Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nyuserre Ini/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2017 [1].

Nyuserre Ini

[edit]
Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Nyuserre Ini, pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt during the 25th century BCE. The most prolific builder of his dynasty, with three new pyramids under his belt, he also completed a further three pyramids, built the largest sun temple of the Old Kingdom period and undertook restoration works in Giza and Elephantine. Starting his reign in difficult and still debated circumstances following the death of his brother and the ephemeral rule of an uncle, Nyuserre ruled over a prosperous Egypt for three decades. After his death, he became the object of a spontaneous popular cult, where he played the role of an intercessor between the believers and the gods. This article recently reached GA status following a review by Jaguar. It is part of a series of FA articles on the Fifth Dynasty (including Shepseskare, Menkauhor Kaiu, Djedkare Isesi, Unas and one GA Sahure), and represents 8 months of research and editing work, with more than 500 inline citations drawn from over 120 sources. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by A. Parrot

Sorry I've been so slow in working on the review. I'll spot-check sources and make a few more copyedits in the next few days, but I thought I should submit these comments now.

  • The article uses "Old Kingdom period" and its equivalents throughout. The normal usage is to simply say "Old Kingdom", "Middle Kingdom", and "New Kingdom", reserving the word "period" for all the other phases of ancient Egyptian history. I wouldn't object to using "period" once, to make it clear to readers unfamiliar with Egyptian history that "Old Kingdom" refers to a time period, but in the rest of the article it should be cut.
Fixed, I am removed the word period throughout except for the first instance of "Old Kingdom". Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article also uses the phrase "pharaoh Nyuserre" several times. Egyptological literature rarely uses "pharaoh" as a title appended to a name like this. Although I've used it in Wikipedia writing myself, I'm not entirely sure I should. Anyway, if it's going to be used that way, "Pharaoh" should be capitalized.
Fixed, I am removed all "pharaohs" appearing before the name of a king, I prefer to stick to the sources. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Directions (north, east, etc.) should be in lowercase, unless it's part of a proper name, as in "South Abusir". I've corrected the capitalized directions I've found, but I may have missed some.
Done, I have corrected a few ones and have been over all others to make sure there aren't any mistakes anymore. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Abusir south" sounds rather strange in English. "South Abusir" seems to be the usual term for the area in English; Lehner 2008 and Verner 1994, for example, both use it.
Corrected! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He may have succeeded his brother directly, as indicated by much later historical sources, or as advocated by Miroslav Verner, Shepseskare reigned between the two, albeit only for a few weeks or months at the most."
I have rewritten this sentence to clarify it. It is now split into two sentences. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dislike having a "main article" link at the top of a section when the link is red, but I assume you'll be creating the Pyramid of Nyuserre Ini article soon.
I want to but I don't know when I will have the time to do so. Thus I am removed the link and will put it back once the article exists. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be useful to include Ludwig Borchardt's reconstruction of the sun temple: File:Temple-solaire-abousir.jpg. It's not outdated as far as I know (recent illustrations of the sun temple are virtually copies of it), and the temple is hard to picture without a reconstruction.
Yup, added! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the western end of the rectangular court was a giant obelisk symbolizing the resting place of Ra." I'm not sure what "resting place" is meant to mean here—maybe related to the interpretation of the temple as a funerary temple for Ra. In any case, this claim isn't supported by either of the references later in the paragraph. The usual interpretation of obelisks in general is as a symbol of a ray of light, though I don't know exactly how Egyptologists interpret the sun temple obelisk, which isn't exactly the classic obelisk shape.
I have removed "symbolizing the resting place of Ra", I think the sentence was here when I started editing and I kept it without questioning it. I will read some more on this, but for the moment it is clearly better to remove the assertion. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations are all in a single column right now, which stretches the article vertically. I assume you'll want to add columns to the reflist template; 20em and 30em are the values you use in your other articles on Fifth Dynasty kings.
Fixed, this had been changed by a bot for an unknown reason. Back to normal now. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A._Parrot Thanks very much for your comments and time! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In writing about the sun temple, you might want to link obelisk and note that obelisks were symbols of the sun god.
Good point, done. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article implies that Nyuserre's funerary cult was more durable than those of other kings of his era. Certainly, it spends more space on his funerary cult than the articles on other Fifth Dynasty kings do on theirs. Do any sources say outright that he was more popular than other king of his era? Do they say why?
Antonio Morales, who wrote an article dedicated to the funerary cult of Nyuserre writes, as stated in the article, that only Nyuserre, Unas and Teti saw their official cult extend to the Middle Kingdom, while only for Nyuserre and Unas there are traces that this cult was uninterrupted during the First Intermediate Period. However, it seems that only for Nyuserre was there an additional, not state sponsored, popular cult reflecting Nyuserre's special standing. Quoting Morales: "In the case of Nyuserra there is strong evidence suggesting that during the First Intermediate Period and in the early Middle Kingdom the king enjoyed an outstanding position of respect at Abusir. This special status was strengthened by the popular manifestations of piety toward his deified figure that occurred in parallel to the official cult performed in his funerary establishment. Hence, it is considered here that there was a double testimony of the reverence to this king" and later on:Some references indicate that Nyuserra’s successors were aware of the importance of his role in the cemeteries of Abusir,[...] the official and popular practices of veneration show the emergence of a substantial phenomenon of devotion to [Nyuserre] as a royal ancestor and as a saint. This could be taken to mean that, according to modern Egyptology, Nyuserre was indeed more popular than other 5th Dynasty rulers in later times, at least until the New Kingdom, and that this might be because he played such an important role in Abusir: built 3 pyramids, completed 3 more. I don't state this directly in the article that he was more important, rather I simply give the evidences as the sources do (mostly Morales and Malek) so the reader can draw the same conclusion as them. The subject matter is complicated by the later appearance of cults only loosely based on OK kings: for exemple in the New Kingdom a new cult of Sekhmet appeared in Sahure's mortuary complex, although it seems this cult was more about the goddess than about the king (Borchardt posit that Sahure's temple many statues of Sekhmet prompted the cult). Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • When mentioning the statues of Nyuserre in the cache in the Temple of Ptah, you may want to briefly explain what "cachette" means.

Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

I've spot-checked the sources and only found a couple of irregularities:

  • The page range for citation 98 should be extended to page 550.

Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Express Tribune citation at the end of the "sons" section only supports the claim that Khentkawes III was Neferefre's wife. It doesn't support the claim that her son was probably Menkauhor. Maybe another source supports the latter claim, but if so, the citations need to be rearranged. If no sources support it, you may need to leave it out.

Done, there are several publications talking about Menkauhor's filiation, I took the one from the Czech institute of Egyptology, now included in the article, see here which states: If the queen was buried during the reign of King Niuserre, as is suggested, for example, by the find of mud seals, one can assume that she probably was the mother of King Menkauhor, the successor of Niuserre on the Egyptian throne. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A._Parrot Thanks again for your comments, especially regarding the importance of Nyuserre's cult, which I strive to describe as accurately as possible. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A. Parrot (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Support. – Masterfully written and fully referenced. My few concerns have already been highlighted by A. Parrot and resolved, namely the "period" thing and the redlinks. Khruner (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well written and well researched article. -- Udimu (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

  • Images are Public Domain or Creative Commons with credible "own work" claim - OK.
  • Sufficient source and author information - OK.
  • File:Niuserre Iny Wadi Maghara.jpg - the original Flickr file is now hosted as "All rights reserved" on Flickr. Nevertheless the previous "Creative Commons" license for the initial upload (as verified by FlickreviewR bot) is still valid and irrevocable - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GermanJoe Thanks for the image review! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John

[edit]

What version of English are we supposed to be in here? At present we see examples of both. This is not a good sign in a FAC. --John (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John The early version you are referring to has little in common with the current one, and I would prefer to use British English. If you could point the places where American English appears I would be happy to put it in British English. In the mean time, I hope you will appreciate that while this may not be a good sign at FAC, other clues might give a more positive view of the article: number of references and sources, layout etc. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to this. --John (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John I have hunted down and changed a number of "favor" to "favour" and "honor/ed" to "honour/ed" as well as many words in "ize" into "ise" e.g. "emphasize" to "emphasise" etc. At the moment I don't see any American spelling left, but if you spot anything I have forgotten, please let me know. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John Could you post further comments if you have any or close your comments, either by opposing or supporting the article? Thank you! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

I'll add comments as I go through the article; it might take me a day or two.

