Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rosetta Stone/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 SandyGeorgia 11:06, 18 August 2010 [1].

Rosetta Stone[edit]

Rosetta Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Captmondo (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past couple of months this article has been greatly expanded and improved by myself and User: Andrew Dalby recently as part of the British Museum Project (and eligible for a Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Featured Article prize). It also recently went through an extensive Peer Review. It believe it is now a thoroughly comprehensive article on this historically significant object. Captmondo (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the five Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Featured Article prizes have all been taken now, so this is no longer an issue for this or the other noms below (Sweet Track & Harpy Tomb). The Latin version of this, partly by the same team, won one, which they are too modest to mention. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Under the heading "Rediscovery" the french spelling Institut is used instead of the english Institute is this because you refer to the Institut d'Égypte? P. S. Burton (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the reason, but I think it reads better as "Institute" so I've changed it. Andrew Dalby 14:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed several words from American English to British English, I hope I didn't do something wrong. P. S. Burton (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you changed them from American to British, or thought you did. But see Oxford spelling; these are perfectly acceptable British spellings. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the talk page said Template:British English not Template:British English Oxford spelling P. S. Burton (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to help. OT: In that case it feels kind of meaningless to have two templates.P. S. Burton (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I wrote the text that P. S. Burton edited, and I personally prefer the non-Oxford version of British spelling, so I'm happy with the changes! If no one objects to this I'll recheck the remainder to make sure it conforms. Oddly enough I am currently involved in talk at Oxford spelling, a term that seems to me a misleading neologism ... but I may soon be proved wrong. Andrew Dalby 09:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have consistently British non-Oxford spelling. The only exception is in the text of the quotation, in which Bevan's spelling has been retained. Andrew Dalby 15:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that, but obviously people should not go round de-Oxfording in the belief they are removing inherently non-British usages. I don't think any guideline says the use of Oxford spelling or not should be consistent in an article, though I suppose it should. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Please close the peer review per FAC instructions. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. Sorry, wasn't sure how to do this, mainly because I didn't equate "Removing a peer request" with "Closing a peer request". Have started a discussion on this point on the PR project page. Captmondo (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: the word "close" has been added to what was the "Removing a peer request" section. Captmondo (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You need to round up some linguists to give this article an okeydoke. • Ling.Nut 07:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've already received a copyedit from the RS' curator at the British Museum (Richard Parkinson) who also pointed out some sources which have been incorporated in the article. As there have been translations and scholarly articles on the RS steadily for over 150 years, I really think we can rely on the cited material in this area than hope for an expert here on WP who is familiar with Ancient Greek + Ancient Egyptian Demotic + Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs. (For what it is worth, I have asked such people I know who are familiar with one or two of these areas, and the responses I had back on my talk page was that the material was good). Captmondo (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I've also asked at the WikiProject Linguistics and WikiProject Languages talk pages, in case someone there wants to comment. Andrew Dalby 14:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Per the MOS, we don't use italics for quotations.
Have removed the italics for the lengthy quotation of the text of the Rosetta Stone. Captmondo (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not an improvement. MOS - as often - is not gospel, and this clause was originally intended to cover quotations within running text, not free-standing paragraphs; I regret to see another arbitrary and unEnglish decision. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that this is not the place to discuss this, but I just had a quick peek at the Chicago Manual of Style and it also does not use italics for lengthy, multi-paragraph quotations of text. It might be "unBritish" (I don't have an equivalent British guide on hand to reference), but it is not "unEnglish" in the broader sense of the term. ;-) Captmondo (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the bibliography (I noted UCL Press, but there are probably others).
