This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neferirkare Kakai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles
We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.
Cleanup.
To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?
Standardize the Chronology.
A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)
Stub sorting
Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .
Data sorting.
This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
The article is well written and informative. All the minor issues have been cleared up. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pass
Here are my findings:
"As the other pharaohs of the Fifth Dynasty, Neferirkare was the object of a funerary cult after his death." - Should be as with the other pharaohs....
"Cylinder seals belonging to priests and priestesses witness to this cult during the Old Kingdom period, such as a black steatite seal, now in the Metropolitan Museum and bearing the inscription "Votary of Hathor and priestess of the good god Neferirkare, beloved of the gods." - (1) This is a sentence fragment, i.e. it's not a complete sentence, and I'm unable to parse enough from it to complete it. I've put the two fragments down below to hopefully illustrate what I mean. (2) I'd link "steatite" as it's an uncommon term.
Fragment 1: "Cylinder seals belonging to priests and priestesses witness to this cult during the Old Kingdom period" - What about them?
Fragment 2: "such as a black steatite seal, now in the Metropolitan Museum and bearing the inscription "Votary of Hathor and priestess of the good god Neferirkare, beloved of the gods." - Alright, I get that there's a black soapstone seal in the Metropolitan Museum with an inscription, but, what does this have to do with the first fragment? I think you've got two incomplete sentences stuck together.
I went to the source material directly. I can offer this alteration: Cylinder seals belonging to priests and priestesses witness to these cults during the Old Kingdom period carry the name of several Fifth Dynasty kings: such as one particular black steatite seal, now found in the Metropolitan Museum, which bears the inscription "Votary of Hathor and priestess of the good god Neferirkare, beloved of the gods" or Cylinder seals belonging to priests and priestesses witness to this cult during the Old Kingdom period carry Neferirkare's name: such as one particular black steatite seal, now found in the Metropolitan Museum, which bears the inscription "Votary of Hathor and priestess of the good god Neferirkare, beloved of the gods".
Fixed, I must have gotten lost or busy while writing this sentence. I prefer to write two sentences so I propose: "As with the other pharaohs of the Fifth Dynasty, Neferirkare was the object of a funerary cult after his death. Cylinder seals belonging to priests and priestesses serving in this cult attest his existence during the Old Kingdom period. For example, a black steatite seal, now in the Metropolitan Museum bears the inscription "Votary of Hathor and priestess of the good god Neferirkare, beloved of the gods".Iry-Hor (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Verner and Paule Posener-Kriéger have since then pointed out two difficulties with the hypothesis." - I would drop "since then" from this sentence, although, you can just drop "then" if you prefer.
"Firstly, it would imply a long time between the two phases of construction of Userkaf's temple, nearly 25 years between the erection of the temple and that of its obelisk." - See, now here is and example of where I'd use interval or, better yet, interlude instead of "time". Also, I'd replace the comma with a colon (:) per the Oxford dictionary: [Use the colon] between two main clauses in cases where the second clause explains or follows from the first. The second clause of the sentence explains the first difficulty with the hypothesis, whereas the first clause merely states the difficulty.
Done, I really like "interlude" and the colon.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"..., raising the question as to why the king would have devoted much efforts on a monument of Userkaf, ..." - (1) copy-edit to be: (1a) devoted so much effort or (1b) devoted so much of his efforts. If 1a is done then replace "so much" with any of your choice of the following: extraordinary efforts, great efforts, or exceptional efforts. (3) Remove the second comma. You can often (but not always) tell whether twin commas are appropriate by removing the statement in the middle and then reading the sentence to see if it makes sense. In this case, what you've written is: Secondly, they observe that both the pyramid and sun temple of Neferirkare were unfinished at his death when his own still required important works to be completed. Which you can tell makes very little sense.
Done, nice suggestions, they definitely clarify the paragraph.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"... when his own still required important works to be completed." - What to do you mean by "important"? Do you mean substantial/significant or do you mean vital/critical. Or both?
Done I wrote "substantial" which I think is to the point although ou could argue that Egyptians might have found the lack of a finished mortuary temple to be "critical".Iry-Hor (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Thanks to this, some details of its layout are known" - "Thanks to this" sounds a bit... plebeian or informal. Maybe replace with; As a result of this or Due to this. Up to you.
Done, I like "Due to this".Iry-Hor (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Religious festivals did certainly take place in sun temples, as attested by the Abusir papyri." - As is attested to by the Abusir papyri. Also, is it Abusir papyri or Abusir Papyri - you capitalize papyri in two other instances.
