Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shepseskaf/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2022 [1].

Shepseskaf

[edit]
Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Shepseskaf last pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty, who ruled Ancient Egypt for 4 to 8 years in the late 26th to mid 25th century BC. Shepseskaf's relations to his predecessor and successor are uncertain and very few activities are known from his reign. Strikingly, he broke with the tradition of his forebears who had built the great pyramids of Giza, and chose instead to have a (relatively) small mastaba tomb built for himself in a remote corner of the Saqqara necropolis. The reasons for and significance of this decision continue to be debated in Egyptology.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query by Support by WereSpielChequers

[edit]

Interesting topic, thanks for writing it. I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them. "He reigned most probably four but possibly up to seven years in the late 26th to mid 25th century BC." (my emphasis) Is a good sentence to have in the lede, but I'd expect a couple of sentences in the body of the text explaining that the chronology of early Egyptian history has not been precisely linked to our modern calendar. ϢereSpielChequers 08:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done WereSpielChequers Thank you for your comment, I agree with you so I have updated with the following (at the beginning of the "Reign" section):
In addition, all exact dates estimated for Shepseskaf's reign are detailed in the footnote [note 1], which is also available from the infobox. Also, did you know that in the infobox if you click on the [show] button next to "Royal Titulary", the full titles of Shepseskaf will appear in hieroglyphics with translation ? I ask this because often people don't notice this button. Iry-Hor (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making that change. I hadn't noticed the show button but have now tried it and like what it does. ϢereSpielChequers 10:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A causeway led to a valley temple which has yet to be located" Would it be more correct to say "A causeway is assumed to have led to a valley temple which has yet to be located" or even "based on similar complexes, archaeologists expect that there would also have been a causeway leading to a valley temple. Neither the expected causeway or valley temple have yet been found, and it is unknown whether they were demolished and the stones reused, or they were not built in his short reign and not built by his successors".
Done WereSpielChequers so the causeway is there alright, at least its beginning is there as it is visible on archeological maps (e.g. in Lehner's book). I wrote "Remnants of a causeway have been found, it is supposed to have led to a valley temple which has yet to be located" which is very close to what you proposed.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ϢereSpielChequers 11:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Family relations between the Pharoahs and queens of this era seem uncertain. We know that at a much later time the pharoahs were a very incestuos bunch, and a daughter could also be a grandaughter is there concensus among Egyptologists that this wasn't a feature of the fourth dynasty? ϢereSpielChequers 10:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it was a feature of the 4th dynasty as well since e.g. at least one of Menkaure's wife was his sister. But I wrote "daughter and grandaughter" because that is exactly what the source says, I guess Kozloff wanted to say some close female descendant. I have not yet found a source discussing incestuous relationship in the 4th dynasty royal family in particular and in Shepseskaf's case we do not know for sure what relationships he had with his wives since we don't even know for sure who they were.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we can't go beyond the sources. I have my suspicions that this may have lead to much more complex interrelationships than whether three Pharoahs were a father and his two sons or two brothers and a nephew, and we have plenty of historic examples of monarchs whose claim of descent from their predecessors was a tad sketchy, but the official line was that the current guy was the legit heir of their predecessors. But if the Eyptologists aren't saying that then we can't. ϢereSpielChequers 11:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well some Egyptologists do say that perhaps Shepseskaf didn't have such a perfect claim to the throne: perhaps he took power only by marriage. There is, however, no trace of struggle at the time so he must have been relatively legitimate, at least enough to be accepted as a king but perhaps not enough to be given a pyramid as explained in the article. This is only one hypothesis among many though.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Niches I understand, but magazines? Is this a meaning of magazine that is jargon within Egyptology? I'm pretty sure this era won't have had gunpowder. ϢereSpielChequers 11:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WereSpielChequers Yes this is Egyptologic jargon, it essentially means storeroom or storage-space. I have changed it so it is clearer.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for resolving my pedanticisms, happy to support this interesting and well written article. ϢereSpielChequers 21:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I hope to have a thorough perusal and then look in with a full review over the weekend, but from a quick canter through just now I notice that the spelling is a mish-mash of English and American: favour, favourite, hypothesises and recognised but center (twice), honoring and unrivaled. Either the Queen's English or Amerenglish is fine, of course, but it should be all one or the other, I think. (And I think Shepseskaf has got himself misspelled Shespeskaf in the penultimate para of the lead, though I didn't dare change it.) More anon. I'm looking forward to this. Tim riley talk 21:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley So I chose to put everything into British English, I hope I did not miss anything now. And you are right there were two "Shespeskaf" misspelled in the article, thank your for spotting this! I am looking forward to your comments. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are my suggestions for tweaking the prose. I have no comments on the actual content – which seems to me comprehensively authoritative, and hugely interesting – and I can only salute the author, with admiration and envy, for such mastery of a language not his/her own.