"UCL Press" expanded to "University College London Press". I scanned the rest of the list and did not find any other acronyms that needed expanding. Captmondo (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UCL Press is its real name. Its connection with University College London is quite tenuous: that's why this name is used. So I'm changing that right back again, sorry, Captmondo! I checked the publishers' names ... but do by all means pick me up on any others you see. Andrew Dalby 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I see that there is a redirect from UCL Press to University College London (with no explanation on the page itself); additionally, when we first began to work on this page, there was a link from this very citation to "University College London". Call me suspicious, but I think some UCL Press authors like to emphasise that apparent link with the College a bit more than they should. Andrew Dalby 19:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I confess that I felt unsure about that one as well, since they seem to prefer the acronym-ified name themselves. I did some checking and found [[2]] which does reference the full name of the college, though never spelled out with "Press" at the end. I tried going to the Cavendish Web site to see if I could find further clarification, but it seems like they have been absorbed by Routledge and no longer publish UCL titles anymore from what I can see. In any event, I think the "UCL" form can be defended. Captmondo (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is an academic-level site, citing primary and secondary sources obsessively, and (in my experience) reliably ... But, not to get into that discussion, we cite it here not for its conclusions but just as evidence that there is dispute over whether these two names, Horwennefer and Ankhwennefer, are of the same person. This issue is fully discussed on the page with many citations. It is demonstrably a good source on this, anyway. Andrew Dalby 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more persuaded if I knew who the authors were and what their qualifications were. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have found another, arguably more reliable source (from a book by Jan Assmann and Andrew Jenkins) which mentions only that one pharaoh succeeded the other. The tyndalehouse.com link is well-sourced, but I cannot track down anyone in print who has come to the same conclusion that they were one and the same. Having said that, the fact that the revolt existed is the key point here, not whether one person ruled under two names (or not). Captmondo (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nishimura ref, it's an article from the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which should be mentioned.
Done! Captmondo (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, for the Simpson ref, it's from the journal Science
And also done! Captmondo (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your careful checking. Andrew Dalby 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • The translation should specify which language is being followed (probably the Greek; is there a hieroglyphic form for Hephaistos?) The Greek for Aëtus would be nice, since the translator's form is ambiguous.
Interesting, I'll check the Hephaistos question. The translation is Bevan's (because it's in the public domain and the quotation is pretty long). I'll also check what he says about its source. Thanks. Andrew Dalby 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, although Bevan doesn't say so in as many words, his footnotes make it obvious that he has based his translation on the Greek text because they cite variants from the other two (and, yes, because he says "Hephaistos" and not "Ptah-Tenen"). So I have now said explicitly that we are using his translation and I have referred to the recent translation from the demotic (which we can't quote at length, but is on the Web). Andrew Dalby 20:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On your other point, I'm uncertain whether to add the Greek for Aëtus to the article: it is indeed an interesting Greek name, but, after all, Greek is only one of the three languages involved here. There is a link to a short article on him in which I included his full name both in Greek and in transliterated Egyptian (supplied by Usor:Iustinus). I wonder whether that's all that's needed. But we can certainly insert it if that seems best. Andrew Dalby 15:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Silvestre de Sacy is a compound surname; his full name should be used at first mention (I'm not sure whether to include baron; probably not, as an anachronism; he was made a peer in 1832.)Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I didn't is that he used the name "Silvestre de Sacy", just so, on his publications, and is always referred to by this portion of his name. I thought adding the forenames that no one ever seems to use would be overkill: they can be found on his biography page, after all. But we can do it, yes. Andrew Dalby 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen both A. I. and M. le baron; the second would probably suggest Marc to far too many of our readers. ;-> But I should like to avoid sending readers away with Silvestre as his Christian name, so thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Andrew Dalby 19:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Captmondo promises to deal with this on his return from a no-wiki weekend :) Andrew Dalby 18:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is now done. Captmondo (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I am currently doing a line-by-line prose review on the article's talk page here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious support Comments' - pending addition of cite below. I am not an expert in the area so cannot comment exhaustively on comprehensiveness, but it seems pretty thorough. The prose was a little choppy and I've given it a spit'n'boot polish to the point where I can't see any clangers outstanding....I'll begin a read-through and make straightforward copyedits as I go. I'll jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a distinct ntoable lingual enitiy, should the A in ancient Greek be capitalised?
Not that I can find it right at the moment, but I have seen a discussion elsewhere on WP as to whether it should be "Ancient Egypt" or "ancient Egypt" (same issue, essentially). On the whole though, I believe that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Directions and regions ought to come into play, which would suggest going with the initial caps form. If there is general agreement on this point, I will make the necessary changes. Captmondo (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection! Andrew Dalby 17:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No changes need to be made from what I can see; I did a case-sensitive search for "Rosetta stone" in the article and found no instances in the body of the article, save for where it ought to appear in the idiomatic section. I note that some cited articles/books also use "stone" instead of "Stone" (and vice versa for the idiomatic section), but I do not think I should change the case when used in a cited publication (Someone please correct me if I am wrong). Captmondo (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first para of the Idiomatic use section needs a cite - I'd not heard it used generally - surely this is in the OED or something..? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I never thought of looking. It is there. I'll add the citation. Andrew Dalby 08:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The OED gives the idiomatic use as "Rosetta stone" (lower-case "s") so that's the way I've written it in that paragraph. However, some of the other sources we cite prefer an upper-case "S", so that's how it appears in the following paragraphs. If you copy-editors think it's best to standardise, please go ahead. Andrew Dalby 09:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems very thorough and well-written. Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Support. I'm not a great judge of style and quality of prose, but from a content perspective, this is thorough and accurate, with only a few concernes.
