Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neferefre/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2018 [1].

Neferefre edit

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Neferefre a short lived pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt in the mid 25th century BC. There is nothing special about his reign, however his unexpected death meant two important things. First, it caused a bit of turmoil in the dynastic succession, and second his pyramid and mortuary temple were far from finished. Because of this, the pyramid was left relatively unscathed by grave robers, allowing us to uncover more statues of Neferefre than of any other king of the Fifth Dynasty. In addition, his mummy survived the centuries and reached us, showing that he died in his youth.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pyramid_of_Neferefre,_Abusir,_1970ies.jpg: given that publications of this photo predate its upload here (example), I'm concerned that the uploader may not have been the copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I don't know what to do here. Should I remove the pic altogether?Iry-Hor (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absent further details about its copyright situation, that would be safest. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Ok, would this alternative picture be acceptable copyright-wise ? Iry-Hor (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NikkimariaI was wondering: did you know that you could click on the [show] button on the right of "Royal titulary" in the infobox? It seems many people miss this altogether, so I am doing a kind of poll to check whether the infobox needs a redesign on this.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

I think two occurrences of "plateform" should probably be "platform", but I wasn't confident enough to go in and change them. That apart, I found this an absorbing article: easy to read, well and widely sourced, splendidly illustrated, and, as far as I can tell, comprehensive. I always enjoy Ivry-Hor's articles, and one of these days I may even stop mis-reading "Shepseskare" as "Shakespeare", but that's just my problem ("Old, Master Shallow!"). This is well up to I-H's standard, and I am very happy to support. Tim riley talk 21:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim riley! About the "plateform", you were right, the Oxford English dictionnary writes "platform" with no e. I was once more betrayed by my French mother tongue it seems. That said, I was wondering: did you know that you could click on the [show] button on the right of "Royal titulary" in the infobox? It seems many people miss this altogether, so I am doing a kind of poll to check whether the infobox needs a redesign on this.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't spot the button, and it would be a pity to miss such excellent supplementary material. Perhaps the info-box setting should default to "show", with the button allowing readers to collapse the sub-box if they wish. Happy to add my two Euros-worth at any discussion you initiate, if wanted. Please feel free to ping me. Tim riley talk 19:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

Very comprehensive and readable, a few nitpicks before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • primeval mound— At first I thought this was a slip for "primitive". Although it is eventually explained, it looks odd as it stands in the lead. Perhaps a note here, or avoid the term until it is clarified
I have added a wikilink to the Benben the primeval mound in Egyptian mythology. In addition, a short explanation is now given in the lead. Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "likely" is overused, there are other words for expressing probability
Damn! I agree, there was tons of "likely". I have removed most, thanks for noticing this! Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple references should be in numerical order, there are numerous places where you haven't done that, eg queen Khentkaus II.[35][3][5]
Fixed everywhere I could see it in the article. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • however, thereby—yuk, lose the "however"
Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this addresses your concerns Jimfbleak!Iry-Hor (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good now, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth edit

Most interesting and well-done. I've read this with the eye of an outsider, which is what most readers of the encyclopedia would be, making 20 or so small edits here as I went. Please revert any you think are misguided. Here are another 20 suggestions or questions, none posing any great difficulty.
Lead
  • ¶4 "Neferefre benefited from a funerary cult..." – Link funerary cult?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶4 "This cult took place..." – Maybe "Cult rituals" rather than "this cult"?
Nice suggestion! Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • To eliminate repetition, delete the word "sources" from the two subheads in this section?
Done good point.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporaneous
  • ¶1 "to witness a very short reign" – Replace "witness" with "suggest"? Or "imply"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶2 "...at a time when it has not yet been identified..." – Maybe "at a time not identified by earlier sources"?
Actually there was a mistake in the tense I used. I meant "at a time when it had not yet been identified", that is the sources discovered in Abusir indicated the existence of Neferefre's pyramid complex before it could be located by archaeologists. I put the version with "had".Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Historical sources
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Parents and siblings
  • ¶ "...whose filiation is suggested by..." – Link filiation?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consort and children
  • ¶1 "Late in this year however, the mastaba..." – Link mastaba?
Done very well spotted.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accession to the throne
  • ¶2 "who is responsible for the archaeological excavations of the Fifth Dynasty royal necropolis of Abusir since 1976." – Should that be "has been" rather than "is"?
