Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Merenre Nemtyemsaf I/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 June 2023 [1].

Merenre Nemtyemsaf I[edit]

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Merenre Nemtyemsaf I fourth king of the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt ruling for 6 to 11 years in the 23rd century BC. There is a lot to say about his short reign owing to an unexpected consequence of a reform he undertook: thanks to him provinvial nobles became more independent from the central authority and started to be buried in their provinces... where they wrote their biographies on their tomb walls. Read the article to know more about the large caravans of donkeys travelling the Nubian desert, transport boats on the Nile bringing granite to the pyramid and more! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead[edit]

I will admit I have an affinity for Ancient Egypt, but I have never written extensively about it. I am honored to review one of Iry-Hor's FA noninations; this is going to be fun. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimitedlead I am looking forward to your comments.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I feel like at this point, I have really gotten a feel of what Iry-Hor's writing style is like, and surprise surprise, we have yet another comma avoider. Sigh. I really am alone on this one, aren't I? Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iry-Hor's article seems spot on to me in terms of comma use. So, yep, you are. :-)) Would I be rubbing salt in to quote a renown grammarist - [2]? Or to suggest that your professor is correct in suggesting that your desire to sprinkle random commas all over the page is a sign of old age? RALMAO! Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the MildUnlimitedlead Ahah I wasn't aware that commas could be such a contentious subject matter, other than the Oxford comma that is.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iry-Hor, Gog and I have a long-standing comma feud :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Comma Wars are fiercely contested. I managed to get through my life to about a year ago - which included about 50 FACs - oblivious to this. Oh, that that happy state could have continued. :-) As another editor has commented querulously - there is actually a school of commaists who would insert punctuation after the first three words of the King James' Bible? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

  • "Also dating to the reign of Ramses II is the Saqqara Tablet, explicitly relating the succession "Pepi I → Merenre I → Pepi II", with Merenre located on the 24th entry": This paragraph ends in a note, but not a citation, which is generally required at FAC.
Fixed I used the citation in the footnote which refers to the Saqqara Tablet.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the title of Shaw (2008) not capitalized? I see a similar situation with several other sources in the Bibliography section.
Done wherever I could see some capitalization missing. If you see more, let me know, there might be more as jstor removes capitalization in the titles in many cases.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 120 has two periods at the end.
Fixed here and elsewhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto with citation 160? Maybe it is intentional.
Fixed nope it is a mistake, that is because the final "." is added by the template and sometimes I forget this, write the final '.' and two show up.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "sixth dynasty" in lowercase in the infobox?
Fixed my mistake I thought dynasties shouldn't be capitalized anywhere. I have capitalized it in the infobox. More generally, should I capitalize dynasties throughout the main text ? Also should I capitalize the word "dynasty"? That is, in the main text should I write "sixth dynasty", "Sixth dynasty" or "Sixth Dynasty"?
I am not sure myself, but I lean towards "Sixth Dynasty". Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have capitalized throughout "Sixth Dynasty" (and similarly for other dynasties). That is also my preferred format.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "He ruled Egypt for six to 11 years..." Is there an appropriate link for Egypt?
Tentative fix the preceding sentence "[...]was an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh[...]" already has a wikilink to "Ancient Egypt" so I wikilinked here to History_of_Egypt#Dynastic_Egypt_(3150–332_BC). Iry-Hor (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...in the number provincial administrators..." Do you mean: "in the number of provincial administrators"
Fixed yes ! Thank you.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Memphis was the capital at this time, I suggest referring to it as such in the lead.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...revealing thriving exchanges with Nubia..." What do you mean by "revealing"? I think this is a strange choice of words; I would rephrase.
Done, I wrote "Several trading and quarrying expeditions took place under Merenre, notably to Nubia where [...]"
  • "...that Merenre has a canal dug to facilitate the navigation..." You should stick to the past tense: "...that Merenre had a canal dug to facilitate the navigation..."
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In parallel..." Is this necesarry?
Removed.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. This is the same issue as with the dynasties: I am never quite sure what should be capitalized and what should not be.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would wait and see wait others say, although I think keeping the capitalization consistent across Wikipedia articles is always a good thing. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parents and siblings

  • Why is Pepi I mentioned after Ankhesenpepi I? Pepi I seems like a more significant historical figure to me.
Fixed yes, I have updated the sentence accordingly.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...indicated by her titles, she notably bore...": Two things here. Why is there a comma? It could easily be a period, causing the splitting of the sentence, or a semicolon. Secondly, why is this notable? "Notably" is inching close to POV, and unless the consensus among academics is that this is indeed notable, I could delete that word.
Done you are right there is nothing especially notable here I used the word to make the link between both pieces of the sentence. The problem is fixed with the added period as you advocated.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the sole women": Did you mean "the sole woman"?
Done this was a typo.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Gustave Jéquier?
Done he was a Swiss archaeologist. I have clarified and wikilinked.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consorts and children

  • "aunt queen": Should this be dashed, since it describes one person? I am not sure, so do not do this just because I said so.
Fixed I changed to "aunt and queen" in order to avoid the problem. As I am not a native English speaker, I tend to be mistaken on such fine issues and prefer to bypass them completely when possible.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and given that historical sources state...": I would replace "historical sources" with "they also" because it is clear from the sentence that you are referring to the historical sources.
Done, thank you this also permits the sentence to be more precise as indeed a single source reports the age of Pepi II at the time of his coronation so the sentence now reads "Since historical sources agree that Merenre's reign intervened between those of Pepi I and Pepi II and lasted for around a decade and given that one of them states that Pepi II acceded to the throne at the age of six,[...]"
  • Not sure why, but Wikipedia tends to prefer "acceded" over "ascended".
Changed throughout.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at six": This just feels petty at this point, but I think saying "at the age of six" would help the article sound more eloquently written than it already is :)
Done thanks it reads better indeed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Pepi I as had been hitherto proposed": Proposed by whom? Historians? And if so, any ones in particular worth noting?
Done you are right this was not precise, I have updated the sentence as follows: "[...] this indirectly indicates that Merenre I might have been Pepi II's father[21] rather than Pepi I,[13][23] as had been hitherto held by a majority of Egyptologists.[24][25]" References [24] and [25] are new and were lifted from Pepi I's article. They are Collombert's 2011 and 2018 research papers on excavations in Pepi I's necropolis in Saqqara, where he discusses the issue and states that the prior hypothesis of Pepi I fathering Pepi II is held by a majority of Egyptologists. To be honest I do not know who said that first, I found a 1955 piece stating this but in all probability the hypothesis dates from earlier periods. Do you think this is precise enough or should I find a precise list of names of Egyptologists who thought Pepi I was Pepi II's father prior to Collombert's excavations ?Iry-Hor (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is likely sufficient. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attestations