  • Under the Hieroglyphic Text section, there are two instances where "today's transliteration" is given for Ptolemy and Cleopatra. I'm not aware of a modern system of transliteration that would render the hieroglyphs as they've been rendered. In Ptolemy, the third and fourth characters are actually the biliteral signs w3 and rw. Strictly speaking, these can't be transliterated into single consonants, but because they're systematically used in foreign names to render o and l, I can understand fudging the rules and transliterating them as o and l. I can't understand, however, why w3 is being rendered as w.
  • Same concern in the w3 in Cleopatra, but also, the feminine t ending on the end is separated by a period, which is generally used to indicate the appendage of a suffix pronoun or a verb ending, not a general feminine ending.
  • I'm concerned that the reference to qliwp3dr3t, 64 at present, is to a work by Wallace Budge. Budge used a now obsolete form of transliteration, and his works aren't exactly up to date - I don't believe I've ever seen him cited authoritatively even once in a work published after 1970. I understand that due to his involvement with the stele it's to be expected that he'll be referenced, but it'd be better if he weren't referenced as if he represented a current and authoritative voice of Egyptology.

Otherwise, this is a great article and I hope it passes. Thanatosimii (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these points. I'll ask la:Usor:Iustinus to comment, because some of this material benefited from his input originally. Andrew Dalby 08:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanatosimii, thank you for your comments. If I understand you correctly you favor the transcription system used in Gardiner's Egyptian Grammar. This is understandable, as Gardiner is still all but the standard text for learning Egyptian, in spite of its age. There are two main factors that lead to your disagreement with my transcriptions:
  • Late Egyptian, and even more so Ptolemaic Egyptian, uses glyphs in idosynchratic ways that would be odd at best in Middle Egyptian, and quite often flat-out wrong. But even in Middle Egyptian it was common to use "group writing" to transliterate foreign names (I believe Gardiner does cover this, but I can't find my copy at the moment—look up "group writing" in the index), which for our purposes effectively means that biliterals were used to represent single consonants (for more detail, see, e.g., Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, and Junge Late Egyptian Grammar: an Introduction, pp. 41—46). Thus, while it is true that, strictly speaking, V4 should represent wɜ, and E23 rw, by this period w and r (or perhaps even l) are valid readings.
  • Gardiner did indeed use periods in transcriptions just as you describe (and this system shows up as recently as Hoch's Middle Egyptian Grammar, at least in my edition), but a somewhat different system is now in vogue. In this system, dependent morphological suffixes, such as the feminine t, the plural w, and verbal infixes like tỉ, are separated from the root by a period, whereas pronominal suffixes are demarcated with a =, or more properly two parallel slightly oblique lines (I cannot at the moment find any book which explains this system in full, but for examples see, e.g., Loprieno Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction, and Junge op. cit., especially the non-explanation on p. 29.)
Returning to the first point: Transliterations of Late Egyptian, especially Ptolemaic, are very tricky, and despite my academic training, I am often totally at a loss to figure out the most acceptable transcription. For precisely this reason, I went and checked what the Thesaurus Linguæ Ægyptiæ used, and found Ptwlmys. And if you look around online (e.g. here) you will see that this transcription is not exactly unusual.
