Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hathor/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2019 [1].

Hathor[edit]

Nominator(s): A. Parrot (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hathor is the party girl of the ancient Egyptian pantheon; love, sex, music, booze, and fancy foreign jewelry are all part of her job description. She also has udders and a tail. Go figure.

Joking aside, Hathor was probably the most important goddess in ancient Egypt for most of its history. Aside from the handful of non-English sources listed in the further reading, this article includes pretty much all the significant sources on the topic, and I think it conveys the significance of the subject well. A. Parrot (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

Holy cow, really excellent stuff. Doing some light editing as I read through; tis ok to revert, but may be a few days however before I get to this properly.

  • Once Hathor was firmly established in the Old Kingdom, she rose rapidly to prominence - I cant parse this; what does firmly established mean; it seems to me "came to prominence", so some of the sentence is redundant.
Appropriate choice of exclamation. Changed. A. Parrot (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement Hathor was the mythic counterpart of human queens is quite obvious and bland as it is proceed by As both the king's wife and mother of his heir. - I misread this. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and he depicted several priestesses of Hathor as though they were his wives - Mentuhotep was not an artist.
I was avoiding the passive voice, but I suppose it's necessary here. Changed. A. Parrot (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the First Dynasty, Neith was the preeminent goddess at the royal court,[105] but in the Fourth Dynasty, Hathor became the goddess most closely linked with the king.[106]. Why "but", given the distance between the first and fourth dynasties. Then we say "The dynasty's founder" without clarifiying which one of the two. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've specified that it was the Fourth Dynasty's founder. The other problem is the product of a slight disjunction between the sources. The Hollis source in the latter half of the sentence treats Hathor as directly supplanting Neith in the Fourth Dynasty, but the evidence for Neith's importance to the royal court mostly comes from the First Dynasty, and Lesko, cited for the first half of the sentence, only refers to First Dynasty evidence. Evidence for the Second and Third Dynasties is so sparse that it would be hard to evaluate whether Neith still held her First Dynasty status then. Now that I check Wilkinson 1999 there is some evidence that Neith remained important in the Second and Third. If it said "During the Early Dynastic Period…", that would include the Second Dynasty and, under some definitions, the Third. What do you think? A. Parrot (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I've now changed it to "During the Early Dynastic Period". What do you think? A. Parrot (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dendera was Hathor's oldest temple in Upper Egypt dates to at least to the Fourth Dynasty,[129] and after the end of the Old Kingdom surpassed her Memphite temples in importance. Hard to parse. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 39 instances of the word cow, are you always refering to the female of the species, or could it be varied with cattle, bovine etc in places. Doesn't really matter, just was born on a dairy farm, and work for a milk producer, and the repetition is a bit bla as we have 50 words for snow. Ceoil (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Man, I haven't been this tempted to crack a Monkey Island joke in years... I've varied the wording a little, so that there are 20 instances in the readable prose and 24 in the wikitext. For obvious reasons, we are talking about a lone female most of the time, so it's hard to reduce the repetition more than that. A. Parrot (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Do you have any further comments? I hope I'm not pestering, but it has been nearly a month since your last edit here. A. Parrot (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry; my concerns have been dealt with...happy to Support. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Nice to see a steady flow of ancient Egypt articles, Wikipedia will be a great resource for such info in a few years! Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a bunch of duplinks, you can detect them with this script:[2]
The duplicate links are either in captions in the iconography gallery, where the script apparently doesn't read them as regular image captions, or (in the case of Temple of Edfu, Kingdom of Kush, and Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt) a long distance apart. I've always been skeptical of the hard link-only-once rule, believing that readers who want to click a link shouldn't have to scroll up through two thousand words of text to find the last place the linked term showed up. A. Parrot (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, none of the duplinks that script shows me are in any image captions, it specifically ignores those. They are mostly in the latter part of the article body. Can't say I personally feel strongly about the issue, but the WP:duplink guidelines are pretty clear. I can understand your argument, but then again, why only link these arbitrary terms again and not others? FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed them. A. Parrot (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the caption of the infobox image could state what it was based on (as is stated on Commons).
I've added a caption, though I'm not sure about the current wording; see what you think of it. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lana Troy" You present a researcher in the previous sentence, why not this one? Should be consistent throughout, haven't checked the rest of the article.