  • "(many of which are discussed in this article)" Is this necessary?
Removed I agree this is superfluous.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relative

  • "The relative chronological position of Merenre Nemtyemsaf I within the Sixth Dynasty is secure": "secure" is a strange word to use; I would replace it with something like "certain".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...making Merenre the fourth king of the Sixth Dynasty": You have already said this, so I would play with the wording here. Maybe instead of "making", you could say "evidencing that".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Manetho (i.e. "the priest-historian Manetho").
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Aegyptiaca not italisized in "No copies of the Aegyptiaca have survived..."?
It is a book title so normally italisized. It is also italisized in other FA articles on ancient pharaohs so by consistency I would prefer to keep that way.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I am just pointing out that I saw a sentence where Aegyptiaca was not capitalized and I was hoping you could fix that.Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlimitedlead Done sorry I had misunderstood you. This is fixed now !
  • Why does the article firmly state that Menere was fourth of his line when the Aegyptiaca suggests that he was third? Is there a scholarly source that rejects the Aegyptiaca's chronology? Otherwise, you should not present Menere as being fourth, only mentioning that it is a possibility.
All other ancient sources agree that he was 4th, in particular the contemporaneous South Saqqara Stone. Given that the Aegyptiaca was written some 1800 years after his life and given that Userkare (the 2nd pharaoh) reigned a very short time, might have been an usurper and was the target of a damnatio memoriae from the father of Merenre, it makes sense that he had faded from memory by the time of Manetho. Merenre is 4th in all modern sources as it is now well established that Userkare did reign from 2 to 4 years between Teti and Pepi.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute

  • "radiocarbon dates": I think it would make more sense as "radiocarbon dating". Also, link that to Radiocarbon dating. A nice bonus is that it is a featured article.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as follows" implies that all of the following dates are true, when clearly they are not. I would suggest stating that the following dates are theories put out by scholars and it is impossible to determine which one is right.
Done I wrote "As a result, Merenre's rule is generally dated to the early 23rd century BC. Various theories have been proposed by scholars though it is impossible to determine which one is right:" then comes the list of dates.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I just realized that Old Kingdom of Egypt is not linked in the article's body. The first instance of it in the body would be in the Parents and siblings section.
Done well spotted thank you !Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duration

  • "The cattle count was an important event aimed at evaluating the amount of taxes to be levied on the population. This involved counting cattle, oxen and small livestock" These sentences can be merged as they are somewhat repetetive. May I suggest: "The cattle count, which involved counting cattle, oxen and small livestock, was an important event aimed at evaluating the amount of taxes to be levied on the population."
Nice ! Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think you need to link biennial is you are just going to tell us what the definition is.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...is found in a quarry..." I would change "is" to "was" because the discovery was made in the past. The only reason I see that it would stay as "is" is if the inscription is still in the quarry presently.
As far as I understand the inscription is still there. Is it fine keeping it as it is ? Note that I did not choose the tense of the sentence because the inscription is still there, I just did not think of all of this...Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better as "was found" or "is located". You choose (what does the citation more closely resemble?) Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done I think "is located" is closer in spirit to the source. Indeed, the source gives the translation of the inscription then its location "(Hatnub inscription n6 [...])". Iry-Hor (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce William Stevenson Smith.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Elmar Edel.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accession to the throne: coregency

  • "(Miroslav Bárta[93]);" I think there may be some sort of formatting issue here?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This analysis is shared by the Egyptologists Jaromir Málek and Miroslav Verner for whom Merenre acceded to the throne at an early age and died young" I am confused by what you are trying to say here.
Done clarified to: "The Egyptologists Jaromir Málek and Miroslav Verner agree with this analysis, for Verner Merenre acceded to the throne at an early age and died young"
Better, but I would replace that comma with a semicolon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Hans Goedicke?
Done he was an Austrian Egyptologist, I have clarified.
  • Why is citation 99 not at the end of the sentence?
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administration

  • "number provincial administrators": I think you mean "number provincial of administrators"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is citation 112 not at the end of the sentence?
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The motivations behind such changes is not clear...": I think you mean "are" instead of "is".
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The motivations behind such changes is not clear, either an attempt..." I would split this into two sentences by replacing the comma with a period.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were the many marriages of Pepi I may have created instability through factions and competing interest groups": I cannot understand this phrase. What are you trying to say?
Clarified the source states that Pepi I (and later Pepi II) entered into a lot of marriages and that these created competing interest groups at court (presumably centred and queens and presumptive heirs). I split the sentence into two and wrote "Indeed, the many marriages of Pepi I may have generated instability by creating competing interest groups and factions at court". Is this better ?Iry-Hor (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove the "interest" part, but other than that, it looks perfect. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is citation 114 not at the end of the sentence?
Done it was because 114 pertained to the "labour" claim of the first half of the sentence. But I guess it is easier to read with refs at the end of the sentence.
  • Same with citations 118 and 93.
Done as above.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Possibly related to these developments is the deliberate policy on the mid Sixth Dynasty kings' behalf of setting up cults for the queen mothers Ankhesenpepi I, Ankhesenpepi II and Iput II in the province whence they originated in order, as Richard Bußmann points, 'to strengthen their ties to powerful families in Upper Egypt'": I do not understand what this means.
Clarified I changed to: "At the same time, Pepi I, Merenre and Pepi II deliberately set up cults for queens Ankhesenpepi I, Ankhesenpepi II and later Iput II in the province whence they originated. This was in order to, as Richard Bußmann points, "strengthen the kings' ties to powerful families in Upper Egypt".Iry-Hor (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is note seven necessary?
Removed.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is citation 126 not at the end of the sentence?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another administration official...": I think you mean "administrative official".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Weni, commander of the army and leader of quarrying expeditions, chamberlain of the palace and sandal-bearer of the king who was made a count and governor of Upper Egypt": This phrase is too long and confusing; I think you should trim it significantly.
Done. I simplified to "Another administrative official whom Merenre promoted was Weni. He was made leader of quarrying expeditions then a count and governor of Upper Egypt."Iry-Hor (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Merenre appointed Qar nomarch of Edfu, overseer of all Upper Egyptian grain and overseer of priests, Qar managed the livestock and grain resources in the South on behalf of the royal court": I think you need to reword this.
Done trimmed to "Merenre appointed Qar nomarch of Edfu and overseer of Upper Egyptian grain and livestock resources. He was also appointed chief judge over the whole of Upper Egypt."Iry-Hor (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of Min, you should say something like "the god Min".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cultic activities

