I'd drop "might", as Altenmüller is adamant that he did. Perhaps replace "might" with "either", i.e. "either commissioned or enlarged the temple of Monthu at Tod." Cite 4h doesn't check out for me. Wrong source? I didn't see it in Grimal either. 4i checks out, but I think you're missing a cite for the previous sentence: Further domestic activities may be inferred from the annals of the Old Kingdom, written during Neferirkare's or Nyuserre's reign. 4j–m all check out. For cite 4m, I assume the other translations are in Janak, Vymazalova and Coppens (2013).
Fixed I added a new cite for "oldest" and new refs for the date of the Old Kingdom royal annals. You are right for 4m.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dodson/Hilton 2004: cite 20 on p. 288, and cite 34a–d on p. 65
  • 34b and c check out. 34d is a bit more complicated than presented. Dodson and Hilton argue that Khentkaus I was mother to either Userkaf and Sahure, but list her as a possible wife of Userkaf. I think adding a qualifier (e.g. "may have been" or other) to that sentence would more accurately represent Dodson and Hilton's views. Cite 34a should probably be presented as an example, rather than as a citation, but meh.
Fixed More to come tonight.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lehner 2008: cite 16a–d on p. 140, cite 95a–d on p. 150, cite 110ab on p. 151, and cite 118a–c on p. 141
  • Cite 16a, b and d check out. Cite 16c: I'm sure it is Manetho's invention (in fact I'm not, but I'm sure I've read that), but Lehner doesn't make this comment on p. 140. He just states the simple fact that Manetho lists him as the first king of the Fifth Dynasty. Cite 95a and b check out. Cite 95c: The four phases are attributed to Userkaf (phase 1), Neferirkare Kakai (phase 2), and Nyuserre Ini (phase 3) in Lehner 2008. Sahure doesn't receive a mention. In as far as this is concerned, Lehner 2008 isn't a suitable standalone citation to this sentence. Cite 95d is a supporting cite to the fact that slaughters were conducted there. Cite 110a checks out to the sentence it's applied to, but the preceding sentences appear to be missing a citation: It served primarily as a place of worship for the setting—that is dying—sun and was closely related to the royal mortuary complex with which it shared several architectural elements. These include a valley temple close to the Nile and a causeway leading up to the high temple on the desert plateau. Cite 110b checks out. Cite 118a should be to p. 140 not p. 141. Cite 118b and c check out, but a citation is missing for The core of the pyramid was built with the same technique as the main pyramid and the cult pyramid, consisting of three horizontal layers of roughly hewn local limestone blocks and gypsum mortar. The core was covered with an outer casing of fine Tura limestone, now gone. The pyramid was so extensively used as a stone quarry that even its internal chambers are exposed which must have been taken from a different source. I checked Verner 2001d pp. 278–279, but I can only cite that the pyramid was made three levels high and encased in fine Tura limestone. That and that the pyramid has near exactly the same dimensions as Queen Khentkhaus II. Nothing on technique or its use as a stone quarry.
  • I'll fill the above out as I get around to checking them. Anywhere where more than one citation has been applied, I'll assume that the second citation contains any information that is not relayed in the source I am checking.
Mr rnddude Fixed! So I am glad that you have pointed out my mistake with Lehner's citation regarding Manetho's invention of the dynasties. First I moved Lehner's ref to somewhere else where it is stated for the first time that Userkaf was the first king of the Dynasty. Now I tracked down the claim regarding Manetho into two books : The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt has an article on Manetho that makes it clear albeit indirectly that he divided kings into 30 dynasties which I have now cited, while The Delphi Complete Works of Manetho states this directly employing the word "invented" but I can't see the relevant page number on Google preview of this book. The claim is also repeated on the wikipedia article on Manetho however it is not clear which source was employed there.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I fixed the sources regarding the four building phases. Turns out Verner changes his mind all the time. The article on Neferirkare Kakai has a paragraph on the problem. In his Forgotten pharaohs book Verner states that the first phase was under Neferirkare but in his subsequent 2001 article Remarks he deems it unlikely that Sahure did not work on it and thus favors a first phase under Sahure... I have re-worded the article accordingly.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed added two cites for "It served primarily as..." and changed the sentence a bit. More to come soonIry-Hor (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 10: Egyptologists including Jürgen von Beckerath rather see Nyuserre's reign as the peak of the solar cult - "rather see" isn't the best wording here and might be a bit confusing. I'd replace with "consider" or "identify".
  • Footnote 8: ... in particular the name of the king's to whose reign they belong is lost ... - Should just be "king" or "kings" but not "king's" (possessive). ... and they might thus instead ... - I'm not sure that "thus" is correctly used here.
  • Footnote 6: I'm not sure what the existence of two Khentkaus' is supposed to prove about the relationship between Sahure, Neferirkare and Userkaf. How does Khentkaus II being Nyuserre Ini's mother prove that Sahure is Userkaf's son, and Neferirkare Kakai Sahure's son?
  • Funerary cult: Ramesses's fourth son, Khaemwaset (fl. c. 1280–1225 BCE), ordered restoration work on Userkaf's pyramid - and many others of the Fifth Dynasty as well. May be worth mentioning?
  • Funerary cult: In comparison, the official funerary cult of some of Userkaf's successors, such as Nyuserre Ini, lasted until the Middle Kingdom period - Debatable.((sfn|Morales|2006|p=311)) Malek and Verner both challenge the hypothesis that cultic activity continued through to the Middle Kingdom. Verner believes that any of the remaining cults ceased activity in the FIP.((sfn|Verner|2001|p=7)) (OEoAE vol. 1 p. 7) Malek offers that Nyuserre's cult may have survived,((sfn|Malek|2000|pp=244–245)) as does Ladislav Bareš, albeit in a very reduced form.((sfn|Bareš|2000|p=5)) (From AS2000) Unas' is the only other Fifth Dynasty king, that I know of, whose cult has received mention of being active in the Middle Kindom, but Malek contends that it was temporarily revived.((sfn|Malek|2000|p=256)) I think the conviction in the sentence needs to be lessened from "lasted until" to "may have lasted until", and "some" may need to be removed. I don't know any other cult that may have made it to the Middle Kingdom, contrary to the suggestion in the article that "some" survived.
  • Funerary cult: ... Userkaf benefited from a funerary cult after his death. - While I know what you mean, it's a little odd to suggest that someone has "benefited" from their funerary cult. That is unless Userkaf actually became an akh. You know, mythology and all that.