"... while the first and last ones depicted him as the king of Upper and Lower Egypt." The first one as the king of Upper Egypt and the last one as king of Lower Egypt? -> while the first and last ones depicted him as the king of Upper and Lower Egypt respectively.
"The mortuary temple was far from finished at the death of Neferirkare but it was completed later by his sons Neferefre and Nyuserre Ini, using cheap mudbricks and wood rather than stone." Either add a comma after (a) "later" or (b) "sons" or remove the comma after Nyuserre Ini.
Done. I prefer (a).Iry-Hor (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"A significant cache of administrative papyri, known as the Abusir Papyri was uncovered there" - Add a comma after "Abusir Papyri"\
Done. I also replaced "Abusir Papyri" with "Abusir papyri"Iry-Hor (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"uncovered there by Borchardt in 1903 and then in the mid-seventies during an University of Prague Egyptological Institute excavation." - I went to the article on Abusir Papyri to work out what it was the University excavation actually did. Add further papyri were after "and" and uncovered after "then" (and further papyri were then uncovered).
I'll stop here for the time being and continue working on it tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude everything done so far, thanks for the review. Also when you feel like you are finished with Neferefre, could you please write if you support or oppose the nomination in the title of your comment section ? Iry-Hor (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get back to Nefrefre as soon as I've completed the prose review here. So that should be in a day or two at most. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Second set of prose review comments:
"Neferirkare quickly pardoned Rawer and requested that no harm should occur to the latter for the incident." - Living gods don't make "request[s]", they give commands or issue directives. That is; replace "requested" with either commanded or directed.
Done I totally agree.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"... the only ones attested during ..." - attested to. Sometimes you need the "to" and sometimes you don't.
Done This is a bit difficult for me, I am glad a native English speaker could check this. This is why I always want to have a GA review before going to FAC.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"... might also have taken place ..." - Eh, might also have been established?
Changed I wrote "might also have happened" my problem with "established" is that it could give the impression that such contacts did not occur earlier, when they almost certainly did occur during Sahure's reign and before that.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"One decree of him inscribed on a limestone slab has been excavated in 1903 in Abydos." - I think you mean his and replace "has been" with had been. Has is a present tense verb; had is a past tense verb.
"In conjunction with this trend, the mastabas of high officials started to become more elaborate, with for example chapels including multiple rooms, and from the mid to late Fifth Dynasty, wide entrance columned porticos and family tomb complexes." - This is a complex sentence requiring a large number of comma's: In conjunction with this trend, the mastabas of high officials started to become more elaborate, with, for example, chapels including multiple rooms, and from the mid to late Fifth Dynasty, wide entrance columned porticoes and, family tomb complexes. Also, for future reference, the plural of portico is porticoes. No idea why, but, it is.
Done it makes me think of a recent talk (now on Youtube) by Miroslav Barta where he shows direct evidence of the growth of the bureaucracy during the 5th Dynasty through a statistical study of the surface occupied by storage rooms in funerary complexes (because a larger administration would have to be fed from the funerary cult offerings). It is fascinating to see a linear growth from Neferirkare's reign onto that of Pepi II.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"... officials started to record their biography on the walls of their tombs." - Replace "biography" with biographies and change "on the" to onto the.
"... the future pharaoh Neferirkare then called prince Ranefer ascended the throne ..." - There should be commas flanking both sides of "then called prince Ranefer": ... the future pharaoh Neferirkare, then called prince Ranefer, ascended the throne ...
Done ou ar eright it reads better.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"... which occurred on the 28th day of the ninth month of that year." - Eh, which year? Unless Neferirkare ascended to the throne on January first and Sahure died December 31st then the two events would, naturally, occur the same year. Unless you have a specific year, drop "of that year" from the sentence or change it to of the year.
Done you are right and nobody knows the exact year this happened. It is kind of fascinating though that we know of Sahure's exact day of passing. If you are curious this was in mid-summer.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"... had at least another child together" - Change "another" to one other.
"as well as his reuse for his own valley temple of materials from Neferikare's unfinished constructions." - Remove "of".
I don't understand. You want to write "reuse for his own valley temple materials from Neferikare's unfinished constructions"? That is not what I mean here, I want to say that "materials from Neferikare's unfinished constructions have been reused in Nyuserre's valley temple".Iry-Hor (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The two sentences means the same thing. Perhaps if I broke up the clauses: as well as his reuse / for his own valley temple / materials from Neferikare's unfinished constructions. That is: As well as [Nyuserre's] reuse for the construction of [Nyuserre's] own valley temple materials from Neferirkare's unfinished constructions. Although this is such a minor point. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a smaller round-up for this second set, in part because the prose is pretty good and in part because I had more limited time today.