  • "Merenre decreed something concerning the funerary cult of Menkaure as fragments of a decree of his were uncovered in the latter's mortuary temple." "Something" is a very coloquial and vague word to use; please rephrase this sentence in general for clarity.
Done. I moved the sentence to the end of the paragraph and wrote: "In addition to these activities, Merenre made a decree pertaining to the funerary cult of Menkaure as shown by fragmentary inscriptions uncovered in the latter's mortuary temple".Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is hilarious. You have linked the Christian figure Seth, not the ancient Egyptian god Seth!
Woopsy. Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "years of reign" I would change this to "years of 'his reign"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...surviving remnants of the texts numbering hundreds..." I would place a comma before "numbering".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Kohl capitalized?
I have no idea why I wrote that with a capital ?! Changed.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Construction works

  • I would get rid of "discussed below".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does it say "this reign" as opposed to "his reign"?
Fixed it is a typo I guess.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...cannot be fully ascertained," I would replace this comma with a semicolon.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is note seven not at the end of the sentence?
Fixed. It explains what a Ka-chapel is so I thought it better to place it immediately after "Ka-chapel". I don't mind placing it at the end of the sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

End of reign

  • "administration official" I think you mean "administrative official"
Done yes it is a recurrent mistake I make, apologies !Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accessing to the throne" I think you mean "acceding"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is citation 21 in the middle of the sentence?
Done. I try to make refs appear as close as possible to the claim in the text so sometimes I write the ref in the sentence. I moved at the end of the sentence now.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern desert and Levant

  • Why is citation 154 not at the end of the sentence? Also, does this citation mention siltstone?
Fixed Yes it does, it says: "The lithologie composition of this rock series in the Wadi Hammamat (thickness 4000 m), consists of a thick succession of clastic sediments including

greywackes, sandstones, siltstones, [...]". The placement of the ref was wrong and should be at the end of the sentence, as I explained sometimes such a placement is because I wanted to reference something specific, other times however this arises because of previous versions of the article (or because of a mistake).Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it should be "reported" instead of "reports".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with quarrying of a very large travertine altar stone" I think you mean: "with the quarrying of a very large travertine altar stone"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further abroad, the high official Iny who served under Pepi I, Merenre and Pepi II either led or participated..." I think you should change it to: "Further abroad, the high official Iny, who served under Pepi I, Merenre and Pepi II, either led or participated..."
Done. Those commas...Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fetch" is quite colloquial; I would replace it with "obtain" or something similar.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is citation 168 not at the end of the sentence?
Done. That's because ref 168 states that Weni led a campaign in the southern Levant under Pepi I, so justifies the first part of the sentence. I don't mind moving it to the end of the sentence though.Iry-Hor (talk)

Nubia

  • "...union of the two lands suggesting that it was carved...": I would add a comma before "suggesting".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are citations 163 not at the end of the sentence?
Fixed my mistake.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Centered at Kerma they struggled intermittently with Egypt and its allies over the region[163] which was the source of incense, ebony, animal skins, ivory and exotic animals[163] brought back by caravans" Can you repharse this to make it less confusing?
DoneI wrote: "Toward the end of the Old Kingdom period, Nubia saw the arrival of the C-Group people from the south. Centered at Kerma, they struggled intermittently with Egypt and its allies over control of the region which, for the Egyptians, was a source of incense, ebony, animal skins, ivory and exotic animals". Is this any better?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is citation 171 in the middle of the sentence?
Fixed It justified that "three hosts" were sent, but I movd it after the comma at the middle of the sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise with "They were said to have pacified the land although they likely constituted a labour force and a traders caravan above all, exploiting resources the locals would not or could not use and only rarely having to fight".
Done I clarified with: "These expeditions took place under the direction of the caravan conductor and later nomarch of Elephantine|Harkhuf. He claimed to have pacified the land South of Egypt but his expeditions likely constituted a labour force and a traders caravan above all. The aim of such expeditions was first and foremost to exploit resources the locals would not or could not use, and only rarely did they had to fight".Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know who "the king of Yam" was? If so, I would link his article.
No we do not. He probably was some random chieftain and the identity of Yam as an unifid land is not clear. From what I gather "king" is really an overstatement and Yam was likely an ensemble of tribes with a limited settlement at Kerma.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ruler of Irtjet, Setju and Wawat..." Did one person rule all these places, or are they three separate rulers?
One person ruled these three "lands". These are the names given by the Egyptians to vague locations in Nubia. Apparently one person ruled them all at the time but given the sparcity of the population, this ruler probably commanded nomadic tribes with a presence there. Thinking that Harkhuf, with 300 donkeys and probably a couple hundred men could resist this ruler in his land says it all.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is citation 179 in the middle of a sentence?
Fixed remnant from an earlier version.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To meet the demands of trade within and without Egypt for pack animals..." What does it mean for the demands of trade to be "without Egypt"?
Fixed I meant trade within Egypt and between Egypt and some partner abroad. I changed to "outside".Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...was Weni who had been..." I would place a comma after Weni.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...heavy loads, Weni's biography..." I think this comma should be a semicolon.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is citation 129 not at the end of that sentence?
Done The ref specifically talks about the "five-channels". I don't mind moving it at the end of the sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Main pyramid