  • Lead
  • This is merely a suggestion, but as a layman I'd have found it helpful to have "mastaba" given a very brief gloss at first mention: " – a burial mound – " or whatever the correct description is. And failing that (or even as well as that) there should be a blue link to mastaba.
Done I have done both, now "mastaba" is wikilinked and I say immediately after "that is a flat-roofed rectangular structure,". I hope this clarifies the subject enough for the lead.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parents
  • "Shepseskaf was Menkaure's son based on a decree" – doesn't quite say what you want it to say. It was the hypothesis, not the parentage, that was based on a decree. You could smooth this over by rejigging on the lines of "hypothesised from a decree showing that Shepseskaf completed Menkaure's mortuary temple that Shepseskaf was Menkaure's son".
Done I wrote : "George Andrew Reisner who proposed that Shepseskaf was Menkaure's son. Reisner based his hypothesis on a decree showing that Shepseskaf completed Menkaure's mortuary temple.".Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In stark contrast with these hypotheses" – I might lose the slightly editoral "stark".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queens and children
  • "Egyptologist Lana Troy" – a false title has crept in here, which we could do without.
Done I wrote "Lana Troy, an Egyptologist," let me know if this is suitable.
  • Reign
  • "Indeed, an absolute chronology" – this is the third "indeed" in successive sections. Admittedly there are only two more, later, but one does just begin to notice them, and I might lose this one: the prose works just as well without it.
Done thank you for your suggestion the prose feels lighter this way now.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relative chronology
  • "Archaeological evidences seem to indicate" – one can see why you go for a plural noun here, but I don't think it quite works in everyday English. I think "evidence seems" is probably safer.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three historical sources go directly or indirectly against this order of succession however" – I'm not a foaming-at-the-mouth opponent of "however", which has its place, but I don't think it adds anything here, and I'd delete it.
Done ! Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unfortunately, the five cartouches between those of Khafre and Userkaf are now illegible" – no doubt it is unfortunate, but that isn't for Wikipedia to say.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duration
  • "The duration of Shepseskaf's rule is uncertain but it is generally taken to have lasted likely four but perhaps up to seven years" – BrE has the peculiarity (among countless others) that "likely" in this construction isn't idiomatic, and "probably" is normal. (Quite why we prefer the woollier Latinism to the crisp Middle English word I have no idea, but there it is. Americans have more sense than we English do on this point.)
Done thank you I will try to keep this in mind. This is also somewhat closer to how we say this in French with "probablement" taken to mean that there is more chance for than against something.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"L'anglais, ce n'est jamais que du français mal prononcé" (Clemenceau). Tim riley talk 16:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two historical sources report Shepseskaf's reign duration" – "reign duration" sounds alien to a speaker of the Queen's English (to this one, at any rate). I think we'd normally say "the duration of Shepseskaf's reign.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although such a reign length" – I think this variant just about passes muster as idiomatic BrE, and I shan't quarrel if you want to leave it as is.
I changed it to "Although this figure is..." is this better ?Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Activities
  • "The Palermo stone reports that the year of his accession" – could do with "in" after "that".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Finally Shepseskaf likely decreed" – another case for "probably" instead of "likely"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This material allows for rapid constructions" – "construction" singular, I suggest, here.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • End of Dynasty
  • "they likely belonged to the same family" – as before for "likely"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Location
  • "This remains unverified as no palace of Old Kingdom king has been located" – would benefit from "an" or "any" before "Old", I think.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decision to build a mastaba
  • "Hassan has put forth the idea" – "forth" is rather an antique term and "forward" would perhaps look more natural.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if Shepseskaf really did intend for his tomb to be a mastaba" – we don't want the "for" here: "did intend his tomb" would be normal BrE.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Architecture
  • "Remnants of a causeway have been found, it is supposed to have led to a valley temple which has yet to be located" – comma splice. Replacing the comma with a semicolon will do the trick.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Middle Kingdom
  • "The stele uncovered by Jéquier likely originated" – et encore
Indeed! Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as pavement for the temple floor" – I think "as paving" (without the definite article) or else "as the pavement for the temple floor" would be usual.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the deads of the surrounding necropolis" – again, I see why you have the plural, but I think a singular "the dead" is wanted here (twice).
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my few suggestions. I'll look in again shortly and – I confidently expect – add my support. – Tim riley talk 15:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley thank you for your comments, all addressed so far!Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief! That didn't take long. All my minor quibbles about the prose have been thoroughly dealt with, and I am happy to add my support for this article, which seems to me comprehensive, balanced, well and widely sourced, admirably illustrated and a really good read. Meets all the FA criteria in my judgement, and I look forward to seeing it on our front page in due course. Tim riley talk 16:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Funk