Done. Since I am not a native speaker, I will follow your opinion on this.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reign duration
  • ¶2 Unlink "mastaba" from the direct quotation since it should be linked on first use in the "Consort and children" section?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶3 I'd be inclined to merge this one-sentence orphan paragraph with the short paragraph above it.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mortuary temple
  • ¶2 "Magazines for the offerings..." – Link magazine or add (storage places) in parentheses after "Magazines"?
Done I have replaced by "storage room", because it seems few people might know the meaning of "magazine" as storage place.
Mummy of Neferefre
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Funerary cult
  • "This also shows that vast agricultural resources..." – Slightly smoother at "Toward this end, vast agricultural resources..."?
I am sorry I don't understand what you mean here? The "This" in 'This also shows" refers to the fact that "no less than 130 bulls were sacrificed" indicated one sentence earlier. In this context I don't understand "Toward this end"?Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. The intervening sentence about the priests made it unclear to me what "This" referred to. I was thinking that it might refer to the feeding of the priests. I think you could eliminate any ambiguity by substituting "This number" for "This". Finetooth (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • Concise alt text would be nice even if not required. So far, only the Abusir map has alt text.
Done everywhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first four still do not have alt text. Finetooth (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problems with disambiguation links.
  • No dead URLS.
  • Minor overlinking in the main text. Miroslav Verner, Abusir, and Pyramid of Neferefre are each linked twice.
Done fixed, except for Verner as I did not find the second link to him?Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what happened with Verner, but I see no overlinks today. Finetooth (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth Thank you for your comments, I have addressed them all as you advocated.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your prompt response. All looks good to me with the exception of the four missing alt texts and the small matter, noted above, of my confusion about "This". I'm switching to support on prose regardless of how you handle these five small issues. Finetooth (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth As an absolute total dumbass I had put the alt captions in the article on Neferirkare Kakai rather than Neferefre. This is fixed now, although I do not know how to write an alt caption for the picture in the infobox. I have also fixed the issue with the "This". Thank you for your input! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree with your self-assessment; you are extremely astute. :-) The "this" fix looks fine. I searched "Template:infobox pharaoh" to see how this template works and then added "image_alt=something" to the infobox. All you need do is replace the word "something" with whatever you think the alt text should say. Finetooth (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Thanks for the info!Iry-Hor (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (incl. source review and eventual spot-check) from A. Parrot edit

I won't have as much time this weekend as I thought I might, so I'll be back for my final comments next weekend. I've made some tweaks to the prose already, but I'm putting more significant suggested changes here for discussion.

  • Sourcing: I haven't spot-checked the citations yet, but I will do so next week. As far as the sources' reliability goes, nearly all are rock-solid, recent Egyptological work. The handful of old sources are merely reports on artifacts and primary sources, and the news stories are based entirely on what Egyptologists say about recent discoveries. The only questionable thing is that the Luxor Times is hosted on Blogspot for some reason, but if that's he only place you can find the quotation from Bárta, I tend to think it's allowable.
Done. The Luxor Times is not the only place where the quote can be found, however it is the original source of the quote. All other articles on the subject, e.g. here they specify that this was what Barta told the Luxor Times. For good measure, I have added a second source quoting the Luxor Times article.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…a sun temple called Hotep-Re…" I'm not sure this name is needed in the lead section of the article, or even in the heading of the section about the sun temple, but it doesn't make a great deal of difference to me.
Ok so what about a middle ground: I remove Hotep-Re from the section title but keep it in the lead. I think it is a nice piece of information there, with the translation.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "King's mother", "King's wife", king's son: I'm never sure how to treat ancient Egyptian titles, but in any case they should be consistent with each other. The longer example of "king's eldest son" makes me think they're better in all lowercase. I don't think they should be italicized.
Done I absolutely agree.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Iry-pat and other Egyptian words: The first letter of iry-pat probably shouldn't be capitalized. Ideally, I'd like it to be transliterated, as many of the Egyptian words in the notes are, rather than transcribed, but I know it's hard to render Egyptian words in a consistent way when working from multiple sources, and sometimes it just feels easier to transcribe some words. "Hotep-Re" in particular feels like it should be transcribed so as to fit better in the article text.