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with Isabelle Pierre-Croisiau.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is citation 201 in the middle of the sentence?
Fixed this was because "bore texts on the transfiguration of the king" was edited later and I forgot to move the ref in consequences.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with citation 208.
Changed this was because this ref justified the "aggregation with the gods" claim and not the rest. But I merged it with the ref at the end of the sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iry-Hor: I think you forgot this one. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlimitedlead Sorry I missed this one, done !Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mortuary temple

  • "The pyramid of Merenre is surrounded by a wider mortuary complex, with its offering chapel located on..." The "with" is superfluous.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further on, stands the base..." The comma here is likewise unnecessary.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mummy

  • Introduce Émile and Heinrich Karl Brugsch.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "be that of Merenre": I think this would read better as "is that of Merenre".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old Kingdom

  • Introduce Henry George Fischer and Ludwig Borchardt.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Later periods

  • "comprised ceremonial objects" I think this wound sound better as "comprised of ceremonial objects".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the comics Papyrus...": "Papyrus" should be capitalized as the name of a comic.
You mean italicized (if so then it is done) ? Because it already is capitalized.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments II

Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is all from me. Very nice work on this article! Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimitedlead all done ! Thank you for your epic review ! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Happy to support this nomination! Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Buidhe[edit]

The number of footnotes in the article seems excessive by far. If the content in the footnotes is aiding reader understanding of the subject it should be in the article, not hidden in a footnote, if it does not, then it does not belong anywhere in the article. (t · c) buidhe 15:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe Ok but specifically what do you think? Which footnote is not aiding the reader in understanding the article ? And which one should be included in the main text ? I have removed or incorporated to the main text 13 footnotes. I don't see how to reduce the other ones for now. Some of the long footnotes respond to questions that have been raised in the previous FA of Pepi I, asking for details on specific points. Others allow the reader to understand sources talking about the same thing using different names or differing numbering. Some give necessary examples illustrating the point made in the main text allowing an in-depth inquiry without overloading the text for the casual reader. But I am of course opened to further improve the article with your suggestions on specific footnotes.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I do not find the number of footnotes to be an issue; in fact, I find that it is impossible to write about historical figures (especially Ancient Egyptian ones) without using a large amount of notes. I do concur that it would be beneficial for a few to be incorporated into the main text, however. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I moved footnote 4 to a separate section in the main text and all dates for Merenre's reign at the end of the chronology section. I removed two more footnote and will continue to see how to further reduce the remaining ones.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have incorporated more footnotes in the text and deleted a few, the article is now down to 16 footnotes out of 33 originally. Let me know what you think, I hope this addresses your concern.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe Now down to 13 footnotes, is this sufficient or are the remaining ones still too much ?Iry-Hor (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Buidhe could you please indicate if you have more comments on the article for now ?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

  • File:Merenre.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Hidden_treasures_09.jpg
Nikkimaria I don't get it: I am the original author and uploader of File:Merenre.jpg (I visited the Louvre !) so I put a "{ {self|cc-by-sa-3.0} }" tag at the time. Was this not enough? I have added "{ {PD-user|Iry-Hor} }" and "{ {PD-self} }" tags now, is this what you had in mind ?Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Your tagging accounts for the copyright status of the photograph, which is fine. However, France does not have freedom of panorama, so we also need to account for the copyright of the object you photographed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Ok I get it thank you, but what is the tag for that ?!Iry-Hor (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah also why is File:Hidden_treasures_09.jpg concerned ? From what I understand the picture was taken in Egypt, is a { {PD Egypt} } tag necessary ?Iry-Hor (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this actively on public display, and if so where? The source link is a 404. As for the other work, it would be public domain due to its age, it just needs an explicit tag for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Ok so for the statue, I do not know for sure if it still on display, I would suspect that it is on display in the new grand Egyptian museum. This photo was taken in the old Egyptian Museum in Cairo. In fact this photo is entirely similar to this one which appears in an FA article and has the same tags. For the box I put a { {PD-old} } tag.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PD-old needs to be supplemented with a US tag. For Hidden_treasures_09.jpg, is an updated source available? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok US tag added to the box image. For Hidden trasures I could not find an updated source, instead I replaced the image by another one definitely US-1923, from a 1911 publication so this settles this issue.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:SouthSaqqaraStone.png: source should be in the description rather than in the image itself
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Merenre_Abydos.png needs a US tag. Ditto File:Merenre_rock_inscription_Assuan_2.jpg, File:Merenre_rock_inscription_Assuan.jpg
Done.Iry-Hor (talk)
  • File:Merenre_Hatnub.png: given source is from 1928 - was there a publication before 1928? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not completely sure: the publication was made in a two parts book (with the 8th and 9th volume of a series in a single publication). Now I am completely sure the book is dated 1924 (as can be visually verified online here) however I have doubts regarding the second half of the book: was the 9th volume published separately from the 8th prior to this edition? Because many modern sources give 1928 for the 9th volume and not 1924. Note: this was published outside the US.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. If it were the case that this was not published until 1928, any idea if the copyright was registered/renewed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Yes the book of the source available online is hosted by NYU Library, below the book they state: "NYU has researched copyright requirements and restrictions for each of the countries of publication and believes the materials displayed on this site have been cleared by the rights holder, are specified in the rights statement attached to each work, or are in the public domain." Consequently I added a { {PD-US-no notice} } tag. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nikkimaria Are all images fine now?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the copy of the book linked does include a copyright notice? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it, you mean NYU's library is putting online copyrighted material?! Is { {{PD-US-not renewed} } appropriate instead ? Iry-Hor (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NYU is saying that they believe the work is in the public domain but are not specifying why they believe that to be the case, which can make selecting an appropriate tag difficult. This is sometimes addressed by placing a No known restrictions tag, although unfortunately there doesn't appear to be one specific to NYU yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Done! I created the category template and all necessary steps have been taken.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Could you please indicate if you think the image review is complete now ? I am anxious to see the article succeed at FAC. If some picture is still not up to it, let me know and I will simply take it down.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is complete. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens[edit]