" Ancient sources tell us that it was the largest one built during the Fifth Dynasty but as of 2018 it has not yet been located." - Get rid of "us", it's way too informal for an encyclopaedia. Ancient source tell that it was the largest one built during the Fifth Dynasty, but, as of 2018, it has not been located.
Well, I did not expect to have only one more prose change to offer, but, I decided to just do a couple minor edits. I have completed my prose review for the article.
Mr rnddude Thanks, I am done with the prose changes. I need to look at the problem with the pyramid section though.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is no longer than four paragraphs long. Sections are appropriately titled. The article has a defined layout. There are no issues with words to watch. Not a fictional subject, and no lists incorporated. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
All of the sources of information are appropriately presented in the sections entitled "references" and "sources". Just a minor note, with regard to the first source, you can use et al if there are more than four authors (as you did under references). In this case there are twenty-four such authors.
Pass
One minor issue; the links for "Abusir and Saqqara in the year 2000" are dead-links and go to [egyptologie.ff.cuni.cz|pdf/AS%202000_mensi.pdf Stránka nebyla nalazena|Česky egyptologický ústav] which I can roughly translate from Czech to Croatian (or Bosnian or Serbian) as Stranica se nije pronašla|Ceški Egiptološki institut or in English as Page not found|Czech Institute of Egyptology. If you can fix it please do, or just remove the link. Dealt with. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have removed the link as I couldn't find it somewhere else. I have the document on my computer though.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
There are a lot of citations in this article and I'm not an expert in this field, but, all the sources do appear to me to be reliable high quality sources.
Pass
I will be looking within the article for anything slightly suspect and will point them out if I find anything. So for now, this section is only partially assessed. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"However, evidence from the other side of the stela implies that the document covered the reigns of later Old Kingdom kings. Hence, it is possible that these Annals were composed during the time of Nyuserre Ini who had a long reign and was the third successor to Neferirkare, after the short-lived Neferefre and the ephemeral Shepseskare." - These two sentences are missing a citation.
Removed this was a remnant from the version of the article predating my first works. I did not manage to find a source on this so I have removed the sentences. I suspect the claim was made by Egyptologists though, so if I stumble upon a source I will include the sentences back, duly cited.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Nḫn-Rˁ means "Stronghold of Ra"." - All your other notes have citations, as is expected, except for this one.
Issues have been deal with. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pass
Spot-checked material:
"Cylinder seals belonging to priests and priestesses witness to this cult during the Old Kingdom period, such as a black steatite seal, now in the Metropolitan Museum and bearing the inscription "Votary of Hathor and priestess of the good god Neferirkare, beloved of the gods" - Cited to Hayes (1978), p. 72.
Comment: The content is paraphrasing its source and does not introduce original research that is not otherwise cited. Source material may be viewed [here].
"The pyramid construction comprised three stages: first built were two rubble-filled core layers comprising six steps ... an unusual design for the time which had not been used since the Third Dynasty. At this point the pyramid, had it been completed, would have reached 52 m (171 ft). This plan was then altered by a third construction stage with the addition of smooth casing stones meant to transform the monument into a true pyramid. ... the pyramid would have reached 72 m (236 ft) high had it been completed. The pyramid of Neferirkare is surrounded by smaller pyramids and tombs which seem to form an architectural unit, the cemetery of his close family." - Cited to Verner and Zemina (1994), pp. 76-77. There is a link to the source material in the article that can be viewed provided you have enough patience to let it load.