Done. I have removed the capitalisation. As for transcription/transliteration I believe it is better to have it transcribed so that it can be read by casual readers. I have added Jrj-pˁt in the accompanying footnote for completeness but would prefer to keep "iry-pat" in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section titled "Pyramid of Neferefre" might better be titled "pyramid complex", because it's divided into subsections on different parts of the complex. I looked back on your previous Fifth Dynasty FAs to see what was done there, but the question doesn't arise in most of them because they aren't structured this way. You might want to change the section heading in Unas, though.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Behind was the earliest hypostyle hall of Ancient Egypt… possibly inspired by the royal palaces of the time." If the palaces had hypostyle halls, even if they were wooden columns, that would make this one not the earliest. "earliest hypostyle hall of Ancient Egypt whose remains have survived" or something to that effect.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…or because of external constraints on the location of the tomb with respect to other active cults in the area." This passage feels wordy and indirect. I can't be 100 percent sure that this reflects the meaning conveyed in the source, but if it fits, I suggest re-wording the passage as "…or because the activity of other cults in the area constrained the choice of location for Khuyankh's tomb."
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More comments next week, but I expect I'll support the article then. A. Parrot (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a hitch in the succession box at the bottom of the page: it says Shepseskare succeeded Neferefre, but the article on Shepseskare says Neferefre succeeded him. You might put "[[Shepseskare]]<br/> or [[Nyuserre Ini]]" in the box and do the equivalent in Shepseskare's succession box. That way, the succession boxes would match what the infobox says.
Done I updated the succession boxes of Neferirkare Kakai, Neferefre, Shepseskare and Nyuserre Ini in consequence.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primeval-mound claim may be a bit of a problem. First, the lead explains what the primeval hill is, thanks to earlier FAC comment, but the body text doesn't really do so (Note 10 links "myth of the primeval hill" but doesn't explain what it is, making the reader click away to the article on creation myths.) Second, my most recent source on Egyptian afterlife beliefs (Following Osiris, 2017) shows that the idea that pyramids were a mythic symbol is increasingly being challenged, which makes me wonder if primeval-hill symbolism would have been a consideration at all when hastily finishing up a dead king's tomb. That's not to say the primeval-hill assertion shouldn't be included, only that it shouldn't be treated as fact and probably shouldn't be in the lead. I'd say the lead should mention that Neferefre's pyramid was converted to a mastaba, and the explanation you added to the lead earlier about the primeval hill could be moved down into the article body at a relevant spot, probably in the section on the pyramid itself.
Done I was following Verner's interpretation, in particular note that the ancient Egyptian themselves called the monument a "hill" or "mound" (term i3t, which is translated this way in Faulkner's dictionary). I believe this is where Verner got his idea (plus the appearance of the monument). I removed the passage in the lead on "primeval hill" and put a clearer discussion in the relevant section. I added the sentence "Verner has proposed that the monument was completed this way so as to give it the form of the primeval mound, the mound that arose from the primordial waters Nu in the creation myth of the Heliopolitan form of Ancient Egyptian religion" directing the reader to both Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Benben. The footnote now only contains the alternative translation of i3t.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-checks: Most citations check out, but there's an odd habit of citing one part of a sentence and then leaving a latter section uncited. This habit creates problems. For instance, the quotation "until Neferefre's death" (in the Accession section) has no citation, though it seems to be supported by the subsequent citation 77—where the source passage says "until the king's death". I don't think this short passage needs to be in quotes at all, but it should be supported by a citation. Similarly, the passage claiming that more statues of Neferefre survive than of any Fifth Dynasty pharaoh, which comes at the end of a half-cited sentence, is not sourced. Please recheck all claims in the uncited ends of half-cited sentences. A. Parrot (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I have looked at the mid-sentence citations and corrected three in total. Concerning the claim on statues, I had simply forgotten to put the citation. This is done now.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A. Parrot Everything is done!Iry-Hor (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Support. A. Parrot (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Mr rnddude edit

This is my first time reviewing an FA candidate, so I'll try to explain my thinking behind changes that I propose. My thoughts are in reverse order (I'm reading from bottom to top);

  • "This large number testifies to the importance..." - The large number of 130 doesn't testify to anything at all. If I plucked a 130 feathers off a chicken, or if I poured 130ml of water onto the floor, or blinked 130 times at the wall, this would have no significance and would be trivia. It's the act of sacrificing many bulls that is testament to the importance of the funerary cults. I would either drop "large number" from the sentence or clarify that it's the "large number of animal sacrifices" that is important and not the number "130". The same statement applies two sentences later which begins "This number also shows..." which feels repetitive. In fact it might be possible to re-arrange the latter half of the paragraph to fuse two of the sentences together given how closely linked their topics are;
  • The act of mass animal sacrifice testifies to the importance that royal funerary cults had in Ancient Egyptian society and also shows the vast agricultural resources that were devoted to an activity judged unproductive by the Egyptologists Verner and Zemina, something they propose possibly contributed to the decline of the Old Kingdom. The main benefactors of these sacrifices were the cult's priests, who consumed the offerings after the required ceremonies.[30] or something similar.