Will read as soon as time allows. For now, one point: Names were super important in Ancient Egypt, but I cannot see any information on the various names. For example, "Horus name" is mentioned once in the article, but what was his Horus name? The German Wikipedia article (which is a good article) has a nice overview over all the names [3], the yellow table on the top right ("Names of Merenre"). Do you think a section about the names, accompanied with such a table, would be possible? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jens LallensackActually the full titulary of the pharaoh in hieroglyphs with transliteration and translation is in the article: go to the infobox, on the right of the "Royal Titulary" there is a button "[Show]". Click on it and everything will appear in the infobox. This is true for all pharaoh articles so now you can browse them all, even the scarcely attested rulers of intermediary period and you will see what is known of their titularies appear. The problem of not spotting the [Show] button is recurrent. I have been aware of it since several years and tried to propose technical solutions to make the [Show] button more prominent in the infobox. I got agreement at some point from the community to at least make [Show] appear in bold font but my technical abilities meant I did not succeed in making that work. Indeed it is the infobox source code that has to be updated.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see! But now I think that there is a serious problem with the organisation of the infobox? We see three brown bars, the first two of which are obviously highlighting headings. "Pharao", for example, is the heading for the related information "Reign", "Coregency" … So of course, I would assume that "Royal titulary" is a heading too, and for the points that we see ("Consort", "Children"). Of course, that doesn't make sense. But it is seriously misleading the reader, which I think is the reason why the "show" button is basically invisible (because it is simply not expected). An easy solution would be to just show the full titulary section by default (there should be some "uncollapse=TRUE" parameter available somewhere, I hope)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack This parameter would affect all infoboxes in all pharaoh articles if we update the infobox source code. I think this solution had been proposed when this was discussed a couple of years ago but the issue is that this seriously disrupts the layout of many articles where the infobox becomes overly large as compared to the main text. I don't know if I can force the infobox to be uncollapsed in this article alone, I don't think this is possible?Iry-Hor (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be to move the "Royal titulary" to the bottom of the infobox, that would make it much more obvious that there is something to extend. But I see that changes to the infobox are not something we can decide on in a FAC review, and that this point is therefore not actionable at the moment. So we have to leave it like this, it seems. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that there is something wrong this infobox layout, your question keeps coming up in FAC reviews/DYK reviews etc. when a pharaoh article is presented. I am convinced that the majority of reader simply miss this out completely. To solve the issue we need to raise it again ( I don't remember where I asked this a few years back, I can figure it out). Once the community has voted we can do something, but then I remember that I got lost in the source code. Because this was not as simple as editing a wiki page. This was a true source code. Your idea of moving the titulary to the bottom is a good possibility. I will see if I can come back to the discussion we had then.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack I found the discussion again it is here. I can try again to edit the code !Iry-Hor (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the source code guy some help again this time I am decided to succeed. I will try to replace [Show] by [Click to show] as was agreed at the time.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe the "Click to show" will make it more obvious. However, one drawback is that we loose consistency (the other info boxes, including those at the bottom of your article, all use "show"). Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry once I understand how to edit the infobox source code I can update it the way we see best.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack That's it, I have done what was possible: the infobox now has the [Show] button on the left (I cannot change its content because it calls a program which is used by all infoboxes and collapsible boxes so that would impact most of Wikipedia). I added a header "Informations" to show that the titulary header is not that of the below informations. I hope this answers your request.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it for longer, I think the "show" button is better placed on the right side, because this is consistent with all other boxes. I don't think that having it on the left will make it any more obvious. But this is only my opinion, it won't affect my vote on this FAC. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I cannot change anything else unfortunately in the infobox layout as this will appear as such in all infoboxes everywhere and would be reverted immediately. I can put it back on the right though but I would prefer to give it some time on the left to see what people say, if they find it more obvious. Then I will revert back to right if this had no positive impact.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment: One weakness of the article I see is language, which needs improvement. One part of it is interpunctation; I think that a lot of sentences are missing commas. I am not a native speaker myself, but in some cases I am quite sure that we need them; examples follow:
Thank you for your help!Iry-Hor (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ankhesenpepi was a daughter of the nomarch of Abydos Khui and his wife Nebet whom Pepi I made into a vizier during his reign – here, I think it should be "nomarch of Abydos, Kuhi, and his wife Nebet, whom"
Done and sentence shortened and clarified.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merenre could also be the father of queen Iput II another wife of Pepi II. – comma after "Iput II"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • These include an alabaster vessel (inventory E 23140b) and ivory box (inventory N. 794) both in the Louvre Museum; – comma behind "794)"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merenre appointed Qar nomarch of Edfu
I don't understand what you propose, or at least I am not sure. If I put a comma between "Qar" and "nomarch" then it changes the sentence's meaning I think, because I want to say that Merenre made Qar into a nomarch of Edfu. It seems to me that if I put a comma then "nomarch of Edfu" becomes an epithet of Qar rather than what Merenre made him into.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • overseer of priests, Qar – comma behind "Qar"
Changed the whole sentence was changed following another reviewer's comment.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Khui and Nebet's son, Merenre's uncle Djau served – comma behind "Djau" if the intended meaning is as I think.
Done you are right.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • had a full sister in – never read a formulation like this, but I might be wrong. Please double-check.
Changed to "Princess Neith was Merenre's full sister"
  • Vivienne Callender observes that Neith's titles in relation to Merenre are now damaged and here precise relation to Merenre cannot be ascertained. – I don't understand. In the sentence before, you gave the information "full sister" as fact, and now, this relation cannot be ascertained?
Changed and clarified I compltely changed the pararaph to : "Princess Neith was Merenre's full sister. The archaeologist Gustave Jéquier has proposed that Neith was first married to Merenre then to Pepi II, explaining the absence of her tomb near that of Merenre as would be expected of a royal spouse. The Egyptologist Vivienne Callender observes however that among Neith's titles presented in her tomb, those referring to her relation with Merenre are now illegible. Consequently, Callender states that whether or not she was married to Merenre cannot be ascertained beyond doubt". So it is known that she is a full sister of Merenre, but whether she was married to him remains uncertain.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merenre's aunt and queen Ankhesenpepi II[note 2] who married Pepi I was also married to Merenre – I am confused here; doesn't "Merenre's queen" already imply that she was married to him?
Fixed yes you are right. I changed to : "Sixth dynasty royal seals and stone blocks found at Saqqara demonstrate that Merenre's aunt Ankhesenpepi II, who married Pepi I, was also married to Merenre. She is the mother of the future pharaoh Pepi II.".Iry-Hor (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • this indirectly indicates that Merenre I might have been Pepi II's father rather than Pepi I, as had been hitherto held by a majority of Egyptologists. – Is this now consensus? If not, it this claim should better be attributed to the particular egyptologist rather than presenting it as fact?
