| Rate
|
Attribute
|
Review Comment
|
| 1. Well-written:
|
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
|
- I have a question regarding "and are sometimes referred to as the “Forgotten Pyramids” because great portions of the monuments were vandalized and stolen during the Roman Period". The way this reads, it looks like the pyramid were called "Forgotten" because they were vandalised. However I believe they were called "Forgotten" because they have been forgotten, which itself is a consequence of them being heavily robbed of their stones and turned into ruins during the Roman and Medieval (?) eras. In addition, I think the sentence should state that the stones were robbed, not the monument itself. Therefore, I propose : "and are sometimes referred to as the “Forgotten Pyramids”, as these were largely forgotten owing to the ruined state in which they fell after being heavily vandalized and robbed of their stones during the Roman Period." Iry-Hor (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The Davies and Friedman material isn't mine and I haven't been able to access the source. Should I drop the statement from the article?
- Yes, while the statement is almost certainly correct (see Verner's book Forgotten pharaohs etc.), the idea of "forgotten" is perhaps better understood as "less known" and this is difficult to write in a rigorous way. Indeed, the 5th Dynasty pyramids are certainly "forgotten" by the general public (in comparison with the 4th Dynasty ones), they would not be unknown to the local inhabitants.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed as recommended.
- "Bárta": the first time an Egyptologist is mentionned, I think it better to give his/her full name "Miroslav Bárta" and say who he is "The Egyptologist Miroslav Bárta". Every time after that you can just say "Bárta".Iry-Hor (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
- Although the site of Abusir is stated to have plausibly been chosen because of its proximity to Memphis, the importance of this city is assumed, that is not stated. I think it better to help the reader by mentioning the fact that Memphis was the capital of Egypt at the time, and that the palace of the king was in the vicinity (Verner has an article on the subject). Also we must be careful because the dynamic of the Memphis city is complicated during the Old Kingdom, with several settlements slowly merging together to form the city, some being abandonned etc. This was mentioned by Malek in a paper so we must avoid sweeping statements and the not give the impression of a single well defined city.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - I've put a footnote to clarify that Memphis would not have been a dense urban city and the Egyptians lived rurally as peasant farmers.
- The name Memphis is anachronistic as it is an hellenization of "Men-nefer Pepi", the name of Pepi I's pyramid complex which did not exist at the time. Since Memphis is the correct modern Eglish term however, you might want to keep it and say something like "the city of Inbu-Hedj, known today as Memphis".Iry-Hor (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- "It was Lepsius who proposed the accretion layer theory of how the pyramids of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasty were built." This needs either to be left out or some explications must be given about the accretion layer theory. I would prefer the later option as it makes the article more complete. Also wikify "Sixth Dynasty".Iry-Hor (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I wrote a large footnote on this topic in the main pyramid section. I've also written a shorter expository footnote for Lepsius' accretion layer construction theory in this section as well.
- "1902-8, German Egyptologist" should it not read "1902-8, the German Egyptologist"?Iry-Hor (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- You need to mention that Borchardt published the results of his excavations in a well known volume "Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Nefer-ir-ke-re" which served as reference for the later excavations. Just mention the title of the work: any reader interested in the pyramid cannot overlook it and would understand that this work is the starting point.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done... slightly overboard with citations included... but... you know... done.
- No excavations or archaeological works are mentioned after that of Borchardt. Is this correct ? Was the pyramid not excavated since? If so then say it so as not to let the reader wonder. If not then we need to talk about the latest excavations.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nein, das ist nicht richtig. I titled the section "early excavation" on purpose. The Czech Institute of Egyptology still has their long-term excavation project going on, which covers the whole Abusir site. I've added some details on it. Hopefully that clears it up.
- Done ok !Iry-Hor (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Pyramid building underwent transition in the Fifth Dynasty". It seems a word is missing here "Pyramid building underwent a transition in the Fifth Dynasty". Also the sentence is not fully clear to me, I think it would be clearer if you write "Pyramid construction techniques" and wikify that to Egyptian pyramid construction techniques.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and Done
- "the monumentality of the pyramids reduced". This reads a bit awkward to me I would propose a passive tense (as the pyramids did not do it themselves) that is : "the monumentality of the pyramids was reduced/diminished".
- Done good choice of synonym.
- "To compensate for these adjustments, relief decoration proliferated" I wonder to what extend it was a compensation? That is are we sure that they did more reliefs to compensate for the reduced size of the pyramid? I believe Verner state something along the line of the fact that the pyramid size was reduced and that at the same time, much more elaborate decorations were used. But this is different from stating that one compensates for the other.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - This was an error on my part. The two things happened simultaneously, however, their relation is as far as I can tell limited. So I've revised the sentence.
- "the temples were enriched with greater storeroom complexes" In a January 2018 talk by Barta, this is linked with the growth of the administration which started only at the time of Neferirkare. Listen to the few minutes of this video [here] starting around time 20:20. This might be worth a mention.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made an attempt at this. If I'm following Bárta correctly, the storeroom complexes grew in size to meet both the demands of the funerary cult and the demands of the people involved in running it. Both of these things came about in the Fifth Dynasty. There is just one issue, it's well overboard from what was needed. It diverges from the discussion about the pyramid and into a much broader discussion about the political and economic situation of the Old Kingdom. It belongs in a completely different article.