Done, I agree this is clearer. I essentially wrote the same thing as you with a slight modificaiton in the first sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...stone temple on the pyramid eastern side" - I think you mean pyramid's eastern side.
Done As far as I know I cannot grammatically use an "s" ending for non-animated things (e.g. "the car's windows" is not correct). So I wrote "on the eastern side of the pyramid" instead.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Iry-Hor: Except... it is correct to say the car's windows... or the house's windows or the aircraft's windows. A maybe more digestible example would be "All the world's oceans make up 70% of the Earth's surface area". Both the "world" and the "Earth" are inanimate, I think you'd agree. You can place an 's for non-animated (which is more correctly inanimate) objects whenever the inanimate object is the possessor of the subject. The car possesses the windows, in your example example, or the world possesses the ocean and the Earth possesses the surface, in mine. Your recast of the sentence is fine though. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My English lessons wre all wrong then, or maybe I don't remember well. Are we sure this is not American vs British English?Iry-Hor (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never heard of such a rule. Apparently it's one of those unfounded rules of English usage that circulate widely, but unlike most of them, it's specifically spread to people who learn English as a second language rather than to native speakers. Anyway, here] is an authoritative style guide pointing out that the rule is unfounded. Here is a specifically British guide (you'll have to scroll down) that says it's "usual" to use "of" with inanimate objects, but it doesn't treat the possessive as wrong. A. Parrot (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I am glad to learn that this construction is grammatically acceptable. I have thus put "Pyramid's eastern side", which is definitely quicker to read than "the eastern side of the pyramid".Iry-Hor (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...who abandoned the task of covering the pyramid face and rather concentrated on building the mortuary temple in bricks and wood." - The "and rather concentrated" in this sentence doesn't read well to me. I'm reading it as "rather concentrated" as in "quite concetrated" and not "preferred to concentrate on" and this causes a mental jolt when I read the sentence. Perhaps drop "rather" from the sentence so that it reads; who abandoned the task of covering the pyramid face and [instead] concentrated on building the mortuary temple in bricks and wood [or here: instead]. Instead might fit better than rather.
Done yeap, "instead" is better.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...as well as what remained of the funerary equipment of the king" - Eh, I know king and pharaoh mean the same thing, but, try to stick to either king or pharaoh consistently rather than mixing terms to avoid confusion for the general public. You use pharaoh 19 times and king (excluding kingdom) 24 times throughout the article. I think king might be preferable as that would better reflect use contemporaneously because Pharaoh didn't come into use until much later historically. Though, Pharaoh is the much more popular term.
I actually disagree on this one. Using both "king" and "pharaoh" makes the text much less repetitive. I am well aware that the term pharaoh is not accurate historically-speaking, however it is commonly used nowadays for Ancient Egyptian kings as you observe. Since the article is written in modern English, I feel free to use the various words existing in the current language for the same thing, here king and pharaoh.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was further confirmed by..." - Either it was confirmed or it wasn't. Given the context of the next sentences: replace confirmed with corroborated.
Done I always like to use more variate vocabulary and corroborated fits nicely here.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was no evidence of brain removal..." - I suspect that there still is no evidence of brain removal [to this day]. So replace "was" with "is". Unless some evidence shows up which would then disprove the hypothesis this statement will remain true.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... as would be expected from post-Old Kingdom mummification techniques." - I've given myself a topic ban from using the word would in articles because of serious overuse of it, so this may just be my self-imposed article space TBAN talking here, but, again "would be" can be replaced with "is" or even dropped completely to form: There is no evidence of brain removal[,] as [is] expected from post-Old Kingdom mummification techniques. Though this is a minor nitpick on my part.