Issues: (1) "First built were two rubble-filled core layers comprising six steps" - I failed to find material that supports this statement in the cited source. Indeed, Verner (the same Miroslav Verner), writes in his 2014 work "The Pyramids" [here] (p. unknown as google books has hidden it; use the search bar and look for Neferirkare's Pyramid) that Originally, there were six of these layers, constructed with high-quality stone blocks laid in regular rows. He attributes this thought that the core of Neferirkare's pyramid was composed of stone accretion layers ... supported by a massive, dense "spindle" of the core stone masonry to Lepsius and Borchardt [who] claimed that the cores of all the other pyramids in Abusir ... were constructed in the same way, an assumption which was based on the fact that this method of construction applied to the Third Dynasty pyramids. However, Verner concludes that closer examination of Neferirkare's pyramid shows that they were mistaken. Could you verify? (2) "This plan was then altered by a third construction stage with the addition of smooth casing stones meant to transform the monument into a true pyramid." - Eh, slightly more complicated than that. First, the casing stone of choice was red granite (or pink granite). Second, the addition of the casing stones didn't convert the step pyramid to a true pyramid: the pyramid was extended outwards [Verner and Zemina (1994), p. 77][Verner (2014), p. unknown] and two additional layers constructed [Verner (2014), p. unknown] so that when the casing stones were added they would form a true pyramid [Verner and Zemina (1994), p. 77][Verner (2014), p. unknown]. The issue here is that there is no mention of this extension project, which formed the basis for the altered pyramid, in the article. The rest of the material in the section, however, I am fine with and have effectively verified.
Mr rnddude That's it I have rewritten the pyramid section. Let me know if it is okay now.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a check and gone through the citations. I just found out that "rubble" can mean roughly dressed construction blocks and not just debris. If it helps you, you can look at page 291 of Verner's "The Pyramids; The Mystery, Culture and Science of Egypt's Great Monuments" (2001c) specifically "The original plan called for six steps ... the lowest level of the core consisted of rough but relatively well dressed limestone blocks from the local quarries...". I mean well-dressed rubble seems silly but eh. I'm good with the section though. I verified all the citations for the material and they all match the material. More importantly, I can clearly delineate between the three stages and the expanded discussion on the substructure and family cemetery are good. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"In their book Forgotten Pharaohs, Lost Pyramids, Verner and Zemina state that the Turin canon makes a new Dynasty start with Neferirkare." - Cited to Verner and Zemin (1994), p. 77.
Comment - Thought I'd look at some other random material cited to the above source just because. This is an accurate paraphrase of the material.
"Finally the papyri indicate that two boats were buried to the north and south of the pyramid, one of which was unearthed by Verner." and "a sealed barque room housing four boats" - Cited to Altenmuller 2002.
Minor issue - There were four boats in total; two were sealed in the pyramid, and two were found outside the pyramid; 1 in the north and 1 in the south. Otherwise the rest of the material is cleanly phrased.
Done I have clarified this. My understanding is that the papyrus mentions four boats, two of which were buried outside of the mortuary complex. Among these two, one was unearthed by Verner.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(a) "Neferirkare was also given an entry on the Turin canon, a document dating to the reign Ramses II as well. Neferirkare's entry is commonly believed to be on the third column-19th row, unfortunately this line has been lost in a large lacuna affecting the papyrus and neither his reign length nor his successor can be ascertained from the surviving fragments." (b) "Alternatively, Miroslav Verner has proposed that Neferirkare's entry may instead have been located on the next, 20th line. This would credit Neferirkare with seven years of reign." (c) "Manetho's Aegyptiaca assigns Neferirkare a reign of 20 years, but this now considered an overestimation with regards to the archaeological evidences. First, the damaged Palermo stone preserves the year of the 5th cattle count for Neferirkare's time on the throne." (d) "Finally, Verner has pointed out that a 20-years long reign would be difficult to reconcile with the unfinished state of his pyramid in Abusir." (e) "even after the works implemented by Nyuserre." (f) "The Egyptologist Werner Kaiser proposed, based on a study of the evolution of the hieroglyph determinative for "sun temple", that Neferirkare completed the sun temple of Userkaf—known in Ancient Egyptian as Nekhenre[note 11]—sometime around the fifth cattle count of his reign." (g) "In this hypothesis, Neferirkare would have provided the Nekhenre with its monumental obelisk of limestone and red granite." (h) "Verner and Paule Posener-Kriéger have pointed out two difficulties with the hypothesis. Firstly, it would imply a long interlude between the two phases of construction of Userkaf's temple: nearly 25 years between the erection of the temple and that of its obelisk. Secondly, they observe that both the pyramid and sun temple of Neferirkare were unfinished at his death, raising the question as to why the king would have devoted exceptional effort on a monument of Userkaf when his own still required substantial works to be completed." (i) "Instead, Verner proposes that it was Sahure who finished the Nekhenre." - Cited in part to Verner 2001a, p. 395 (a,b) p. 393(c), pp. 394-395 (d), p.394 (e), p. 388 (f), pp. 387-388 (g), pp. 388-389 (h), p. 390 (i).
