Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pyramid of Unas/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 [1].

Pyramid of Unas

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mr rnddude (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


SupportComments from Tim riley

[edit]

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

This looks an interesting article, which I think I'll enjoy reviewing. More soon. Tim riley talk 23:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just insert green text between pointers I believe I've dealt with. Thanks. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    • 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.
  • Pyramid
    • "small size, thus it is more likely" – "thus" is not a conjunction. A simple "and" would do the job.
Done Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "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.
Done Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "cartouche" – could do with a blue link.
Linked Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substructure
    • "….a small chapel. The chapel…" – perhaps "It" to open the second sentence?
Yes, of course. How annoying reading the same words right next to each other. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "stela" – another word unfamiliar to the lay person – can it be linked?
Linked Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "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.
Double quoted both, and done the same elsewhere. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Near burial chamber's west wall" – missing a "the" before "burial"?
Done Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "painted, however, whereas" – stronger stop than a comma needed before "however" (or you could leave the comma and change "however" to "but", perhaps)
Would a semi-colon work, or would it need to be a period? Thinking back on it, yes a semi-colon works in this situation. I try to minimize my use of however, but in this sentence I think it fits better. "But" is a bit too soft here. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pyramid Texts
    • "Unas' Pyramid Texts are the oldest" – Just "They" would avoid repetition, and might flow more smoothly.
I had it that way originally, and then I changed it. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "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".
replaced whence with where. I think whence sounds better here, but if it's frowned upon so be it. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
    • "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.)
I like numerical order myself, but in this case Allen, as an expert on these texts specifically, is more authoritative than Lehner. I'll have a think about it, though. I changed order in numerous places, however, I've left the non-numerical order is some places where the first citation is more important (primarily Allen in Pyramid Texts and Verner in Mortuary temple, though a few others as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tenses – "the Ba leaves" but "the Ba faced" etc – a bit inconsistent in this para.
Good point. Rewritten into a consistent past tense. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
Originally it said "are evidence of", but I just figured I could shorten it by verbifying evidence. I was aware though of its verb form already. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "south sides, each had a portico" – stronger stop than a comma wanted.
Full stopped. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Causeway
    • "preexisting" – the OED hyphenates this.
Hypenated Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A 'slit' was left" – not sure why the word is in quotes.
Removed quotes Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "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.
Accidental I'm sure. I recalled that you had mentioned the need for definite articles before false titles in BrEng. Apparentl AmEng doesn't care. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "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.
I've removed 9 instances of Egyptologist from the article – if you're leading excavations or investigations of a pyramid, it can be inferred that you're an expert. It does get repetitive, I agree. I usually add them so that it is clear that I'm introducing an expert, not Joe Bloggs from down the street with his homemade arsenal of thermite and C4. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
Primarily offerings and items for the cult, such as food offerings for the, aptly named, "offering ritual". The rooms were probably also used during the pyramid's construction to store food for the workers. The Serdab's three recesses may have been used for cult offerings, may have housed statues of the king, or, possibly, the room may have been a representation of the Amduat where Horus was buried after he was slain by Seth. In this case the rooms would house the "human head, falcon wings, and feline rear". I'll try to write up a couple of sentences for both the storerooms in general and the Serdab specifically. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, now you're making me read French.[2] Mr rnddude (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I've added a sentence clarifying the purpose of the storerooms; my statement that they were probably used to store food for workers during construction relates to the Fourth Dynasty projects at Giza but not the Fifth. I've also added a footnote clarify "expanded influence", and I've added a footnote to address the complexity of the Serdab's function. That's about all I could think to do. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes
    • I found footnote C fascinating. I suppose it wouldn't fit easily into the main text, but it's a pity.
I added the footnote in because I figured that a laymen reader would be left wondering why "their mere presence" gave them "efficacy", but trying to elaborate in text would be too difficult. It is a pity though, I agree. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)?
I link whichever authors I know have Wikipedia articles. I should add those links in the clean-up phase before noms though. It just slipped my mind. That said, I've linked as many authors as I could. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

[edit]