Done I precised that this is a claim by Philippe Collombert. I do not know if this makes a consensus now but there were already a number of Egyptologists in favor of Collombert's view
  • but also in inscriptions and small artefacts bearing his name. "through" instead of "in"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • as follows: 2361–2355 BC, 2310–2300 BC, 2287–2278 BC, 2285–2279 BC, 2283–2278 BC, 2283–2269 BC, 2263–2257 BC, 2260–2254 BC, 2255–2246 BC, 2252–2242 BC, 2235–2229 BC, 2227–2217 BC, 2219–2212 BC. – but this is pure data and not semantic text that a human can read. Better move to a footnote?
Of course I quite agree ! This was in a footnote originally (see e.g. other FA pharaoh articles I wrote, this is always in a footnote). I moved this back in the text because another reviewer commented that there were too many footnotes. What should I do ?Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Egyptologists: Shaw and Nicholson, Verner, Allen, Altenmüller, Málek Sowada, Rice, Krauss, Lehner and Hornung give him nine to eleven years; while Baer Spalinger von Beckerath Wright and Pardee, Clayton, Brovarski, Dodson and Hilton, Strudwick and Baker – Do we need all these names? This is quite tedious to read and not really of interest for the general reader. Some of them lack commas, too.
Partial answer. So I added the missing commas. The issue with the names is that at FAC for pharaoh articles I keep on being asked who precisely said what, that is if I say something like "some Egyptologists credit him with six years of reign" then I might have troubles because of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Attribution. I would like to have this in a footnote but as above a reviewer said there are too many footnotes.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with that reviewer regarding the number of footnotes, I think these names are simply too much, regardless if in the text or in a footnote. They do not help the general reader. If there are that many names, I don't think we have a problem with attribution. I personally would just say "Some egyptologists", or pic the most important/prominent study as example "such as xxx". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Done, I kind of picked a (bad?) middle ground: I wrote "some" and "others" in the sentence, and added footnotes with the names. The reviewer who pointed out the number of footnotes hasn't responded since April anyway. I also decided to put the dates back in footnotes as I agree with you that this is not meant to be in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Verner, Merenre may have been appointed coregent by his father Pepi I in order to secure him the succession to the throne following a conspiracy. – But that was already mentioned? So it just means "Verner thinks the same"?
Changed of course you are right this was already said. I changed to "The Egyptologists Jaromir Málek and Miroslav Verner agree with this analysis; Verner adds that Merenre acceded to the throne at an early age and died young."Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of the coregency remains uncertain, lacking any definite proof. The hypothesis of a coregency – Repetitive wording.
Fixed I completely changed to "The existence of the coregency remains uncertain, lacking any definite proof. For Vassil Dobrev and Michel Baud, who analysed the royal annals of the South Saqqara Stone, Merenre directly succeeded his father in power. In particular, the legible parts of the annals bear with no traces in direct support of an interregnum or coregency."
  • The motivations behind such changes is – "are"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The motivations behind such changes is not clear, – I think this needs an ; instead of the ,
Done. Actually the sentence was cut into two following another reviewer's comments: "The motivations behind such changes are not clear. Either an attempt was made at improving the provincial administration or the goal was to disperse powerful nobles throughout the realm, away from the royal court."Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He later served Pepi II – "He" should refer to Idi, not Merenre?
Done yes. I changed "He" by "Idi".Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Seth he offered a lost number of oxen in the snwt-shrine, a double sanctuary flanked by stelae, one side of which concerned Lower Egypt, the other Upper Egypt. – I don't understand why the sanctuary is described here; did he built it? A more useful information would be the location of the sanctuary.
The sanctuary location is unknown, the sanctuary is described following a question on this when Pepi I was at FAC because it is otherwise impossible to know what a snwt-shrine is. I removed the whole bit on the shrine to lightened the sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the discovery of cylinder seal – "a cylinder seal"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • by his fater the lector priest Iri, l – what does "fater" mean?
Fixed it was a typo, I meant "father".Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • war against Tjemehu people, – "the Tjemehu people"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All in all, I step over language issues a bit too often at the moment. I will give you some time to improve, and then may have a look at the remaining sections! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack thank you for your comments, I have addressed them now and am looking forward to more ! Note, I have edited also the remainder of the text, adding commas, cutting sentences etc. I hope this will improve your reading of the remaining sections. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jens Lallensack, do you have more comments for now ? I am sorry to ask again, this is because I fear the article would fail at FAC if it does not have enough completed reviews.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was travelling but just arrived home today. I will have a look asap. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pyramid texts comprise hundreds of utterances that could moved – "could be moved"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The doors of the horizon are opened, its bolts slid back. – I don't understand. This is a quote from the pyramid texts directly, right? But what does it have to do with the "transfiguration of the king", and why is this particular sentence selected? I mean, what am I supposed to learn from it, what is the point?
Removed Well that is an example from this section of the pyramid texts, the door of the horizon are opened because the king passes through them while being transfigured into a god. I guess this is far from clear at this point. I have removed the example.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, as a reader, would be interested in knowing how much (percentage) of the Pyramid Texts in this pyramid are preserved.
Unfortunately I do not know, and the sources I have access to do not say it. The complete publication of the texts was made recently but I don't have access to it. Also the percentage depend on what you count relatively to: you mean the percentage of preserved texts in this pyramid ? or relatively to all texts ? Because the texts are not exactly the same from pyramid to pyramid.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was the case of Qar, – please check if this sentence works as intended. I assume the following list are the nomarchs that acted as overseers of the cult of Merenre?
Yes that is what I meant to say.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be "This was the case with"? Or maybe it needs to be reformulated completely? Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed I wrote: "In the mid Sixth Dynasty, nomarchs were overseer of the priests of such cults. For instance, Qar, nomarch of Edfu and Gegi, nomarch of the Thinite nome, were "instructor of the priests of the pyramid `Merenre appears and is beautiful'; Heqaib, nomarch of the first nome of Upper Egypt under Pepi II, was "leader of the phyle of the pyramid of Merenre"."
  • known by name including Iarti and his son Merenreseneb – needs a comma behind "name"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Menankhpepy lived in Ninth[226] or Eleventh[227] Dynasties, – "lived during the"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Various theories have been proposed by scholars – I think you mean "hypotheses", not "theories".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack Thank you for your review ! I have addressed all your comments to the best of my abilities, including your latest responses to older comments (tell me if I missed something).Iry-Hor (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. I am supporting now (but see one very small open point above). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack Thank you for your support. I have updated the sentence with Qar. See my answer above.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Just spotted this. Apols for being so late to the table. A fine article, and I have very few quibbles at first reading. From an initial canter-through for typos etc:

  • Spelling: mostly in BrE – honoured, chiselled, sceptre, analysed, organised, kilometres, harbour – but a couple of Americanisms have crept in: centers and centered.
Fixed should all be BrE now.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "coregency" – the Oxford English Dictionary would have us hyphenate this as "co-regency"
Done where possible (i.e. outside of the infobox).Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "referring to her relation with Merenre" – I'd expect either "to her relation to" or "to her relations with"
Fixed I wrote "to her relation to".Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "egyptologist/Egyptologist" – you should standardise on capitalising or not throughout.
Done capitalized throughout (corrected one instance).Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from an harbour" – as the noun is aspirated the indefinite article should be "a" rather than "an"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "administred from Saqqara or Memphis" – should be "administered"
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The box, iventory N. 794" – "inventory"
Well spotted ! Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "von Bissing" and "von Beckerath" – I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong, but I think German surnames with the prefix "von" are indexed as, e.g. "Karajan, Herbert von" rather than "von Karajan, Herbert"
Changed throughout in the main text, as well in the reference order and style in the sfn templates.11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a proper read-through for content and add any additional comments shortly. – Tim riley talk 17:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First lot of comments on the text, down to the end of the Reign section
  • "She is the mother of the future pharaoh Pepi II" – unless the use of the present tense when referring to dead people is a convention in archaeological writing I'd be inclined to write "was" rather than "is"
I always wondered what is best on this issue. My question is: does someone cease to be someone else's relative at death ? I mean my mother will still be my mother once dead and so the present tense would signify the enduring nature of that relationship, determined at birth. That said I have no issue per say putting a past tense here, it is more of a deeper question on the meaning of relationships and death here. I recognize that the past tense is often used orally when describing a dead person's activities or belonging but not their state of relationship to the speaker. "My father was an artist" for example could be said of someone's father after death; but also definitely "He is my father" would be said in front of a family photograph showing the deceased. EDIT: perhaps this has to do with stages of mourning ? But my question remains: in what grammatical tense should being the mother/father/son/sibling be stated after death ? Because, to me, Pepin of Herstal is still Charles Martel's father albeit quite a dead one.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Having mentioned the point I'm happy to leave it in your hands. Tim riley talk 12:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all in the British museum" – capital M, please.
Done. As a true chauvinist French I unconsciously put a capital M to "Musée du Louvre" but omitted the capitalization in the case of the British Museum...Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a similar vessel from Elephantine now in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (inventory CG 18694)" – careful with WP:DATED here. The Grand Egyptian Museum at Giza will open (eventually) and many things now or formerly in the old museum will be moved there. Might be as well to keep an eye on your various FAs to check whether mentions of artefacts in the old museum need to be updated.
Fixed Ok that is a important observation, I do not know where the artefact is now so I updated the sentence to say what the source says, namely that it was there in ... 1907. Ok it is a bit dated but I don't have more recent infos...Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A prudent move, I think. (I hope the old museum doesn't become neglected: it's such a gorgeous building – by a French architect, of course!) Tim riley talk 12:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Turin Canon ... likely records Merenre I in the fifth column" – in BrE, for no reason I can explain, we don't write or even say "likely" in such contexts, but "probably".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his name as well as those of his predecessor and successor are illegible" – a nasty little English grammatical trap: although you are writing about more than one name, grammatically only "his name" is the subject of the sentence, and a singular "is legible" is required. (If you want a plural verb you need to replace "as well as" with "and".)
Fixed Ok wow I did not know this rule/trap, thanks I updated with the singular form as I quite like the "as well as" conjunction.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this count was perhaps biennial, occurring every two years" – aren't you telling us the same thing twice here? If it was biennial then by definition it occurred every two years.
Definitely yes but few people know what biennial means (biannual is more common and often confused) so I was asked in a past FAC to put the definition of biennial to clarify this immediately. I propose to keep it that way as this would also help the reader with understanding the sources.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean! I find the title of the Venice Biennale a useful memory-jogger for distinguishing between biannual and biennial, but that's a bit off the beaten track for many people, no doubt, and I withdraw my objection to the repetition as it makes the point clear. Tim riley talk 12:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More shortly. I'm enjoying this. Tim riley talk 10:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments !Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concluding comments