- You are right, this will go well into an article on the 5th Dynasty itself.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - I've cut out most of the discussion from the two paragraphs. I've made the storage room part relevant specifically to Neferirkare's pyramid. All the extraneous material is in my sandbox for reference though. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "from cheap materials" might be worth saying that these were mudbricks and wood.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- "an enormous brick wall was built" these walls are called "enclosure walls" in Egyptology so it might be good to use this term.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- When you mention the 3rd Dynasty in the lead and in the pyramid section, you need to give an approximate time frame for it to help readers understand the distance in time between this Dynasty and Neferirkare.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've added in approximate years for the Third Dynasty (2687–2632 BCE), and used those dates + Altenmuller's dates for Neferirkare's reign (c. 2492–2482 BCE) to find the time difference between the end of the Third Dynasty and the end of Neferirkare's rule. This happens to be exactly 150 years (though I've used "some" to indicate an approximation). I'll add a footnote next to "25th Century BC" that lists out some of the dates from the sources I've used. That way readers can have an appreciation for the difficulty in reconstructing an exact record. It seemed inappropriate to pick a single source as the greater authority, so I've got a set of proposed dates for Neferirkare's reign and Third Dynasty. Overall the gap is about 100 to 200 years long. I'm not sure how exactly to proceed. 150 years is the exact mid-point and is based on Altenmuller and Kahl's dates. WP:CALC suggests I can do basic calculations without giving citations, however, I don't have an absolute range of dates so the time gap could be greater or smaller than the proposed. Is the statement fine as is or... should I amend it to "a century or two prior". Any ideas?
- Yes the best way is to give an interval of possibilities like you propose e.g. "a century or two prior, depending on the scholar".Iry-Hor (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- "after minimal work –extending only to the first step– on this was completed" might read better as "after minimal work on this was completed –extending only to the first step–".
- Done
- "To convert the step into a genuine pyramid," This comes a bit abruptly because at this point we have no idea that the pyramid was to be converted into a true one. We might want to add a sentence before that saying "The pyramid was then converted into a genuine one. To this end..."Iry-Hor (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a sentence letting readers known that the construction was changed, it reads: "however, after minimal work on this was completed –extending only to the first step– the pyramid was redesigned to form a "true pyramid"."
- Done ok!Iry-Hor (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "2 m (6 ft 7 in)" and everywhere else : use the convert template for this. Edit the article on Neferirkare Kakai to see how the convert template is used. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done in as far as it's possible. Linear metres and Linear feet aren't supported by the template and as 1m isn't 1 linear m, I can't use the template for them.
- I am being difficult but was the purpose of the granite casing to "reinforce" the corridor or was there another purpose (like decoration) ? Does the source say "reinforce" ? If unsure you could use "lined with granite".Iry-Hor (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Unchanged - Verner's exact words are:
The corridor leading to the burial chamber ... was reinforced at the beginning and end by granite casing . So yes, the source says reinforce.
- "The roof of the substructure is unique and not found in any other Old Kingdom pyramid:" are you talking about the corridor and all rooms beneath the pyramid ? If so then okay.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - Just the corridor. The gabled roof over the burial- and ante- chambers is quite standard.
- Done
- "The block was discovered in the 1930s by Egyptologist Édouard Ghazouli, and depicts Neferirkare with his consort, Khentkaus II, and eldest son, Neferefre" the article gives the impression that the block was discovered in the temple while it was in fact discovered in the modern village of Abusir, in a house where it was used as a construction material. Perhaps a footnote would clear this up.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - This is interesting- and short- enough to write directly into the article.
- "'pyramid town' in the vicinity of the valley temple by the Nile delta". I might be wrong but wouldn't the pyramid town be built by the workers and priests as soon as the works started ? What I mean is that the town might have existed but because the causeway was diverted the priests did not inhabit it. Also "Nile delta" is wrong here, the valley temple was on the shores of the now disappeared Abusir Lake (not the same as Abusir (Lake Mariout)).Iry-Hor (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - I had somehow missed this in Lehner's book. There's references to the Nile valley and delta, but, not in relation to the valley temples.
- "The final member of the Neferirkare family cemetery" this statement is problematic: we have no way of checking who was the last member of Neferirkare's family to be buried in Abusir, in particular because the site is full of princes and princessses who were sons and daughters of pharaohs. Excavations continue to discover new burials of the royal family to this day (e.g. Sheretnebty in 2017).Iry-Hor (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fair point. I've revised the sentence to avoid the claim. I originally wrote it to avoid the phrase "another member of the...". Tell me what you think of the current version.