Adding "the Egyptologist" every time a new Egyptologist is named can feel intrusive and clunky. In this article there aren't that many scholars named, so I've added that introduction for Gillam and Graves-Brown, as well as to Troy, although I think it feels awkward there. That leaves the three names in the Festivals section. I've changed the text to imply that the three opinions come from within the Egyptological community, but I'm very reluctant to introduce them individually, which would be repetitive. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "identifies a passage in the Pyramid Texts" Perhaps relevant to give the age of the text?
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After her first datable appearance" Which was what? Unclear from the preceding text.
Changed to "In the Fourth Dynasty…"
  • "supplanted an early crocodile god" Name?
This is difficult. Fischer's book Dendera in the Third Millennium B.C. gives the name of this god, but only in transliteration: ı͗ḳr if we follow Fischer's transliteration, or jqr if we use the system more common on WP ancient Egypt articles. If the name were instead transcribed to fit into English running text, as is that of Hathor and most other Egyptian deities, it would probably be Iqer, but given how obscure this god is, I don't know if any Egyptologists have done so. How do you want to treat it? A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine as is then. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which Lana Troy interprets" You don't need full names at second mention. Again, haven't looked for this elsewhere, so worth checking through.
Fixed. Given how rarely this article mentions individual scholars in the body text, I don't think this problem crops up elsewhere. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sends the Hathor as the Eye of Ra" Why "the Hathor"?
A typo. Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carolyn Graves-Brown puts it" Present.
Done; see above. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After some time, Hathor exposes herself to Ra" What is meant by "expose" here?
Changed to "exposes her genitals". A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In two New Kingdom works of fiction" I guess they were not intended as fiction? Like any of the other religious myths?
No, they were definitely fiction: short stories. Should the article clarify that? I'm not sure how to do so. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hathor's maternal aspects can be compared Isis and Mut," Compared to?
This wording was introduced in one of Ceoil's copyedits and I'm not entirely sure which wording he was aiming for. I've changed it to "Hathor's maternal aspects can be compared with those of Isis and Mut" for now. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • yet there are was many contrasts" Are was?
Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They Egyptians sometimes" The?
Yes. Corrected. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of several interrelated goddesses" What is meant by interrelated?
I had in mind the close connections between the goddesses described just below, but I suppose it's an unnecessary word, so I've deleted it. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was often regarded as a specialized manifestation of Hathor" In ancient texts or by modern scholars?
Apparently in ancient texts. The modern sources don't state this very clearly (the citation for this passage only says "…Imentet often appears to be only a manifestation of Hathor or Isis"), but captioned images of Imentet in tombs like that of Horemheb or Nefertari label her as Hathor. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link sycomore?
It is linked, in both the lead and the body. "The milky sap of the sycomore tree…"
  • Various words are in italics, why not uraeus?
It's subjective; some Egyptological sources italicize it and some don't. For what it's worth, "uraeus" appears in my dictionary (New Oxford American), whereas the terms I italicized, such as naos and menat, don't. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Sistrum?
It was linked in its first appearance (as sistra), but I've moved the link to the following sentence, where it's more noticeable. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a hard time understanding why the content of the "Foreign lands and goods" and "Worship outside Egypt" sections are divided? Seem to overlap ins scope?
  • For example: "In the Kingdom of Kush, a native Nubian state that developed after the collapse of the New Kingdom, Hathor was regarded as a mother to the Kushite kings." and "he independent Kingdom of Kush, which emerged in Nubia after the collapse of the New Kingdom, based its beliefs about Kushite kings on the royal ideology of Egypt. Therefore, Hathor, Isis, Mut, and Nut were all seen as the mythological mother of each Kushite king and equated with his female relatives, such as the kandake, the Kushite queen or queen mother, who had prominent roles in Kushite religion" seems to be essentially the same info, duplicated for no apparent reason.
I've cut the redundancy.
Regarding the larger question, the first section is about the Egyptian belief that Hathor was the goddess of foreign countries. It was an important part of Hathor's character as the Egyptians perceived it. The second is about the worship of Hathor outside Egypt, primarily by non-Egyptians. Some passages may need to be moved from one section to the other to make the distinction clearer, but they shouldn't be combined. A. Parrot (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, the sections "Afterlife" and "Funerary practices" have some seemingly duplicate text, such as "Ancient Egyptians prefixed the names of the deceased with Osiris's name to connect them with his resurrection... In the Third Intermediate Period (c. 1070–664 BC), Egyptians began to add Hathor's name to that of deceased women in place of that of Osiris. In some cases, women were called "Osiris-Hathor", indicating that they benefited from the revivifying power of both deities." and " Beginning in the Third Intermediate Period, Hathor's name was prefixed to the names of deceased women in texts on burial equipment and funerary monuments.[92] Women were thought to take on the form of Hathor as men were thought to take on the form of Osiris, as signs that they had joined the retinues of those deities."
Cut. A. Parrot (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - that's all I could find, I'll let the experts take over from here. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mr rnddude[edit]