Sincere apologies for the delay in returning to the review. No excuses – it was merely senescent forgetfulness. Not much else to add, and these few concluding points are so minor that I am happy to support without further delay the elevation of this article to FA.

  • "Two rock reliefs depict the king ... the earliest of which" – I'm sorry to be pedantic, but you can't have the earliest of two: it's the earlier.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a traders caravan" – I think I'd make this a plural possessive: "a traders' caravan"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reached an height of" – another one where we Anglo-Saxons aspirate a word starting in "h" so that it's "a height" rather than "an height"
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Discovered by the Egyptologist Gaston Maspero at the end of the nineteenth century, the full publication of the texts from the pyramid of Merenre was only completed in 2019" – this is a dangling modifier: it was the texts, rather than the full publication that Maspero discovered.
Done you are of course quite right. I have changed the sentence to Iry-Hor (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "problems with the railroads" – "railways" in BrE
  • "This perhaps perdured" – it did what? Endured or persisted, but I don't think you can roll the two into one.
Fixed my apologies this is another example of a French word which I thought existed in English as well. Funnily in French it is "endure" which does not exist, while "persister" and "perdurer" are both quite right.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a first rate article, and I have enjoyed reading and reviewing it. As far as my inexpert judgement can take me, it is comprehensive, well and widely sourced, beautifully illustrated and an all-round crackingly good read. Very pleased to add my support, and I look forward to more from Iry-Hor. – Tim riley talk 16:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley Thank you for your comments and support.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by A. Parrot (Support)[edit]

The sources look to be appropriately formatted, barring some small corrections I made myself. Most are impeccable Egyptological sources, and the handful that are not are used appropriately.

I spot-checked ten citations, and while most were fine, I found a few problems. (Citation numbers are those that applied at the time I made this comment.)

  • Citation 91a: Bárta describes the Egyptian ideology of kingship but does not say that "the emphasis on a single individual holder follows" from it.
Fixed, I think what I conveyed with this sentence is in the source, I clarified as follows: "The emphasis on a single individual holder follows from the Ancient Egyptians' perception of the king as having [an exclusive relationship with the gods, controlling religious benefits and owning the whole of Egypt]" now the bit in square brackets is an explicit quote from the source. I think that the word "exclusive" implies that there can only be a single individual holder of the title, hence my word "emphasis". Do you think this is fine ? I am trying to avoid copying the source entirely and still convey Barta's idea.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 207: The wording "texts calling for the king's aggregation with the gods" would be better supported if the citation encompassed page 106 as well. "Aggregation" is Hays's wording, but it still comes across as odd, and it might be clearer if expressed as "joining the company of the gods" or something like that.
Done I added p. 106 and updated the sentence as you advocated.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a citation-related problem, but similar to the second bullet point, I think "utterances that could be moved relatively to one-another or even exchanged between groups of inscriptions" could be worded more clearly. I'll try to come up with a revised wording when I have time to do more spot-checks late tomorrow. A. Parrot (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal I could write "The Pyramid Texts are made of hundreds of utterances organised in groups of inscriptions, yet the utterances could be moved relatively to one-another within a group and even exchanged between groups." A. Parrot let me know what you think.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe: "…yet in different copies the utterances could be in varying position within a group and exchanged between groups."
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked ten more citations and came up with a couple more points:

  • 83g: Lehner says the mummy has not been "properly" studied, which is somewhat different from saying it has not been studied since Smith's examination.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 23a: The sentence about Pepi II's parentage remains strange. I can't check any of the sources for it except Clayton, but the only part of the sentence that Clayton supports is the age of Pepi II upon his accession; he assumes Pepi II was Merenre's brother. Why is this source included here, and why is the part of the sentence that describes Collombert's arguments not cited to Collombert?
Fixed ok so I had garbled the position of the references in the sentence, probably during a rewriting of this part of the article. here is what I propose: "The Egyptologist Philippe Collombert observes[Collombert 2018] that since historical sources agree that Merenre's reign intervened between those of Pepi I and Pepi II and lasted for around a decade, and given that one source states that Pepi II acceded to the throne at the age of six,[Clayton 1994] then this indirectly indicates that Merenre I, rather than Pepi I, was Pepi II's father,[Brand 2002][Kanawati 2003][Collombert 2011] as had been hitherto favoured by many Egyptologists.[Collombert 2018]". So Collombert makes some of his observation in his 2018 source (note: I have added link to the pdf of the source), then I cite Clayton for the 6 years age at accession, then I cite Brand, Kanawati and Collombert 2011 who say that Merenre is Pepi II's father, finally I cite again Collombert 2018 as he states "Pepy I remains the one favored by many researchers."Iry-Hor (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the final clause, "…as had been hitherto favoured by many Egyptologists", is unclear, and this complex sentence should probably be split. Perhaps Egyptologists' previous preference for Pepi I should be described first, followed by Collombert's arguments. E.g.: "Many Egyptologists favour Pepi I as the father of Pepi II. But Philippe Collombert argues…" A. Parrot (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice wording! Here is what is now in the article: "Many Egyptologists favour Pepi I as the father of Pepi II. But the Egyptologist Philippe Collombert observes that since historical sources agree that Merenre's reign intervened between those of Pepi I and Pepi II and lasted for around a decade, and given that one source states that Pepi II acceded to the throne at the age of six, then this indirectly indicates that Merenre I, rather than Pepi I, was Pepi II's father. This opinion is shared by the Egyptologists Naguib Kanawati and Peter Brand".Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some general but finicky points: when more than one citation appears together, it's preferable to have them arranged in ascending order; and I think notes are more visible when they appear after citations. A. Parrot (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed throughout ! Thanks A. Parrot for your comments so far !Iry-Hor (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on sourcing. Thank you for your patience! A. Parrot (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments[edit]

  • Baud, 2006. Could we have an ISBN, the page range and a publisher location please.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bongioanni and Croce, 2001. An ISBN and a publisher location please.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Callender, 1993. Needs the publisher location.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Couyat and Montet, 1913. Needs an OCLC. (Hint - 19833807.)
Done thanks for the hint !Iry-Hor (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild All done !Iry-Hor (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2023 (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/Merenre_Nemtyemsaf_I/archive1&oldid=1160732071"