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
  • I think this quote sums up why I'm being specific with "kings and queens": "What is remarkable is that these kings' texts were almost immediately used in queens' tombs, and thereafter were quickly taken over by nonroyals, then eventually made available to almost anyone" Leonard Lesko(2001) p. 570. Their discovery in the tombs of consorts is significant itself. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Features of the texts - vague, say that it is either the contents or the style of the hieroglyphics.
  • Unas situated his pyramid - fussy - "built"
  • which themselves formed - drop "themselves"
  • comparable to the one that Khufu had built for his pyramid - comparable to that leading to Khufu's pyramid
  • 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)[reply]
  • Partly done. I need to check, but I believe the "structures" are primarily superstructures from tombs. Checked; buildings and tomb superstructures. All three sources say that they had to be torn down, Verner adds their re-appropriation to this. Should be clear now. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
How does "The monument's size was also inhibited due to ..." sound as a replacement for "Another factor that inhibited the monument's size ..."? Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fantastic. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  • Yes. Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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"
Recesses it is. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "A small chapel was situated adjacent to the pyramid's north face". Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ceoil: 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)[reply]
You would have a far more firm grasp than me, so that seems sensible, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The article is fascinating and really well put together. More please. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from A. Parrot

[edit]

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. Ceoil: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That seems fair and np with the duplicated. Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done – both links made, and heaps of italicizations. Should I also italicize Duat and Akhet, and any other such words? Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've seen all manner of variations for these myself. I'll leave as is on the basis that it's a proper noun/name, which are typically left with italicization per MOS:BADITALICS. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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…"
  • Apotropaia -> protective spells. Removed the ferry spells reference. The only example of a ferry spell that I could find in Unas' corridor was PT 321 which calls on the ferryman to fetch Unas' ladder. Hellum doesn't get more specific then mentioning "ferry spells", so I've removed it as an easier solution.. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both changes look good to me. A. Parrot (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.
There's already a second reliable source there cited to the same material. I added Cwiek because they say a bit more about the inscription than Verner does. I can remove it if desired. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
I was tripped up by the use of an ISBN instead of an ISSN. World Cat just says e-book. I've changed the template, and added page numbers. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. A. Parrot (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
I was using whatever casing the source used. If it was sentence case, I wrote sentence case. If it was capitalized, I capitalized. Easier to change 1 source to sentence case, than a dozen to capitalization. Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. A. Parrot (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  • I've rewritten the first cited sentence with a footnote on the offering list. I've removed the second cited sentence completely, though I do feel the need to note that the dates, though conjectural, are not Lehner's invention. Refer Smith p. 115: A few would date their composition as early as the predynastic or the early dynastic period, but evidence to support this is lacking. Included is a footnote to some of Morales' works. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • I have somewhat expanded the second paragraph to give a fuller view of the belief system, and then closed it by relating it back to the function of the texts. Most specifically, I've explained the significance of the Akhet, what an akh is and added a sentence on mutu. Truthfully, I could have just said: The akh is the resurrected spirit of the deceased. The texts serve to enable the transformation into an akh. However, I prefer a fuller view. I've removed all cosmographical references from the next two paragraphs. Unfortunately, as far as I was able to find, Hays doesn't get into depth on the content of any one pyramid, and I could only get a preview of Smith (2017). I have a balance now between Hays and Allen, with additions of a few other sources. I'm thinking that your opinion would be valuable in the interim. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  • Yes, it's on the next page, and in the last paragraph. To quote: the core consisted of six layers, built of rough blocks of local limestone that became gradually smaller as they neared the top of the pyramid. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.

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)[reply]

Hi A. Parrot, 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)[reply]
Ian Rose: So you want me to look over the prose? I guess I can do that over this weekend. Mr rnddude, I'll put any prose comments I have below this one. A. Parrot (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Di-did you just ping yourself A. Parrot. I suspect Ian Rose that that was meant for you. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(smacks forehead) Yes, that was what I meant to do. A. Parrot (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
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)[reply]
No, in this case it reverted itself on my computer when I was fixing the bordering. I fixed the numbers saved and uploaded. Then I was being bugged by the border so I fixed that as well. However, for whatever reason, the file had returned to its pre-upload state. I'd say failed save, but, how could I upload the fixed image (and you can check to history to see that the second version has the right numbering, but the third doesn't) if the file didn't save? Mr rnddude (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
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)[reply]
  • Done. I used to have Pyramid Texts named in the lede, but it looked awkward surrounded by endashes to separate it from the statement, so I just removed them. This is a good suggestion though. Implemented. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mr rnddude:: 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)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support by Jens Lallensack

[edit]