  • "Nyuserre was also mentioned in the Aegyptiaca, a history of Egypt written in the 3rd century BC during the reign of Ptolemy II (fl. 283–246 BC) by the Egyptian priest Manetho." The article on Manetho indicates that it may have been written later; should this mention of it say "probably written" rather than "written"?
You are completely right, I have amended the article accordingly. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't follow the accession theories. In the first paragraph, about the theory that Nyuserre directly succeeded his father, it seems that Neferefre = Neferirkare Kakai, so the sequence is Shepseskare, then Neferefre/Neferirkare Kakai, then Nyuserre Ini. But the next paragraph starts by saying Shepseskare purportedly reigned between Neferefre and Nyuserre Ini. Then when you say "Verner observes that Neferefre and Nyuserre were brothers", is this uncontroversial? If so, how can anyone believe that Neferefre preceded his father in the succession? Or do you mean that Verner believes this, not that it's a straightforward observation?
I have clarified the two paragraphs pertaining to the accession theories. The "traditional" hypothesis is that the royal succession was Neferirkare -> Shepseskare -> Neferefre -> Nyuserre. There are many problems with this idea, notably because Verner as shown that Neferefre was Neferirkare's eldest son, in age to take the throne at the death of his fatehr, and thus very likely did so. Another problem is that the old hypothesis credits Shepseskare with 7 years of reign, when archaeological evidences have put everyone together since ~2000 that he reigned only a few months at the most. Verner's hypothesis that Neferefre and Nyuserre were full brother is well supported by evidences and it seems, has convinced Egyptologists since c. 2000ish (2001-2). Then Shepseskare must have been a short-lived interloper between Neferefre and Nyuserre, although there is still much debate about his relationship to the other pharaohs. I have decided to present the old hypothesis nonetheless because I am not sure the new one has reached universal consensus, and the old one is found all over the pre-2000ish literature. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I have it straight now. I copyedited that paragraph; please check I didn't make any mistakes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a contradiction between "Nyuserre reigned for 44 years, a figure which is rejected by Egyptologists owing to the lack of archaeological evidence for such a long reign" and "The view that Nyuserre reigned in excess of twenty years is furthermore supported by archaeological evidence, which points to a fairly long reign for him". Or does the archaeological evidence place an upper limit on the duration of the reign? If so I think that should be said. I also see the comment in the Sed festival section about support for a long reign, so I think the argument against 44 years needs to be a bit more specific.
Very well spotted, actually the argument against 44 years is little more than the paucity of securely attested dates for his reign. Let me explain: during the Old Kingdom, Ancient Egyptians did not have a system of absolute dating as we do today, rather they counted years from the beginning of a king's reign and gave them names relating to important events that occured or would occured during this year. The most important such event was the cattle count, and many documents and inscriptions thus mentions the year of the Xth cattle count under king Y. In the case of Nyuserre, the latest such event attested in a document contemporaneous with his reign is the 8th cattle count, that is at most Nyuserre's 16th year on the throne. I have amended the text accordingly. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Representations of the festival were part of the typical decorations of temples associated to the king during the Old Kingdom." Suggest moving this before "Mere depictions", and joining the two sentences with "and".
Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In conjunction with the inflation of the bureaucracy was a slow weakening of the power of the king": suggest "The king's power slowly weakened as the bureaucracy expanded".
Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This situation went unchecked": do we need this sentence? It's a long article, and perhaps this belongs in a higher-level article such Fifth Dynasty of Egypt.
I have moved it to a footnote, don't hesitate to remove it completely if you find the article too long. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yet, the earliest topographical lists of the nomes of Upper and Lower Egypt": why "yet"?
Well the Egyptians might have had such lists since long before Nyuserre given that nomes arch back to prehistory. This is a wild guess however so I have removed the "Yet". Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To the extreme south of Egypt": I'm not sure what this means. If it's within the borders of what was considered "Egypt" back then, I'd make it "In the extreme south of Egypt"; if it's south of the border, we just need "To the south".
Good point, I have removed the word "extreme". Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of "Pyramid of Nyuserre" repeats information about the location from the paragraph just above; it would be better to refer to what's already been said.
Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use "magazine" in what appears to be a technical sense that I'm not familiar with; can it be glossed inline, or linked?
Fixed: it means "storage room" here and I have changed the phrasing accordingly. Indeed, even though Egyptologists always use the word magazine, I think it is better to changed it to "storage room", for most readers would not be specialists. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK; I changed one more instance. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nyuserre Ini expended much effort in the completion of the pyramid and mortuary temple of his mother Khentkaus II, restarting the building works on the then still uncased pyramid core after a 12 years-long interruption which had started on Neferirkare's tenth year, and thus realising the majority of the construction": I'm not clear what this is telling me. Can you rephrase? Or explain it here and I'll see if I can come up with different phrasing.