That's all I have time for today. I'll get to the rest of the article tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mortuary temple: ... or to the general topography of Saqqara and the presence of older tombs in the vicinity as expounded by Edwards and Lauer - It seems I missed Verner&Zemina cite 131a & b in my spot checks. The first half of the sentence is easily confirmed (131a), but the fragment here is taken from another work and is missing the requisite citation. I've verified 131b as well.
  • Mortuary temple: Verner rather sees a desire on Userkaf's behalf - "rather sees" again, perhaps "identifies" instead.
  • Mortuary temple: Alternatively, Userkaf's choice for the temple location on the pyramid southern side ... - Propose: Alternatively, Userkaf's decision to locate the temple on the pyramid's southern side ...
  • Mortuary temple: ... exposition to the sun - I think you meant exposure here, exposition makes no sense.
  • Mortuary temple: ... were extensively adorned in numerous raised reliefs ... - numerous is redundant here because "extensively adorned" implies the same. Perhaps "were extensively adorned with raised relief".
  • Mortuary temple: that would become common in subsequent times - I'd re-order this to "that would subsequently become common." In the used context, subsequent is by definition "following in time", so you've written "following in time times".
  • Pyramid architecture: ... its roof made of pented limestone beams - Pented? I couldn't find it in my at home dictionary and online it refers to Pentedrone, the bath salts drug. In other Fifth Dynasty pyramids the roofs are gabled, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean.
  • Location: Unlike all pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty, Userkaf built a modest pyramid at North Saqqara - Mmm... not all Fourth Dynasty pharaohs built pyramids, Shepseskaf had a mastaba built for himself. Replace 'all' with 'the' or 'any of the'?
  • Location: ... against that of a Khufu ... - Was that "a" here intentional?

More from me to come. All I have time for right now. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

edit

Based on this revision:

References and reference formatting

  • Reference 96 has very odd formatting, and I'm really not sure what you're citing exactly.
Kaplony's book is weird and made with chunks entitled by letters and texts....Iry-Hor (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not really convinced this is the best way to cite this, but since I don't have access to this source to understand what's actually going on regarding pagination, I'll begrudgingly AGF that this is the best that can be done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 108 is malformed.
Actually, I am trying to cite a whole series of books written over four years by these guys, the point being to have the complete excavation reports cited, plus it justifies the fact that the authors parcipated in these excavations. The citations is functioning as desired but perhaps the format isn't ideal. I don't know how I could do otherwise.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what you're doing, a sfn that displays as "Edel, Ricke & 1965—1969." is not the right way to do it. I'm amendable to |loc=passim (in place of |p, or |pp in the sfn template) if that's absolutely necessary. But the source provided indicates two volumes (of, presumably, more than two). Are you trying to cite something broader than that? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For web sources, the "website" should ideally be italicized only if it is also a periodical in some fashion. Historical practice has been to list the responsible entity as "publisher" otherwise. For example, the Arnold 1999 and "Head of King Userkaf" sources should not have their publishing museums italicized.
  • Breasted 1906 is actually a work in 5 volumes; the Internet Archive scan contains all five, but you should amend the entry in the bibliography to indiciate which volume you're actually citing. That should also let you just use normal page numbers for your references to this work, instead of the weird page/section (but really page) system that Breasted apparently thought was a good idea back in 1906. Also, this is a (non-French) book-form work, so it's (admittedly, long) title should be in title case.
  • IMDb really just isn't acceptable as a source. However, Don't Eat the Pictures is definitely notable (and Emmy-nominated) and I wouldn't want this cultural use to be cut from the article. Because this is a plot element, you should be able to cite it to the television program itself (as is generally done for film plots).
I will not support for promotion an article which cites IMDb, and have suggested a way to replace this citation. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really sure the "Wikipedia entry" note is necessary in Sethe 1903. I'm also not sure whether it's technically disallowed, mostly because I've never seen anyone do that before. If retained, capital-W Wikipedia. Also, it's possible that I'm just being dumb here, but I don't understand how the section-number citations to this work (or the linked web page) work.
Fixed. I would like to keep the link to the wikipedia article as I find it nice that we have an article on Sethe's work. Besides, the more wikilinks the better for such articles as there are few links in general pointing to it. As for Sethe's way to putting section numbers, I don't understand Sethe's choices either. I think he chose to have each text be given a separate paragraph number.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not particularly enamored of the idea that a wikilink is being added to this reference in a nonstandard manner, especially if the primary motivation is that the target article just needs more inbound links! Also, while I guess I didn't grok fully what was going on, can you point the external reference link to what you're actually citing, rather than an index of links to pdfs of sections of this work? At least some parts of this have viable pagination in addition to paragraph numbers. IF I could determine what you're actually citing here, I might be able to help suggest a better way to approach it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And stopping my prose review there. In general, I think this is well-researched, but I get the overall impression that it could do with the services of a good copy editor (which I shan't pretend I am). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage:, @Iry-Hor:, @Mr rnddude: Although I'm not the best copyeditor either, I've started work on cleaning up the prose problems, which I think are mostly the minor flaws that crop up with English-second-language writing (Iry-Hor's native language is French). I've addressed most of the purely prose-based problems that Squeamish Ossifrage lists and intend to look through the rest of the article in the next several days. But I found a problem regarding the temple at Tod: Wilkinson 2000 doesn't mention the granite pillar. The following ref points to Arnold 1996, which I don't have; is the pillar mentioned there? A. Parrot (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have Arnold 1996 (which may be 1992 actually) either, A. Parrot. There is a mention of a pillar at Userkaf's temple at Tod in here and a mention of a granite column bearing his name here. That suffices to suggest that there is a granite pillar. Presumably it's mentioned in Arnold. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Squeamish Ossifrage, Ceoil, A. Parrot, Mr rnddude Many apologies for my disappearing from wikipedia lately, I am back and will respond to all your comments within the next few days. I am looking forward to read you all!Iry-Hor (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Several of my initial concerns were not actioned, or at least not fully so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: As this has been open for a month now, we need to see something happening fairly soon or it will need to be archived. Sarastro (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 I have answered all the reader's comments and have asked for further input but they seem to be away for now, in any case not responding at the moment. What should I do ? Will the article not pass ?Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can leave it open a little longer. Maybe you could approach a few people and ask them for a review? Sarastro (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for leaving open. Would like to get back to this shortly (mid to late week) Ceoil (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to review this at the moment. Like Ceoil, I can come back to this in the mid to late week. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're into our second week since the above exchange and Iry-Hor hasn't been able to edit since then -- clearly there's still a way to go with several unanswered comments so I'll archive this now. I suggest that when Iry-Hor has time they work on all the outstanding points and then ping the reviewers for an informal peer review on the article talk page, after which (providing the usual two-week cooling-off period has passed of course) it can be renominated at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • The lead should say that his reign dates to the Old Kingdom.
  • "was the first Fifth Dynasty king to build a sun temple" Well he must have been first as he founded the dynasty.
  • "The Nekhenre essentially functioned as a mortuary temple" "essentially" does not sound right to me in this context. I would delete or replace with "mainly".
  • "Beyond the borders of Egypt, a military expedition to Canaan or the Eastern Desert may have taken place". You say below that he invaded Nubia and received tribute from Canaan or the Eastern Desert. This is not the same thing.
  • "He may have been the son of Khentkaus I marrying Neferhetepes" This is confusing. I assume you mean that his mother may have been Khentkaus I and his wife may have been Neferhetepes.
  • Parents and consort. This section reads as a string of names with no indication who they are. The sentence "Bernhard Grdseloff argued that, as a descendant of Djedefre marrying a woman from the main royal line, Userkaf could have unified rival factions within the royal family and ended possible dynastic struggles." is very unclear. What main line and what rival factions? You need to explain more fully or cut out some details.
  • You say in note 6 that it has been proved that Sahure was Userkaf's son, but elsewhere you say it is disputed.
  • "Verner sees Userkaf's time on the throne as significant in that it marks the apex of the sun cult,[note 10] the pharaonic title of "Son of Ra" becoming systematic from his reign onwards." I am not clear what you are saying here "apex" imples a decline afterwards, but the title becoming systematic suggest no decline.
  • "Userkaf's reign might have witnessed a recrudescence of trade between Egypt and its Aegean neighbors" I changed "recrudescenc" to "revival" but both words mean a restoration of a previous high state and yet you say that it is the earliest period for which there is evidence of commercial contacts.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