[edit]
Looking forward to it !Iry-Hor (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palermo stone and Dahshur are duplinked. You can highlight duplink with this script:[2]
Fixed thanks for the tip !Iry-Hor (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link cartouche?
Done now it is linked in the caption of the main picture of the infobox and once in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "duration uncertain, probably 4 years but possibly up to 7 years" Should this begin with a capital letter? Same for other infobox sentences, seem to be capitalised in all other articles I checked. You also do it in the sentence after "Monuments", so in any case its inconsistent.
Fixed you are right I think consistency is the guiding principle here. I have capitalized throughout.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Radiocarbon studies have yielded" What was used for the dating?
Done that is one hell of a good question ! The article explicitly states that multiple sources were used to evaluate the absolute chronology from the second to the early 6th dynasty: archaeological samples to measure fluctuations in radiocarbon activity, specific information on radiocarbon activity in the region of the Nile Valley (anchored by dendrochronology to absolute dates), direct linkages between the dated samples and historical chronology and relative dating information. Samples dated to specific reigns were collected from museum, collections and excavation material while certain types of material (notably charcoal and mummified remains) were avoided owing to their susceptibility to contamination. I have some text to the footnote on the matter.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bunefer is linked twice in close succession in the infobox.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk)
  • Link more names and terms in image captions.
Done this might have added duplinks with the main text though.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That should be fine, like the intro, the captions are separate from the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link radiocarbon dating.
Done once in the footnote and once in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ptahshepses is linked at second instead of first mention, if these are meant to be the same person.
Fixed yes it is the same person.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the fifth dynasty royal annal known as the Palermo stone" It has already been presented by this point, so the introduction could be cut here.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Verner points notably to the unfinished state of his mastaba to conclude Shepseskaf's rule did not exceed the four years attributed to him by the Turin canon." What is the correlation?
Fixed. A mastaba is takes time to build and the unfinished state of the tomb gives some indication on the reign duration. Indeed one of the first act of a pharaoh was to decide the location of his tomb and start works there (the Palermo stone notably states that Shepseskaf did so shortly after ascending the throne). These works stopped or were at least interrupted at the death of the king, with the successor sometimes deciding to complete the tomb, usually with cheaper techniques which can be distinguished from the original construction. Depending on the final state of the originally planned tomb, one can thus conclude on the maximum duration of the reign. Had Shepseskaf reigned longer than 4 years, his mastaba would have been more advanced at his death than it is, according to Verner. I have added a footnote with this explanation (footnote 9).Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note for "senuti shrine" doesn't explain what "senuti" means.
Unfortunately I can't help, I wondered the same question but couldn't find a source on the subject matter. It is likely that some scholarly article exists somewhere on the notion of Senuti shrine but I couldn't find one. The fact that the source referenced here (as well as other I found) does not translate the notion means it is probably unclear what such shrine were or at least that this necessitates scholarly discussion that is beyond the source's goal (which is translation).Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is during his second year of rule that Shepseskaf recorded" It was?
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alabaster statuette of Babaef from his Giza tomb G5230" Could establish context in the caption to what his connection was to the subject of the article.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "End of Dynasty" Why capital D?
Fixed it was a typo.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the meaning of his name be stated explicitly earlier in the article body, like in the intro?
Done added to the main text, where the similarity of Userkaf an Shepseskaf's names is discussed. Note that all of this is also given in the infobox (if you click on [Show] button next to royal titulary).Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mastaba is linked at second mention instead of first.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nowadays it is known as Mastabat al-Fir'aun, meaning "bench of the pharaoh"." You could state this is in Arabic.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the question on the senuti shrine, all is fixed FunkMonk. I hope this addresses your concerns so far.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find a brief comment about the Senuti shrine from Strudwick (2005) on p. 508: 'A building perhaps marked by snake stelae, possibly at Heliopolis.' Further referenced to Wilkinson 2001 [should be 2000], pp. 136–137 and MMA 1999, p. 171. Checking the first source – Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt (2000), pp. 136–137 – I find a translation of an inscription from the reign of Djoser: 'appearance of the dual king; introduction of the king into the senut(i) shrine 4 cubits, one and two thirds palms'. There is further details towards the bottom of p.137 continuing onto p.138. Checking the second source – Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids (1999), p.171 – is an entry on a doorjamb from Saqqara with snakes carved into it. I then thought to check Budge's dictionary for hieroglyphs, and he has an entry on it in vol. II p. 675, though it is spelled as senti: 'the two shrines of Egypt ... a double shrine of Ra which was symbolic of all Egypt'. I don't know if knowing the hieroglyphs helps you at all, though. As to what it means, I too have not a clue. That all being said, I don't think it's 'a senuti shrine', but rather 'the senuti shrine'. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude Amazing, I will put Studwick's sentence into a footnote ! For the "a" vs "the" senuti shrine you are right, I have amended the text with "the". I would still like to see an article on the matter but JSTOR did not turn up anything clear, in particular entering snwt returns too many results owing to it being also the word "sisters" if I am not mistaken (feminin plural of sn).Iry-Hor (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find! FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "theophoric" What does this mean? Link? Explanation?
Done I wikilinked to Theophoric name. A theophoric name is a name that refers to a god by embedding the god's name in the name of the person.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link sarcophagus.
Done at first instance of the word in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link necropolis when it is a standalone word?
Done at first instance of the word in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gustave Jéquier is the only historian fully named and linked in the footnote, make it just his last name for consistency?
Done you are right, plus he was already fully named and linked in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any idea how he died?
FunkMonk You mean Shepseskaf ? If so then no not at all: we don't have his body and as far as I know no archaeological nor historical source talks about his death.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Mr rnddude