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.
  • I don't think it's necessary to add the dimensions to the lede. The pyramid's size isn't particularly significant here, save for that it's small. The causeway is detailed because of all the significant discoveries made there (in large part because of it, not just around it). The pyramid and mortuary temple follow a standard design found in all the pyramids from Djedkare Isesi to Pepi II (6 other pyramids). It's all in the IB anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • "[T]o know what is 'small' you need background" - I agree, but consider that for a moment. Imagine I make the statement "Unas's pyramid is 43m tall". Is that tall or short? The answer to a laymen is likely "tall". It's the shortest pyramid built in its time, but unless you already have the background knowledge that the other pyramids of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasty are between 52.5m and 73m tall, then how would you know? The laymen reader needs to be told that Unas's is a midget pyramid, that's what is important. That's not it though, it's that I'd be repeating the same information three times, and twice in the same section. It seems very much pointless, like adding an image caption and then incorporating that caption into the text. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  • This is what I've done. I've clarified that the entry into the temple is on the east side, and that the causeway connects to this entry. The concern is somewhat confusing to me. The causeway's orientation is irrelevant to the location of an object in relation to it. Whether it is running east-west, or north-south the object being south of it's end would still be in the same location (that is, south of the causeway). To paint the picture: if you take the orientation of this page to be N-S and this . to be the object, drawing a line NS from it or EW to it won't move the object. Moreover, if the object was south of a point halfway along the causeway, then the causeway could not be oriented NS because that would render the object inside the causeway. As stated in the article, the pits are south of the upper end of the causeway. The causeway ends at the mortuary temple, so the reader is well informed that the pits are south or south-east of this. At best, the reader now knows that the causeway connects to the east side of the temple rather than to some point in its middle (though if it connect in the middle, then the pits would necessarily be inside the temple). That's about as helpful as I can make it. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Access to the site required the construction of a long causeway – would be helpful to add "from the lake".
  • There are two places in that sentence that I can add "from the lake" to that would make sense. Which do you mean: "Access to the site from the lake required the construction of a long causeway ..." or "Access to the site required the construction of a long causeway from the lake ..." The former would probably be better since the site was accessed "from the lake". Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.
  • You have a valid point about describing the causeway which I had not done. I've added a sentence after it reading "The causeway had elaborately decorated walls covered with a roof, which had a slit in one section allowing light to enter illuminating the images". Whether it was inclined, or by how much, I don't know, and I've not read about it in my sources (or I'd have mentioned it). I'd personally say that the causeway was like a tunnel given its construction, but that's my interpretation of what I've read and not how any source describes it. I've also modified the preceding sentence for clarity. I'm amenable to removing the Khufu pyramid comparison, if its being retained is somehow a problem, but, I must say that it is exceedingly unlikely that anyone reading this article is unaware of Khufu's pyramid, the only surviving wonder of the ancient world. Amended on 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC): I removed the comparison. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most important fact, the Pyramid texts of Unas Pyramid are the oldest ones, is not mentioned in the lead.

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.
  • No step pyramids were built after the Third Dynasty in the Old Kingdom - the only possible exception is Neferirkare's pyramid, which appears to have been built as a step pyramid and then converted into a true one. The core is generally stepped, but the casing forms it's true shape. You can see this in the image in that section if you look closely at the fine limestone slabs and then the crude limestone core. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • This was a surprising pain in the neck to do. It's a given that almost all pyramids built after the Third Dynasty (bar two to my knowledge) were "true/smooth-sided", so it's unlikely a source will preface "Pyramid of So-and-so was a true pyramid". I cited the depiction in Lehner's book, a table in Aude Gros de Beler's The Nile (2000), and a general note on smooth-sided pyramids in Bard (2015). I prefer "smooth-sided" as a term to "true" (it seems to confuse people a bit "what's a true pyramid?" – "a pyramid with the geometric shape of a pyramid"). In any case, done in both lede (first sentence) and body (towards the end). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the German Wikipedia's article, it was the steepest king pyramid of its time. Maybe this deserves mentioning?
  • Mmm... none of the articles or books I've read mention this, though I'm aware that it is about 2-3 degrees steeper than the other late Fifth and Sixth Dynasty kings pyramids (each being between 53 and 54 degrees). Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  • So, I copy-pasted the entire section of the Unterbau from the .de wiki article into google translate to find what you're talking about. I didn't find it. Could you provide me with an exact quote and the source used, because I've read nothing of the sort relating to Unas's pyramid. I've read similar statements in other pyramids, but not this one. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd assume that the casing limestone was sourced from the Tura quarries, while the core was locally sourced. I checked a few obvious sources for this information, but I have not been able to get explicit confirmation—the specific cited source, Verner 2001d, only says that "The casing was made, as usual, of carefully dressed blocks of fine white limestone". Lehner 2008 says nothing of this pyramid's specific construction, but in a different chapter makes a general statement that "[t]he fine limestone for the outer pyramid casing was quarried at Turah and transported across the Nile valley". Lehner also writes "Each pyramid ideally had a quarry close at hand that supplied the bulk of the stone for the pyramid core". Lucas writes "Although limestone was quarried generally in the immediate vicinity of where it was required, the better qualities were obtained from special localities ... for example those at Tura (Troja), Ma'asara, Ayan (Ma'asara Tura), and Gebelein ...". I've added this to the Pyramid section of the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  • Mmm, yes that's probably correct. Most likely in the New Kingdom, the casing was removed for other projects. Notably, Khaemwaset conducted works on Unas's and other pyramids during this time. The inferior construction method employed by the Fifth Dynasty kings made them more susceptible to the effects of weather and contributed to the ruined states of the pyramids. However, that's an extrapolation of my own knowledge and other writing. I don't have a citation to provide next to any such statement, and, I'm guessing, from the lack of a citation in the .de article that the author over there didn't have one either. I can't do anything about this. Sorry. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a reference to the adverse effects that the construction technique had on Unas' pyramid in an image caption. I expounded very slightly that this statement holds true for all the Fifth Dynasty pyramids. I haven't found anything else despite scouring at least a dozen sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pyramid contains spolia of older buildings. Worth a mention?
  • I don't have access to Labrousse, Lauer and Leclant's Le temple haut du complexe funéraire du roi Ounas to confirm the statement. I've tried finding the source without success. I don't recall seeing it mentioned in any of the 50 sources that I've used in the article (if it had been mentioned I almost certainly would have added it). Mr rnddude (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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?