  • I'll get around to helping out with the review for this article, I hope, in the coming days. This is just a placeholder. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several sources that have some or another error showing up:
  • Missing identified (ISSN, JSTOR, etc): Cooney (Dec 2010), Hollis (2009), McCain (2011), Poo (2010), Stadler (2008) and Vandier (1964–1966). Allam (1963) is missing an OCLC and Derchain (1972) is missing an ISBN. These should be added if at all possible.
I've done these, except that the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology articles (McClain, Poo, and Stadler) don't seem to have identifiers of that sort. Here is a page listing the identifying information for a UEE article. Derchain has no ISBN (I'm guessing that ISBNs got established later in Europe than the US), so I provided its OCLC.
A. Parrot my apologies, I had that problem with UCLA myself. They have a registered ISBN and OCLC number: [3]. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing page numbers for book chapter: Derriks (2001), Finnstead (1999), Fisher (2012), Frandsen (1999), Goedicke (1978), Graham (2001), Griffiths (2001), Harrington (2016), Hassan (1992), Hoffmeier (2001), Lesko (2008), Manniche (2010), Morris (2007), Morkot (2012), Ritner (2008), Sandri (2012), Schneider (2007), te Velde (2001), Thompson (2001), Vischak (2001), Woods (2011), Yellin (2012), and Posener (1986). I consider this low priority because page numbers are provided in the specific citations, but it's a good practice and makes the source more directly accessible. It's a bit of a pain running through a 600+ page volume of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt trying to find the few pages on a subject. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Page ranges added. A. Parrot (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a brief walk through the sources. I'm familiar with several of the works and authors, and these are all high quality. The ones I'm not familiar with are published in well-known journals (Studien zur Altaegyptischen Kultur [SAK] or Journal of Egyptian Archaeology for example) or by respected publishers (Oxford, Cambridge, University in Cairo, etc). The few where I wasn't familiar with publisher or author (e.g. Carolyn Graves-Brown), I did a quick background check on the author and they came up as qualified scholars in the field of Egyptology or Archaeology. Overwhelmingly, the sources used have been published in the past 20 years, with a smattering published within the past 50 years. This indicates to me that the scholarship used is up-to-date. I only have a few of these sources, but I can do spot checks for them if desired. It won't be as extensive as the one I did for Userkaf several entries below. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple comments regarding image captions:
  • IB image alt caption: you mention the red disk that's between the horns, but not the cobra that envelops it. No mention of here holding a was-sceptre or ankh sign either.
Added. I'm never sure how much detail to include in alt text. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alt caption for "File:Plaque of a woman giving birth assisted by Hathor.jpg" in Popular worship is missing a word: Plaque showing a woman squatting while cow-headed stand at either side <- while cow-headed what stand at either side?
Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other captions and alt captions are fine. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: Do you have any further comments? I hope I'm not pestering, but it has been a month since your last edit here. A. Parrot (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not at all, thanks for pinging me. I do apologize, February has been a rough month for me and I took on two FACs around the same time. Yours and Iry-Hor's. If at all possible I'll try finishing up the source review with spotchecks during the weekend. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have one further comment, but otherwise Support. Hoffmeier 2001 is from Volume 1, not Volume 2, of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. I spent ten minutes reading through pages 507-508 to find what Hoffmeier was being cited for before I realized that those pages correspond to the Necropolis article in Vol 2. Goddamn it. I spotchecked the other articles from the OEAE and they all check out. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry about that! I corrected the Hoffmeier entry, and Serial Number 54129 has fixed the capitalization problem with the Woods article. A. Parrot (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • Hathor's name, ḥwt-ḥrw or ḥwt-ḥr, – maybe link to the respective language article?
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hathor's name, ḥwt-ḥrw[15] or ḥwt-ḥr,[16] may allude to this aspect of her character. – Is there a known meaning for these words?
I've rearranged the text in this paragraph to clarify. There are two possible readings, one of which is more common. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As demonstrated by her name, – relating to the above: this requires that the meaning of her name is known. But "Hathor's name […] may allude to this aspect […]" does sound like speculation, not definite knowledge. Reading "as demonstrated by her name" I would assume that this meaning is known?
Changed to "As suggested by her name…" A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The water of the inundation, colored red by sediment, was likened to wine, – as the inundation is mentioned here for the first time, I would specify that it refers to the annual Nile inundation.
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atum, a creator god who was said to contain all things within himself, was said – would one instance of "was said" enough here?
Changed. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • seen from the front rather than in the usual perspective of Egyptian art – will be obvious for most, but I would still mention what this usual perspective is.
I called it "profile-based". The exact art-history term seems to be "twisted perspective", but we don't have an article for that term, and without a link, "profile-based" was the clearest way I could think of to describe it without digressing. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beautiful Feast of the Valley – can this be linked, or briefly introduced?
That's weird; I thought I had checked whether there was an article about it and saw that there wasn't. Now I see that it's been there since 2006! Linked. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to see another mythology article here. One of my favorite topics. The article is of high quality throughout, my above nitpicks notwithstanding. Thanks for that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