[edit]
Spotchecks - Not done as nominator has an extensive FAC history
References
FN14 should be pp.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN44 should be pp.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN102 says pp. 2170 & 273 - I think '2170' was meant to be '270'.
Corrected thanks for spotting this!Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN140 - missing page numbers (199–201 corresponds to Mastabat el-Faraun)
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN162 should be pp.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography
Verner, Miroslav (2010). "Some considerations concerning the Old Kingdom royal palace (aH)". Anthropologie. XLVIII (2): 91–96. - Missing an ISSN
Added.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Verner, Miroslav (2001a). "Archaeological Remarks on the 4th and 5th Dynasty Chronology" (PDF). Archiv Orientální. 69 (3): 363–418. - Missing an ISSN
Added.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Etheredge, Laura (ed.). "Saqqarah". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 5 June 2022. - is cited once for a minor, non-controversial detail which is in my opinion fine.
But otherwise what is the status of Encyclopædia Britannica regarding refs ? Is it considered a reliable source ?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EB gets discussed occasionally at RSN and there's a divide in the community on reliability, see this most recent discussion and the corresponding entry in RSP. Some editors hold the opinion that it is a tertiary RS, others that it depends if there is a specific, subject-matter expert author, and others that it's a marginal source best avoided. I'm neutral on the matter. The article cites EB for a date for Shepseskaf's reign, which fits within the range of other RS, so that I don't think it's an issue. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ricke, Herbert (1950). Bemerkungen zur Ägyptischen Baukunst des Alten Reichs II. Beiträge zur Ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde. Vol. 5. Cairo: Institut für Ägytpsiche Bauforschung und Altertumskunde. - Missing an OCLC
Added.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El Awady, Tarek (2006). "The royal family of Sahure. New evidence" (PDF). In Bárta, Miroslav; Krejčí, Jaromír (eds.). Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2005. Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute. pp. 31–45. ISBN 978-80-7308-116-4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 February 2011.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link) - Has a CS1 error, but I have no idea what it means.
Fixed Yes it is quite obscur, but explained here. I have fixed the issue, the problem was that I was enforcing an harvid that was actually the same as the one generated by default by the cite book template hence it was complaining about the duplicate.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bárta, Miroslav (2015). "Tomb of the chief physician Shepseskafankh". Prague Egyptological Studies. Czech Institute of Egyptology. XV: 15–27. - Missing an ISSN
Added.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude All fixed !Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've left a note regarding your question on EB above. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, well I will be careful from now on with EB. I usually cite it only for dates regarding pharaohs but I always found it a bit unsettling that the author is often not given on EB's website.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to moderators by Iry-Hor

[edit]

I wanted to note that I am going on vacations from the 8th of July until the 20th and will likely be unable to respond to further queries until the 21st of July. At the time I write this message, the article has received 3 supports, has passed its image and source reviews and there is no pending review.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. In addition:
  • There is a p/pp error at cite 46, which should also use an en dash, not a hyphen.
Fixed it now appears as 45.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rice: the publisher is not "Routledge London & New York", but 'Routledge'. The |location= is 'London; New York'.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ryholt needs a publisher location.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto Callender.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto Gardiner.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I spent over an hour slowly trawling through each bibliographic entry and still managed to miss these. Do y'all use a script of some sort? or a method that's better at identifying if a parameter has been missed? Mr rnddude (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild you are quite an expert at spotting such things ! I fixed them all, I hope this will allow the article to reach FA status.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cheat, obviously. I think it's this script - User:Ohconfucius/script/Sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it was just a weirdly phrased sentence. I have removed the "Remark that", the sentence is now much clearer.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2022 (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/Shepseskaf/archive1&oldid=1096988291"