Comment - (a) Conclusions can be reasonably inferred from the material presented, note, however, that there is a second citation to support this material as well. (b) Verner suggests that Shepseskare's rule might have been omitted from the Turin canon (on the basis of it being so short) and that Neferirkare's might be in it's place. Reasonable paraphrase. (c) Yes, this is an open ended question, but, this is accurate phrasing. (d) Verner does indeed have doubts that the pyramid would be in such a state after 20 years of reign. (e) Eh, Verner states it's incomplete on page 395 and that Nyuserre finished it on page 394. Point being that Nyuserre's work were the last done to the pyramid. Material is accurate given all I've read. (f) Two citations are provided, Verner's covers most of the material with the exception of the exact meaning of the hieroglyphs. (g) Material is presented in the source and is perfectly accurate, except for the fact that the words "red granite" appear on the first line of page 389. I have fixed this. (h) I'm not going to draw the distinction between "almost a quarter century" and 25 years, and the rest of the material is solid. (i) Indeed he does. Overall, across the above list, Verner's work has been faithfully used and no original research has been conducted using it. There is also no hint of any copyright violations.
Above are spot-checks I've conducted. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig's copyvio detector has gone haywire and is declaring a likely copyright violation. I can't use the normal method of linking because it tries to execute it's function when its url is posted, but, you can find it in the GA toolbox on the right.
I find this first Copyvio to be in error; the material in question was present on Wikipedia at least as far back as April, 2014, but, was not present on Bible History online as late as 13 July 2014 and can only be recorded on their site from 15 March 2015 onwards. In fact, bible history is black-listed on Wikipedia and I triggered a filter by trying to link it and forced it into "pending" by including it at all.
For what it is worth, I can guarantee that I wrote (most) the article myself. I did however re-used sentences from other wikipedia article (which I also wrote), in particular that on Nyuserre Ini, when I needed to describe the same thing.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig declares all other findings, unlikely to be copyright violations and a spot check by me confirms this. It's mostly just expected phrases such as "Fifth Dynasty" or "Museum of Art" that are getting picked up by Earwig's detector.
I'll be doing a visual inspection and cross-check at random with sources where possible, so this section is also only partially assessed at current time. I have completed my visual inspection and cross-check, which can be viewed in section 2c. I have found zero evidence of any plagiarism and am satisfied that this article is copyright violation free. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Amended: 21:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is well detailed and covers Neferirkare's family, reign, activities and project, pyramid, and his death. These topics are typically what you would expect to find in the biography of a long dead king. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
I found no issues with the level of detail covered and did not feel that the article went overboard in any section. 66K bytes is a reasonable, and impressive, size for the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
There is no hint of POV pushing, unless we count calling Neferirkare a benevolent king a POV. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
There are no current disputes and no comments that need addressing on the article talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6.Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
All image issues have now been resolved. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pass
File:Neferirkare Kakai 2.png is incorrectly tagged as being public domain (PD). It's not, it's licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0 sharelike attribution. This is fine to use, but, the correct tag needs to be added to the file description page. Not an issue; image is correctly tagged as PD, it's an error with the source.
I don't understand I uploaded the picture myself from a 1903 book written by an author who died over 70 years ago. The copyright says "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or less. This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923." Why is it not correct?Iry-Hor (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see. You put the source as Heidelberg University Library and they have a CC-by-SA 3.0 license tagged onto the work (presumably because it's their copy of it and want attribution for providing it online for free; though I am not sure they can legally do that, but, eh). German copyright law states life of the author +70 years, which you're correct has expired. Leave it as is, you'd be able to use the work either way. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Borchardt Sahure 34.jpg - this one is a pain, but, the image needs to be PD in both country of origin and the U.S. This is most likely {{PD-1923}}. Appropriate license added.
Ok I will fix this as soon as I can (within a day or so).Iry-Hor (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Abusir papyrus.jpg - I can't verify the authenticity of the PD tag as opening the link to the source leads to a 403 forbidden page. The page it's found on; click on UC 32366 states Copyrighted 2002 University College London. All rights reserved. This doesn't necessarily mean that the image itself is copyrighted, but, given no copyright is declared on the image itself I suspect that it is copyrighted same as everything else on the page. It's a very high quality image, which is exceptionally nice, but, begs the question if it was done by a professional. Note: Image has been removed.
You are right I cannot use this picture because it comes from the Petrie Museum. They have a non-commercial copyright and I already had discussions about this with copyright experts here on wiki. Since wiki commons cannot guarantee that the picture won't be downloaded from them to be used in commercially, they simply can't accept them.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I defer to our resident copyright expert, Nikkimaria, so if need be I'm happy to defer to her judgement. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Despite some issues above, all of the images in use are relevant to the article and have appropriate captions to supplement their inclusion. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment.
