Talk:Pyramid of Khentkaus I

Possible typo

@Mr rnddude: The phrase "the tripe Ka hieroglyph" looks odd to me. I'm wondering if that is a typo for "triple"? I don't have access to the sources, so cannot check. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's a typo. Fixed. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pyramid of Khentkaus I/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 13:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soon. Tim riley talk 13:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've been lucky in the articles I've reviewed for GAN lately: all excellent, with little input called for from me before promotion. This has every appearance of being another such. A few small suggestions, for you to accept or reject as you prefer. None of them affect the promotability of the article, but I hope you will find them useful.

• Lead

• "One of her titles was of particular interest because it had not previously been known" – previous to what?
• "The chapel connected to a three niched statuary room – I'd hyphenate three-niched
• "a burial chamber bisected in two" – I'm not sure you can bisect anything in any other way than in two.
• "A settlement was built around her tomb" – we haven't had the lady's name since the first paragraph: it might be helpful to replace the pronoun with "Khentkaus'".
• "and likely occupied by priests – if you are going for BrE (though I see no pressing reason why you should) "likely" here should be "probably". The perfectly sensible construction you have used is, for some unfathomable reason, not used in BrE, though if you stick an adverb in front of it – "very likely" – it mysteriously becomes idiomatic BrE. "Most likely", later in your text is fine.

• Superstructure

• "had it been centered – if you're going for BrE I'd make this "centred".

• Chapel

• "a three niched statuary room – as above, I'd bung a hyphen in.

• Pyramid town

• "the final of these homes – reads a trifle oddly to my eye. Perhaps "the last of these homes", or "the final home" or some such?

• Valley temple

• "terminated into a large stepped basin – a minor ambiguity here: is it a large basin with steps or a basin with large steps?

Those are the few prose points I can come up with. I am not competent to comment on the content of the article, but to a layman's eye it looks impressive, well and widely referenced, and judiciously balanced. It is also a pleasure to read.

Over to you to consider the above points. I shan't bother putting the review on formal hold for such minor considerations, unless you wish me to do so. – Tim riley talk 17:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Tim riley. With regards to your first comment: 'previous to what'. Prior to the discovery of her tomb. I've re-written the sentence to: One of her titles was of particular interest because it had not been known of prior to its discovery at her tomb. I hope that's clearer. As to your last comment, I suspect you're imagining a round bowl-like basin with steps leading up to it. Forgive my rather crude illustration below:

|____________|

|_______|

|___|

The basin itself is rectangular with in-ward steps. I think this may be another case of hyphenation being required (stepped-basin). I've also corrected one minor error and added 'rectangular' for clarity. I've effected all other comments. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Splendid! (And I'd call the drawing ingenious rather than crude.) I know so little about ancient Egyptian archaeology that I can't presume to offer a view on whether the article has potential for FA, but the biggest difference between the GA and FA criteria, it seems to me, is the requirement of the latter for comprehensiveness. If, as looks probable to my layman's eye, the present text says pretty much all there is to say on the subject then it might be well worth considering a run at FAC. Meanwhile, my job here is to assess the article for GA:

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Tim riley talk 08:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Pyramid of Khentkaus I

• ... that an inscription uncovered at the Pyramid of Khentkaus I, identifies Khentkaus I as the mother of two kings, or, perhaps, a king herself and a mother of one too? Source: See FN25 (Verner, 2001, p. 262, though I recommend pp. 262-264 for full context).
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Alaskapox virus
  • Comment: In my own opinion, the fact that only one other Egyptian woman has ever held that title - Khentkaus II - is even more interesting, but that's not something I stated in the pyramid article and it's not tied to the tomb in any way. Further, with Khentkaus II, Egyptologists are confident with 'mother of two kings' (Neferefre and Nyuserre Ini) rather than 'king and mother of king'. With Khentkaus I, there's more of a debate, part of the 'Khentkaus problem'.

Improved to Good Article status by Mr rnddude (talk). Self-nominated at 03:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: I rephrased the hook fact slightly in the article so that all the information in the hook is explicitly stated, and repeated the citation on both sentences containing parts of the hook fact, so that they are both explicitly cited. Very nice! Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)