edit

I've copyedited; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • Userkaf was an Egyptian pharaoh, founder of the Fifth Dynasty, who reigned for seven to eight years...: I think this would read more naturally as "Userkaf was an Egyptian pharaoh and the founder of the Fifth Dynasty. He reigned...". As it stands, "founder of the Fifth Dynasty" sounds like the start of a list of attributes, whereas it's really a parenthetical description.
  • He belonged, in all probability, to a branch of the Fourth Dynasty royal family, although his parentage remains uncertain and the identity of his queen is in doubt. Userkaf may have been the son of Khentkaus I marrying Neferhetepes. He had at least one daughter and very probably a son who succeeded him as pharaoh Sahure. A couple of things here. The identity of his queen isn't relevant to his probable relationship to the Fourth Dynasty, but the next sentence is relevant. How about: "He belonged, in all probability, to a branch of the Fourth Dynasty royal family: his parentage is uncertain, but he may have been the son of Khentkaus I and Neferhetepes. He had at least one daughter, and very probably a son who succeeded him as pharaoh Sahure, but the identity of his queen is in doubt."
  • His reign heralded the ascendancy of the cult of Ra: suggest "began", rather than "heralded": to say that A heralds B implies that B has not yet started but will soon, but here I think you mean the cult of Ra actually began in his reign.
  • Nicolas Grimal, Peter Clayton and Michael Rice propose that Userkaf was the son of a Neferhetepes,[28][29] whom Grimal, Magi and Rice see as...: given the citations I assume it's not a mistake that Magi is added, but perhaps we could get his full name, since you give it for Grimal and Rice. And why is Clayton not mentioned in the second half of the sentence? His name doesn't appear to be on the sources you cite for the first half.
  • You have both "Papyrus Westcar" and "papyrus Westcar"; I don't know which is correct, but be consistent.
  • Not necessary for FA, but note 9 is odd. Where is the seal now? Is it not known?
  • Again not necessarily an issue, but I see that the section on Userkaf's sun temple is longer than the article it links to as the "main" article for that topic. Typically one summarizes subarticles, so they become shorter. Can you confirm that there is more to say about the sun temple, so that the subarticle will eventually be longer? If not, we either don't need the subarticle, or should shorten the material about it in this article.
  • Userkaf's sun temple was called Nekhenre by the Ancient Egyptians, Nḫn Rˁ.w, which has been...: suggest "The Ancient Egyptians called Userkaf's sun temple Nekhenre (Nḫn Rˁ.w), which has been...".
  • Both complexes were structurally very similar: needs some clarification -- only one complex has been mentioned so far in this section. The previous sentence mentions the royal funerary cult, so I assume it's the mortuary temple that is meant, but it should be clearer. Perhaps "The complexes for both the sun temple and the mortuary temple were very similar..."?
  • the temple's year-round exposition to the sun: I'm not sure what is meant here, but "exposition" is almost certainly not the right word.
  • What's a "magazine room"? Is there a suitable link?
  • Suggest cutting the sentence about Sesame Street; I don't think it adds anything to a reader's understanding.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Userkaf/archive1&oldid=1138474889"