3) Location and excavation

  • and connects a line running from the pyramid of Sekhemkhet to the pyramid of Menkauhor – "lies on a line" maybe?
  • Person attributes are inconsequent. Sometimes they are introduced with "Archaeologist" or "Egyptologist", but in other cases are not introduced at all.
  • Refer to Tim Riley's review above. "'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) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pyramid was briefly examined by John Shae Perring and soon after by Karl Richard Lepsius; – both need a date.
  • If I had a date I'd have given it. The de.wiki article uses the same source that I do, just a different edition. Die Pyramiden 1997, vs The Pyramids 2001 (same source, translated). The exact quote: "However, it did not escape the attention—if only fleeting—of Perring and, shortly thereafter, of Lepsius." No dates provided. I checked Lehner 2008, no dates prior to 1897. The best I can do is give a speculative c. 1842–1843 for Lepsius, which I can source as the years he visited Giza, Abusir and Saqqara. For Perring similarly c. 1835–1837, for the same reasons. My concern there would be synthesis, though. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • an architect and Egyptologist Alessandro Barsanti – "the" instead of "an"?
  • 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"?
  • Moussa and another archaeologist Audran Labrousse [fr] – needs a comma, and the [fr] is non-standard and not used elsewhere in the article.
  • That's an interlanguage link. We don't have an article about him, but fr.wiki does. I can add one to Joachim Spiegel for de.wiki, but there's nothing for Mounir Basta I'm afraid. Double comma added. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  • The images are rather tiny without it. I've removed one that was completely unnecessary, the mortuary temple and pyramid texts images really need the upscaling – the numbers in the mort. temple are difficult to read, and there's little hope you'll notice the hieroglyphs in the sarcophagus chamber. "Much more" - I wouldn't, the article already contains 9 images and 2 maps with only two short article sections without illustration (excavation and later history). That said, I think you have a point about "additional maps". I'll follow up on that when I get the chance. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Only registered editors can change the size of the image that is displayed to them. I set the images according to how unregistered readers, to quote MOS "the vast majority of readers", are going to see them. The mort. temple without any upscaling is too difficult to read. The smallest I can make that image is 1.15. At 400px, you'll have no problem reading it, but at 220px, which is the what all non-editors see, you'll have trouble with several of the numbers (probably even with 1.15 upscaling). I've reduced all the other images scaling to 1.2. Log out of your account and take a look at it. The images are small for the majority of the readers. MOS:IMGSIZE makes no comment about keeping a "standard thumb size" to suit personal preference. It states "Only where a smaller or larger image is appropriate, use upright scaling factor, which expands or contracts the image by a factor relative to the user's base width." It even suggests 1.3 as a possible upscale for revealing fine detail (which is what most of the images in the article had been set to). I'm really not happy with the Sarc chamber image being at 1.2, the detail of the hieroglyphs and facade is best seen at 1.4. That's about as far as I'm willing to go without a consensus that I'm wrong. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In particular, we need additional maps, not just the one of the mortuary temple. [5], [6], [7] would all be very helpful, or even necessary to be really able to follow the description.