As for your comment on Budge, I do not see how I can disagree. :)
--Iustinus (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can accept most of that, but w3 as w instead of o still strikes me as odd. Since Egyptian has no l, by translating rw as l you're using the specific system the Egyptians devised for transliterating foreign words. Within that same system, w3 is used for o systematically, late period spelling notwithstanding. Thanatosimii (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Egyptian did have an [l], it just had no consistent way to represent the phoneme in writing. It is largely considered to be a distinct grapheme in the Demotic writing system, and I suspect that has something to do with why the TLÆ uses it here. But that doesn't entirely answer your challenge, because Demotic had ways to write [o] in foreign words as well, and yet very few Demoticists ever write that as o—the exact same problem. I cannot deny that the system is inconsistent, and that is one of the main reasons why I preferred to go with an outside authority rather than make the call myself. --Iustinus (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm still a little skeptical about this convention, but it looks established enough for me to accept it's use. That resolves my concerns. Thanatosimii (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Iustinus and Thanatosimii. I would just add that I understand the concerns about citing Budge and I worked to eliminate some of those citations. He creeps back in rather easily because his works are in the public domain (and also because, in his time, he was good at explaining Egyptology to non-specialists). However, as you suggest, it is natural and proper in certain contexts to cite his writings about the Stone because he was responsible for its care and wrote extensively on the subject. Andrew Dalby 19:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I'm working on one just for you. All of the images used are either in public domain based on age, or properly licensed for use here. Those that are PD by age are very clearly too old to have any confusion on that status. Imzadi 1979 → 08:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I've made some small (I hope non-controversial) copyedits to the text, and added a bunch of non-breaking spaces, but I thought these items should still be clarified:

  • Why are only some sentences in the lead cited? Usually it's all or none.
It is now "none". I removed the first as it was superfluous, and the second was moved down to a portion that covers the RS' history in the British Museum. Captmondo (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • although it is uncertain why such discrepancies exist, it is clear that the decree was issued in 196 BCE and the stele was carved very shortly afterwards. - why is there no footnote for this?
Have changed this to say what can definitely be supported: "..it is clear that the decree was issued in 196 BCE and that it was designed to re-establish the rule of the Ptolemaic kings over Egypt" with appropriate citation. Captmondo (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • to display its relevance to the various cultural groups of Egypt - what does "various cultural groups of Egypt" mean?
I looked at the reference used and have rephrased it: "...included texts in Egyptian to display its relevance to the general populace by way of the literate Egyptian priesthood". That should do it. Captmondo (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There it would lie for at least another three centuries until its rediscovery. - why is there no footnote for this?
Have added citation to that point. Captmondo (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In most of the article the primary measurements are given in metric and the alternate in imperial units (e.g. 114.4 centimetres (45.0 in)). In the "From French to British possession" section this is reversed, primary in imperial and alternate in metric units (50 feet (15 m)). Why the switch?
Simple inconsistency, likely based on what measurement was preferred in the source texts used. Have now made this consistent. Captmondo (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Favouring these views, Richard Parkinson points out - favoring which views? Several have just been mentioned.
All of them, as I understand it. However, upon re-reading I realized that the point is better made by simply removing the lead "Favouring these views..." Captmondo (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • why the decipherment has "involved greater difficulties than scholars expected from what was apparently an exact bilingual and triscript key to the 'code' of the hieroglyphs" - it would be better to attribute this lengthy quote to the author, if notable, or paraphrase, if not.
Thanks for looking at all the comments above, Captmondo ... I think this sentence may be better paraphrased. Andrew Dalby 11:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have just done so! Captmondo (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have just discovered! Andrew Dalby 11:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even before the Salvolini affair, disputes over precedence and plagiarism punctuated the decipherment story. Thomas Young's work is acknowledged in Champollion's 1822 Lettre à M. Dacier, but, according to some, incompletely. - this is not clearly attributed. Who are the "some" here?
I do have a citation for that and I will hunt it down. Andrew Dalby 11:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done; I have reworded at this point to make clearer the fact that we are drawing on secondary sources. Andrew Dalby 12:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Idiomatic use" section. While interesting, I'm concerned that this section consists primarily of original research. Rather than using secondary sources that describe how the term "Rosetta stone" or "Rosetta" is used in other contexts, it appears simply provide example of primary sources using the phrase/term. This source, for example, at least explains how the phrase is used. Here are a couple of other sources that describe the meaning in a metaphorical sense: [3][4]. Would you be able to build this section from secondary sources?
Yes, I take the point. In addition to your suggestions here we could probably get more material from the Oxford English Dictionary (which we already cite, but only for the date). Andrew Dalby 11:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, well written, interesting, well cited. I'd like to see these specific issues fixed/clarified. Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also take the point, though I think calling upon the secondary sources that are used to illustrate the point as "original research" is not supportable (how else can one illustrate it's usage?) In any event I have expanded the lead using the references cited by the OED, which I believe helps. The examples that you provide are good, but am not sure how I can use them as they are themselves necessarily secondary sources when compared to the OED. Can you provide further direction on this? Captmondo (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is Imzadi 1979's image review above not sufficient? Captmondo (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; the first line said "he was working on one", and on scan, I missed this one! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:02, 18 August 2010 (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/Rosetta_Stone/archive1&oldid=1089817042"