  • It look like Mr rnddude gave sources the once-over but I'd like to confirm if this counts as a signoff on formatting and reliability.
  • Image captions have been discussed above but I don't think I saw a review for licensing.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding point 2, I mentioned alt-captions but at the FA level I'm not confident to check for image licensing requirements. Regarding point 1, I probably shouldn't say "brief walk". I know many of the authors listed such as Lesko, Verner, Smith, Goedicke, etc are reliable sources and I use them regularly myself. I didn't feel the need to linger on them besides checking where and when they were published, and I'd have more to say if they didn't appear here, than for the fact that they do. I spent more time searching the names of authors I didn't know, such as Greaves, Yellin, Robyn, McClain, etc. I was able to find them as members of faculty of reputable institutions in each case. Even Brett McClain who was a bit more difficult to find, I managed to track down to University of Chicago in, say, ten minutes. I have scripts to identify formatting errors in citations and references, and the ones identified have been addressed. Thinking to my last FAC, I hadn't checked for capitalization consistency and that won't show up as a script error. There's only a single instance of a book chapter that is in sentence case: "zšš wꜣḏ scenes of the Old Kingdom revisited" from "Old Kingdom: New Perspectives. Egyptian Art and Archaeology 2750–2150 BC. Proceedings of a Conference at the Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge, May 2009". Other book chapters like "Household and Domestic Religion in Egypt" and "The Cultic Significance of the Sistrum in the Amarna Period" are all capitalized. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding images:
This seems to be the closest I can get to the source page without registering for the site; I reached the photo via Google Images. A. Parrot (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed this URL to https://www.studyblue.com/notes/note/n/ancient-egyptian-art-and-architecture/deck/3861125, which, as I said above, is the best I can manage. A. Parrot (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: As the file description says, the facsimile is of the Papyrus of Ani (13th century BC) and was made by E. A. Wallis Budge in 1890, so there shouldn't be any copyright problems there.
However, File:Narmer Palette, Egypt, c. 3100 BC - Royal Ontario Museum - DSC09726.JPG and File:King Menkaure and two goddesses, plaster cast of original in Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Egypt, Giza, Valley Temple of Menkaure, Dynasty 4, c. 2490-2472 BC - Harvard Semitic Museum - Cambridge, MA - DSC06126.jpg are photographs of reproductions, not the original sculptures, and I'm not sure when the replicas were created. I used these because Commons' photos of the original objects are either of inferior quality or dubiously licensed. Before nominating, I asked about the Menkaure statue at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/January#Plaster cast of a public-domain sculpture and was told it should be OK, but I forgot about the Narmer Palette replica, which doesn't seem to be a cast. Do either of these images need to be replaced? A. Parrot (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recall an extensive discussion on Commons about dinosaur images in a similar situation, commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Dinosaur_skeletons_copyrighted?. I think these images are fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ALT seems OK and files are in good places. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: So is this good to go now? A. Parrot (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: is anything else needed here? A. Parrot (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, I'll aim to run through the FAC list in full some time this weekend. Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