Done. I wrote " There is no evidence of brain removal as expected from post-Old Kingdom mummification techniques" which is more direct and just as correct (wiz the source), so to be prefered.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... which yielded a 2628–2393 BC interval for the human remains ..." - I just don't like this construction, but, have no idea how to improve it. Interval in mathematical terms would be fine here, but, in common parlance it refers to a break or a pause not so much the period between two points. You know I had this problem with Djoser and the many disagreements on dates between authors. I struggled to come up with a good way to write all the suggested intervals into coherent sentences and just decided on "reigned, according to x, during the period of XXXA-XXXB BC". It looks so choppy. I'll offer an entirely new sentence instead: Radiocarbon testing dated the human remains to the period intervening 2628–2393 BC, which is in close correspondence to the estimated dates for the Fifth Dynasty, thereby offering final confirmation of the identity of the mummy or more complexly Radiocarbon testing dated the human remains to the period intervening 2628–2393 BC, which, being in close correspondence to the estimated dates for the Fifth Dynasty, offered final confirmation of the identity of the mummy.
I have seen "interval" used in the sense of the distance or period between two points in the literature as well as in the sources. I don't see a particular need to change things here.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Shrugs* it's not an issue for me if you like it the way it is. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... whose mummy has been identified with certainty." - "With certainty" is redundant. It's having being identified implies certainty.
Done ok on this one, although the stpry of the mummy of Merenre shows that you can identify a mummy without being certain.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A bioarchaeological analysis of Neferefre's remains revealed that the king did not partake in strenuous work,[15] died in his early twenties at between 20 and 23 years old and that he may have stood 1.67 m (5.5 ft) to 1.69 m (5.5 ft) in height.[101]

    The remains of a second individual were discovered in the burial chamber, but those proved to belong to an individual from the late medieval era, who likely lived during the 14th century AD. He had simply been laid on rags and covered with sand for his burial.[15]" - These are two very short single-dual sentence paragraphs and don't look very nice at all. You could do something like this:
    • Fragments of mummy wrappings and cartonnage,[98] as well as scattered pieces of human remains, were discovered on the east side of the burial chamber of the pyramid. The remains amounted to a left hand, a left clavicle still covered with skin, fragments of skin probably from the forehead, upper eyelid and the left foot and a few bones.[99] These remains were in the same archaeological layer as broken pieces from a red granite sarcophagus[98] as well as what remained of the funerary equipment of the king,[note 11] hinting that they could indeed belong to Neferefre.[15] This was further [corroborated] by subsequent studies of the embalming techniques used on the mummy, found to be compatible with an Old Kingdom date.[15]

      The body of the king was probably dried by means of natron and then covered with a thin layer of resin, before being given a white calcareous coating. There [is] no evidence of brain removal, as [is] expected from post-Old Kingdom mummification techniques.[15] A final confirmation of the identity of the mummy is provided by radiocarbon dating, which yielded a 2628–2393 BC interval for the human remains in close correspondence with estimated dates for the Fifth Dynasty.[100] Thus, Neferefre is, with Djedkare Isesi, one of the very few Old Kingdom pharaohs whose mummy has been identified.[62] A bioarchaeological analysis of Neferefre's remains revealed that the king did not partake in strenuous work,[15] died in his early twenties at between 20 and 23 years old and that he may have stood 1.67 m (5.5 ft) to 1.69 m (5.5 ft) in height.[101] The remains of a second individual were discovered in the burial chamber, [alongside Neferefre's] but those proved to belong to an individual from the late medieval era, who likely lived during the 14th century AD. He had simply been laid on rags and covered with sand for his burial.[15]

      This uses the last sentence of the first paragraph to lead into the topic of the second one. It makes sense to refer to Neferefre by name after his identity is confirmed and results in two similarly sized paragraphs instead of one big paragraph and two stubby ones.
Done you are right it looks better now.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Here are my second set of... complaints [ :) ]:
  • "... their priests therefore having to live next to the temple premises ..." - replace "having" with "had".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... has long disappeared." - This is fine, just, I kind of expected it to be has long since disappeared.