With the outstanding issues rectified, the article is now a clear pass for GA. Excellent work.
Iry-Hor just letting you know that I've started reviewing Neferirkare Kakai. I use the above GA assessment table to conduct GA reviews. It may take me a day or two to post all of my findings so I recommend you add this page to your watchlist. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've done a forward read of the article and fixed up some minor typo's along the way. I'll start adding in prose recommendations (Criterion 1a) soon and I'll deal with the other criterion while I'm at it. I should be able to complete the review by tomorrow night. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What does "Neferirkare was the eldest son of Sahure with his consort Meretnebty known as Ranefer A before he came to the throne." mean? Was Meretnebty, Sahure or Neferirkare known as Ranefer A? Which person is the antecedent of "he" in the statement "before he came to the throne"? Is it Sahure or Neferirkare? I know lots of work has gone into this article but I've only got to the second sentence and the grammar is really pretty bad. It needs more work and I would like a way to bump featured articles from the front page if they're just not ready. Featured articles are supposed to be the best that Wikipedia has to offer but far too often they have significant problems. Greenshed (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified the sentence. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the era style changed in this article with no discussion?
It appears to have happened in a group of 50-100 edits made on 1st January 2018, none of which had an edit summary (as required) so none of which can be reviewed by other editors. There is no justification for converting BC to BCE as references, other comparable articles and the longstanding state was using BC.--192.173.128.34 (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Reverting blocked sock. Mojoworker (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Change it back. Greenshed (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is really the least valuable thing I can think of to argue over. Some articles on this subject are using BCE: Nyuserre Ini, Neferefre; others are using BC Djedkare Isesi, Menkauhor. Edit summaries are not required, just so we're clear. They are preferred. The author chose to use BCE. Two people on a talk page without even 24 hour notice is not a consensus. Oppose pointless changes. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is really the least valuable thing you can think of to argue over then why are you arguing over it? Why not, for example, address my point above about grammar? Agreed that edit summaries are preferred not required but the general thrust of 192.173.128.34's observations are still valid. Greenshed (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did, I've clarified the sentence. You found one grammatical problem. You went ahead and changed BCE to BC without asking the author (not me), or any other person who is active on this page. The article passed FA with BCE. Good enough for them, good enough for the author, and good enough for me. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No the introduction of BCE was pointless. It was not part of the FA discussion or recommendations (as can easily be seen.) Author's approval is not required see WP:OWN. Instead WP:ERA says get agreement to make the change first and that was not done. I am a 3rd person now.--Tigranis (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Reverting blocked sock. Mojoworker (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the change was part of the FA discussion, I said it passed FA with BCE. I.e. four supports and no complaints about BCE. Willful misrepresentation to suggest otherwise. I also said the change was made without any input from the author or anyone active, despite the pretense of a talk page discussion (seen above), and not that author approval was required. BCE had been uncontested for months, the stable version (that passed GA and FA) is thus the consensus version. It also wasn't introduced, it was written with BCE. The only part of the article that had BC before the January rewrite was the IB. Nowhere in the body of the article was either BC or BCE used. As can be confirmed with a quick scan of this 9k byte version of a currently 72k byte article. If you want to have this dull discussion to make the change go ahead. I've registered my oppose. That's kind of the point. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I thought in my short time here that Wikipedia is about cooperation and I am happy to take part in discussions, I do not think it is "dull". It is quite clear - the article used BC from 2006 (when the first text with verified dating use was added) right up to this year. That's all that counts. The dating era is quite irrelevant to the FA status and was not discussed for consensus so it can safely be restored.--Tigranis (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Reverting blocked sock. Mojoworker (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've indented your comment. To me this discussion is dull, not discussion itself. Greenshed's section above that needed some resolution is a discussion worth having, and I did rectify it immediately after I saw it. What bothered me was that the discussion was started and then unilaterally changed without time for response. If you start or participate in a discussion, you don't then act on it yourself 20 minutes later. Now I really don't feel like spending another second on this and so won't be responding further. If there is some issue that needs rectification, I can (probably) deal with that. On a sidenote: Do not confuse collaboration with cooperation, and collaboration does not mean agreement. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine I am returning the era style back to what it was on 1st January--Tigranis (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Reverting blocked sock. Mojoworker (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
_01.svg){kind=small}