An addendum to sources comments included earlier in this review.

  • Quality and reliability:
  • The article is very extensively referenced, and the sources appear to meet all the required criteria for quality and reliability.
  • Verification
  • Because relatively few of the sources are accessible, spotchecking has been limited to a few instances, none of which raised any issues.
  • The link in Kendall 2010b does not seem to be working
Yes, the entire site seems to have gone down (except, oddly, the PDF that is Kendall 2010a). I've added archive links to 2010a as well as 2010b, just to be safe, and will keep an eye on the situation. A. Parrot (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting: a couple of minor points:
  • Retrieval dates have been used inconsistently, with regard to books. Sometimes you provide it, sometimes you don't. There is no need to include retrieval dates for any of the book links, and personally I would remove all of these. But in any event, you need to be consistent.
These aren't really books. User:Citation bot changed the citation templates for articles from the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, which only exists online, from {{cite journal}} to {{cite book}}. I'm guessing it did so on the grounds that they have ISBNs, which I added on User:Mr rnddude's advice. @Brianboulton: should these be treated as books, journals, or websites? Any advice would be appreciated. A. Parrot (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worldcat lists the UCLA source as a "web document". I don't really know what to advise here to be entirely honest. SAK is a scientific journal that publishes works with an ISBN, for example, so having an ISBN doesn't automatically mean we should be using the cite book template. I guess that in this circumstance the sources should be cited using the cite web or cite book templates though. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking just as a fellow editor here, I'm afraid Citation Bot often does more harm than good. I would use templates appropriate to the source: if a print book (whether scanned and online or not) then Cite Book; if purely a web source then Cite Web; if a journal (whether it has an ISBN or not) then Cite Journal. I gather you can disable Citation Bot by putting {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} at the top of the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the suggestion. I've put that template at the top of the article, and I've changed the UCLA encyclopedia's templates to {{cite web}} with an access date and an ISBN. My reasoning is that the encyclopedia is purely online and its articles are meant to be periodically updated. I'm not sure if those periodic updates would entail a change to the article's publication date, so an access date may provide necessary precision. And, despite being online, it does have an ISBN. This solution is consistent with the citations for the encyclopedia at Isis, the FA I have written whose citation format received the most scrutiny, so I hope it's satisfactory. A. Parrot (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billing is out of alphabetical sequence in the "Works cited".
Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I believe that sources are good to go, and I would not hold up the article's promotion on account of these few points. Brianboulton (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2019 (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/Hathor/archive1&oldid=1138462413"