Done, I will follow your inate sense of the language as a native speaker, "has long since disappeared" it is then.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The temple entrance comprised a column courtyard adorned with two stone columns and 24 wooden ones." - Two minor nitpicks here; (1) when I went through school we were taught to write out numbers under 100, rather than just under ten. I would have written two stone columns and twenty-four wooden ones. Although I notice that the article is consistent about keeping numbers above ten as numbers e.g. 12 not twelve. (2) "column" feels repetitive here as it's used twice in quick succession. I'd write; The temple entrance comprised a courtyard adorned with two stone and twenty-four [24] wooden columns.
Done for (2). About (1), the limit at ten is a somewhat arbitrary policy de facto decided in the earlier FA on the Fifth Dynasty (I think this was discussed in the review on Nyuserre, if I remember). I feel like I should be consistent and follow the policy now.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Behind was the earliest hypostyle hall of Ancient Egypt the remains of which can still be detected, ..." - This could mean two different things; 1) The earliest remains which can be detected, or, 2) The earliest remains and they can still be detected. If (2) was meant then put a comma behind Egypt to indicate that you are listing a new fact; Behind was the earliest hypostyle hall of Ancient Egypt, the remains of which can still be detected, ... or is it a semi-colon that's needed (?) Behind was the earliest hypostyle hall of Ancient Egypt; the remains of which can still be detected, ... If (1) was meant, then leave as is.
Unchanged: it is (1) that is meant here.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "East of the main hall was the "Sanctuary of the Knife" which served as a slaughterhouse for the rituals." - I can imagine a reader will ask: What kind of rituals? The funerary one's I'm presuming, so; East of the main hall was the "Sanctuary of the Knife" which served as a slaughterhouse for the funerary rituals. Unless you think sufficient context exists in the rest of the paragraph and article. Then just leave as is.
Unchanged I cannot do that because the source does not say the rituals were only "funerary". In fact, it has been suggested that the sanctuary of the knife was used as a slaughter house for several cultic activities, some of which might have been destined to Ra rather than a deceased king. Thus, unless I can find a source backing the claim that the rituals were only funerary, I would prefer not to write this.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neferefre's successor—possibly the ephemeral Shespeskare" - Every single time I read it as "Shakespeare" and then have to double-take. I literally read this as Neferefre's successor—possibly the ephemeral Shakespeare.
Ah! You are not the only one! User Tim riley who has done a number of Ancient Egyptian reviews suffers from the same ailment. You will notice that at the top of the Shepseskare article, there is a mention that he should not be confused with "Shakespeare" as a number of readers were confused when Shepseskare was featured on the main page. NOTE: the name is Shepseskare and not Shespseskare, there was a typo in the article, which I have removed.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This pharaoh also built a larger mortuary temple for his brother, extending over the whole 65 m (213 ft) length of the pyramid side but built of cheaper mudbrick and wood." - I think you're missing a citation here; you've put citations on every other sentence except this one. Also, which brother or supposed brother? Shespeskare (uncle or brother) has his own tomb, as does Nysurre Ini, and Iryenre had his funeral cult in the same place as his mother, Khentkaus II, so, was he buried with her?
Done citation added and I wrote "This pharaoh also built a larger mortuary temple for his brother Neferefre" for clarity. Nyuserre completed the mortuary temple of his elder brother Neferefre.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... only its lower courses had been completed ..." - Courses? you're referring to the interior here I presume, since they would have looked like mazes with various passageways and the such. I ask because in this period, Pyramids had stepped Mastaba's (like Djoser's) and I would have assumed you meant the lower steps were completed, although, that would imply that only the lower level interiors were completed as well. (Note: I checked the source directly; That of King Raneferef ... was even shorter. Although his pyramid did not progress beyond it's lowermost courses, the pyramid temple ...). I'm just curious what is being referred to with courses is all.