5) Causeway

  • where gaps formed as a result of the wadi – I do not understand this part. Was the wadi eroding the causeway, resulting in gaps?
  • I miss some general description how the causeway was constructed. It had side walls, and a roof?
  • 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)[reply]
  • The discovery of a similar relief painting on the blocks of Sahure's causeway casts doubt on this hypothesis. – But why?
  • This one's my fault. I've clarified that we're talking about a decline for the Bedouins during Unas's reign because of the climatic change in the middle of the millenium. Since similar relief artwork has been found in an older pyramid, the hypothesis that some significant decline occurred during Unas's reign is doubtful. Hope that's clearer. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grimal briefly mentions the same scene – the same scene elsewhere? Or precisely the one seen in Unas pyramid?

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.
    • 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"?

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)[reply]

  • Jens Lallensack 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)[reply]
  • Thanks, will take a new look soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)
  • 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?)
  • Most of the west half of the burial chamber wasn't inscribed with PT's, as stated in the previous section the walls around Unas's sarcophagus were painted to resemble the facade of the royal palace. The only part of the western burial chamber that had PTs was the west gable. As to preservation, Unas's are the best preserved of any corpus. I'll add a sentence on why that is. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Egyptologist James Allen identifies the last piece of ritual text on the west gable of the antechamber – but nothing more on the antechamber?
  • Ah, I see the issue. I'll leave an explanation here, but I'll need to fix that in the article. There are two types of texts in Unas's pyramid: ritual and personal (I intentionally left the categorization out because each source identifies categories differently). Unas's burial chamber is dedicated primarily to ritual, except the west gable which has apotropaia (protective magic). His antechamber is primarily inscribed with personal texts, except for the east wall which also has apotropaia. Hence "the last piece of ritual text" comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • The chapel is destroyed, but was inferred based on both precedent and trace findings. I'll add that in. As to function, it's unclear at best, but I'll see what I can scrounge up. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  • I think I read somewhere that Unas' decision to bury his wives in a mastaba is a departure from the standard practice of the time; both Djedkare Isesi and Teti had buried their wives in pyramids, as did Pepi I who had at least 9 queens' pyramids (for wives and daughters) built next to his pyramid. I'll see if I can find where I read that. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only work that I know contains the dimensions of the cult pyramid is Labrousse, Leclant Lauer Le temple haut du complexe funéraire du roi Ounas 1977. The one I can't find. I've checked Lehner 2008, Hellum 2007, Edwards 1993 [Orig 1947], Wilkinson (2000) and Verner 2001d. Wilkinson's book is a summary of every valley and pyramid temple discovered, and even it doesn't have the dimensions. Verner has an index containing the dimensions of every pyramid and cult pyramid that is known. Of the Fifth Dynasty, four complexes neglect to provide information for the cult pyramid. Two because they don't have them (Neferirkare Kakai and Neferefre), one which has so thoroughly been destroyed that the dimensions for the main pyramid are unknown (Menkauhor) and one for a reason I don't know (Unas).
    I've checked which libraries in Australia host the book. There are three, the nearest one is 500 miles (900km) away from me and the one after it is 700 miles (1200km) away. To put it in a German perspective, if you were in München you'd need to drive to Aarhus, Denmark for the near one, and to Göteborg, Sweden for the one after it. For that book, I can only suggest checking what libraries around you might have it. The only other book that might have it, is Rainer Stadelmann's Die ägyptischen Pyramiden 1985 (in German). Beyond that, I don't know of any work that gives that information. The function of the cult pyramid is disputed, though one hypothesis is that it held the pharaoh's Ka. I'll add that in tomorrow when I have the chance (this is a late night reply).     Mr rnddude (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Very much appreciated. The book was originally published in French, so if you need any assistance let me know. You might also be able to find the mention of spolia somewhere in the book (according to the de.wiki article it's somewhere between page 120 and 128) if you want me to add that in as well. The measurements are likely to be given in coudées (cubits) and the French term for cult pyramid is pyramide satellite. Thanks again. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose Support form SN54129

[edit]
Opposing on the absolute dearth of semicolons, and that "indeed" is not used once.
Changing to "support". Nice article, and clearly passes the criteria. ——SerialNumber54129 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input

[edit]

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: Tim riley, Ceoil, A. Parrot, Jens Lallensack, Serial Number 54129, and co-ordinator: Ian Rose. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: 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! ——SerialNumber54129 13:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 - reping cause I'm a dolt who doesn't use "Show preview" all the time. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think this is just about ready for promotion, but can I just check that A. Parrot has nothing further to add? Sarastro (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: No, I have nothing to add. A. Parrot (talk) 22:24, 13 January 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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pyramid_of_Unas/archive1&oldid=1136458072"