- Yes that's good now.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead: "Their destruction by the Nile would have been assured." my understanding of the source is that it is not so much the Nile that would have destroyed the papyri but rather the ground water (water table) as opposed to the river itself.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm... I think you're correct. Done
- The first paragraph of the lead is the best lead paragraph I have read for a pyramid: concise, already complete, and well written. Congratulations!Iry-Hor (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
|
Yes.
|
| 2. Verifiable with no original research:
|
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
|
- I noticed that the bibliographic entry for "Funerary Boats and Boat Pits of the Old Kingdom" is not complete, it is missing the page numbers for the whole article, which are "pp. 269—290". This is very minor of course.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - I put the page numbers in.
|
|
|
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).
|
Yes the sources are impecable.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research.
|
- The article is fine in this respect, however I have a question regarding the pictures "Pyramide_de_Neferirkare_1.jpg" and "File:Pyramides_Abousir_1.jpg". We need to make sure these pictures are not original research. They were created by a wiki commons user Neithsabes, who references the book Abusir - Realm of Osiris of Verner as a source. Does this book contain sufficiently similar pictures to ensure that no element of the pictures are Neithsabes' original creation? You might want to ask him or check in the book. I have had a similar issue in the past with a picture of a pyramid which did not pass GA for this reason.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to the first image, I've seen similar floor plans and proper photos that look similar to this. I think the creator used a floor plan to get the basic 2D structure of the complex down and then pictures, such as those found in Abusir: Realm of Osiris, to turn it into a 3D model. For example if you look at page 145 of Lehner's "The complete pyramids", there is a floor plan which looks exactly the same as the plan of the model by Neithsabes. In Abusir: Realm of Osiris (but I only have part of the work) there is a photo of the pyramid and mortuary temple. The image would be enough to model the heights of the plan, but, not the plan itself. So it's a combination of two different types of image. There isn't a proper 3D image which Neithsabes could copy that I could find. I'd vouch that the image is an accurate representation that is amalgamated from a floor plan and photo based on all the images I've seen myself. With regards to the second image, I suspect that this is true for it as well. However, I'll remove the image as it doesn't cite any source at all. Besides, it's I think photo's would better elucidate the section.
- Done ok very well! I write "Done" so that I can see at a glance that this has been fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
|
Yes no problem here.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
| 3. Broad in its coverage:
|
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
|
Yes. I have only two caveats. First would be the section on excavations. Are we sure that no works took place on the pyramid since Borchardt? This is strange given that this is a place where some of the Abusir Papyri were uncovered. If this is true, then it should be stated. Otherwise, we need to talk about these newer excavations (I think Verner and the Czech Institute for Egyptology secured excavation rights for the whole of Abusir in 1976 so they may have dug in the vicinity or on the pyramid).Iry-Hor (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - As I've said above, there have been excavations at the site since Borchardt. I've made that clear in the article as requested.
Second, there is nothing on the subsequent "life" of the pyramid from the Old Kingdom until the Roman times. When was it abandonned? Was it the site of later burials (typically Late Period intrusive ones) or of later cults (like the cult of Sekhmet in Sahure's pyramid) etc. While researching the article on Neferirkare, I noticed that several non-Egyptians tombs were discovered in his temple, indicating later activity in the area of the pyramid. "During the Late Period of ancient Egypt (664—332 BCE) the mortuary temple of Neferirkare was used as a secondary cemetery. A gravestone made of yellow calcite was discovered by Borchardt bearing an Aramaic inscription reading "Belonging to Nesneu, son of Tapakhnum".[131] Another inscription[132] in Aramaic and dating to the Fifth century BCE reads "Mannukinaan son of Sewa"." It is particularly notable that the inscriptions are in Aramaic. Maybe we can find something on the general use of the pyramid in the Late Period.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been looking through the sources I've used, looking through sources I haven't used but managed to find and I found the source you used while I was at it. I have two relatively small paragraphs on the subsequent life of the pyramid. I think there may be something in Abusir XVIII or Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000/2005, but, I can't get my hands on them. That's about it. I don't even know how you found the Aramaic inscriptions because none of the articles and books I've been going through have even hinted at them. Which is weird since Verner is the one who discovered the second Aramaic inscription. I'm not sure where to look for more. Feel free to give any ideas if you have them. I could have sworn I'd read somewhere that Neferirkare's funerary cult lasted for about 300 years, which would coincide with the end of Pepi II's reign, but, I can't find it.
- Mr rnddude For the aramaic inscriptions, they are mentionned in Verner's Forgotten pharaohs p. 93. More details about the inscriptions are given in "Porten, Bezalel; Botta, Alejandro; Azzoni, Annalisa (2013). In the shadow of Bezalel : Aramaic, biblical, and ancient Near Eastern studies in honor of Bezalel Porten. Culture and history of the ancient Near East. 60. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-9-00-424083-4". Excerpts of the book are available on Google books, look p. 55, 67-68-69.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I've added the Aramaic inscriptions. I did find the book you were referring to, although, the article section has Dušek, Jan and Mynářová, Jana as the authors on page 53 of the book. I'm still looking for something else to add.
|
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
|
Yes, in particular the sections and layout of the article have been well chosen and show that the article stays on focus.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
|
Yes.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
|
Of course! I would be surprised if the Pyramid of Neferirkare was a contested topic.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
|
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
|
Will check later.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
|
Yes.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
7. Overall assessment.
|
|
_01.svg){kind=small}