Unchanged At the time of the Fifth Dynasty pyramid construction techniques differ significantyl from earlier ones. The pyramids were built in layers (the "courses", I don't know why no source use the term layer, so I stick with the word "courses") of crude limestone and local desert stone rubble with retaining walls of limestone. A large open pit was dug in the center of the pyramid so as to built the subterranean chambers at the same time as the layers of the pyramid were built. There was no internal chambers as in the pyramid of Khufu. Because of the technique employed, the pyramids were cheaper and faster to built but if you remove the caising stones, then the rubble core is exposed and degrades rapidly. Unfortunately, stone robbers precisely took the caising stones (because they were typically of the fine, white, Tura sort) and the pyramid now look ruined.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the current academic view is that this number is an overestimation of his true reign length, which must have been shorter." - I'd say significantly shorter since it's more like two rather than twenty. Optionally, you can drop number from the sentence as it's not needed.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... archaeological evidence indicate" - missing "s". Either "archaeological evidences indicate that..." (for multiple pieces of evidence), or, "archaeological evidence indicates that..." (for a single piece).
Done is the evidences.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... 18 to 20 years old ..." - Might look slightly more professional to say ... 18 to 20 years of age ....
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... likeliness ..." - Likeliness... likelihood, maybe? Tiniest available nitpick.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Krejčí notes the lack of "king's son" title in relation to Kakaibaef..." - Either "of a" or "of the". Read this sentence aloud and you'll notice the issue. Maybe: Krejčí notes the lack of a title, ("king's son"), in relation to Kakaibaef... or Krejčí notes the lack of the titular "king's son" in relation to Kakaibaef. I think that last one sounds best.
Done, I took the second option because Kakaibaef certainly did have other titles (as virtually all members of the Egyptian upper class), so the first option does not feel right.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Late in this year however, ..." - which year? since "this year" changes every year and will only remain true for "that year". I think, assuming this year is 2017, you mean Late in 2017 however, ...
Done I meant in 2014. The way it is written, I thought the preceding sentence made it clear that I was talking about 2014. So I now write "Late in that year". Read the first and second sentences of the paragraph together and tell me if this is still unclear.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... was still only a crown prince, that is before his accession to the throne" - While I like what you've done here, it's a sort of emphasis, I think you're missing a comma; ... was still only a crown price, that is, before his accession to the throne. Though the entire latter half of the sentence is unnecessary as he certainly wouldn't have been crown prince after his accession.
Done I have added the comma. I would prefer to keep the explanation because I prefer to be sure the reader understands rather than assume he/she knows what a crown prince is.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... given the king's reign brevity." - In my English (which should be Br-ENG as I was educated in Aus.) this would be king's reign's brevity, although, you could do given the brevity of the king's reign. Reign brevity, however, doesn't work. It'd be king's brief reign, but, brevity sounds so much better in a sentence.
Done, I took the option with "brevity of the king's reign", which I prefer.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you're done with these, mostly minor, nitpicks, I'll have to read the article forwards to get the story. Reading backwards is great for copy-editing, but, terrible for getting the narrative. I learned about the king's death before I learned anything about his life. Well... you know what they say; once you learn how to die, you learn how to live. I have no idea how I picked up that quote either. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude Ah! That's a good one, you are right backward reading is best for small issues. I hope forward reading gives you the big picture.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't mind, I'll stop here today and look at the rest of the article tomorrow. Very nice work on this one Iry-Hor and, being interested in Ancient History including Ancient Egypt, I look forward to seeing future Fifth Dynasty Pharaohs being brought up to FA. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude Thanks for your comments! If you are interested in 5th Dynasty pharaohs, Neferirkare Kakai is in need of a GA review before it can come to FAC. The article is of the same standard than Neferefre so if you feel like doing the GA review, this would speed up the process a lot (the GA stage is by far the slowest because there are so few reviewers). Also, if you haven't read them yet, Shepseskare, Nyuserre Ini, Menkauhor Kaiu, Djedkare Isesi and Unas are all 5th Dynasty FA. There is also an FA on Sheshi (Second Intermediate Period).Iry-Hor (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the rest of the article Iry-Hor. You can find my comments above. I'll take a look at Neferirkare Kakai, if it's on Neferefre's level then it should be a breeze through GA. On a side note, you don't actually have to go through GA before FA, you can skip GA altogether and I know it takes forever to get someone to pick up a review (unless it's MILHIST, those get reviews in a couple weeks to months). Peer review is the alternative to GA if you're interested on getting someone's eyes on the article before putting it up for FA. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments: Can I just check ref 93 is correct in citing "pp. 77—778."? In any case, I shall be promoting shortly. Sarastro (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 It was a typo in the page number. This seems to have been corrected by Parrot.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Neferefre/archive1&oldid=1138467654"