The core (i.e. bulk) of the pyramid was the first to be built and was, during the 5th dynasty, essentially made of rubbles (i.e. not as in the 4th dynasty pyramids). Once finished the core was supposed to be encased in nice-looking, well-cut, limestone slabs giving the pyramid its smooth clean appearance. The construction of Khenthkaus' pyramid was stopped after the core was finished but before it was encased. It was left like this for 12 years, until Nyuserre decided to finish the job: encase the pyramid, built the complex around it, etc. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. How about this rephrase: "The pyramid and mortuary temple of Nyuserre's mother, Khentkaus II, had been begun by Neferirkare in the tenth year of his reign, but work had stopped with the pyramid core still uncased. After a delay of 12 years, Nyuserre Ini restarted the building work, and expended much effort in completing the majority of the construction."?
So I wrote something nearly identical with the exception that I noted that the work had stopped during Neferirkare's tenth year rather than started then: "The pyramid and mortuary temple of Nyuserre's mother, Khentkaus II, had begun during her husband's rule but was stopped in the tenth year of his reign,[45] at which point only the pyramid core was still uncased.[119] After a delay of 12 years,[120] Nyuserre Ini restarted the building work, and expended much effort[121] in completing the majority of the construction." Iry-Hor (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked this to "Work on the pyramid and...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general note: on a couple of occasions you refer to Neferefre as Nyuserre's brother -- for example "At least one sibling of Nyuserre is known with certainty: Neferefre was Nyuserre's elder brother" -- but in the "Reign" section it sounds as though that is by no means universally accepted. Shouldn't there be some qualification given to those comments? Or has Verner's view come to predominate?
Verner's view is clearly dominant nowadays and is backed by strong archaeological evidence. I cannot be sure however of its exact standing with respect to all Egyptologists, i.e. is it universal? I am yet to find a recent work (ie. after ~2000) where this is not accepted, so I assumed consensus. The updated "Reign" section hopefully makes it clear now. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly clearer, but I think a little more is needed to let the reader know that Verner's position is the one accepted throughout the article. If you can justify it, I would add something to the Accession section that says something like "this view has been accepted in the literature since at least 2000". Failing that, you could hedge before every reference to the theory, by saying things like "Assuming Verner's theory of the succession is correct, ..." If you don't like either option I'll see if I can find other articles that have dealt with this and get more opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mike ChristieSo I introduced phrasings equivalent to the second option in the beginning of the "Main building activities" section as well as in the "Parennts and siblings" one. I do believe there is consensus on Nyuserre and Neferefre being brothers but I don't know how to prove such as thing. I can cite sources from various authors who follow this hypothesis, but how can we be sure of the universality of the consensus? In any case, in the article, the idea that Neferefre was Nyuserre's brother already has direct references from various Verner sources (of course), but also Baker, Dodson/Hilton and numerous indirect references in sources that de-facto agree with Verner's hypothesis (Barta / Krecji etc... lots to cite here). Iry-Hor (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's good enough. If you later come across something that could be used to cite general support for Verner's interpretation, you might want to come back here and add it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recent archaeological excavations": better to give a date, or range of dates.
Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This filiation is also indicated": "filiation" is quite an obscure word; how about "The relationship is also indicated", since the previous sentence makes it clear? And I see you use it a couple more times; it's not wrong, but it's certainly not going to be understood by non-specialist readers.
Fixed! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "under the impulse of prince Khaemweset": I think "impulse" is not quite the right word; perhaps "guidance"?
I put "direction". Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 4 is repeated in the text, more or less verbatim, towards the end of the article; perhaps the note could be scrapped since the point is made in the main text?
Oh! You are right, I have removed the footnote. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the opposite of Verner,Lehner posits that the substructures might have been finished": "At the opposite of Verner" isn't a very natural phrase, and Verner hasn't been mentioned to have Lehner in opposition in any case. How about making the note text "This is Verner's view. Lehner suggests that the substructures may have been finished"? However, I'm not sure you need the note at all -- you have "possibly unfinished" in the text, and this note really adds nothing but the names of two experts who disagree on that point.
Yes I have removed the note, I think the shorter the clearer. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a first pass. Please correct any mistakes I may have introduced in my copyedits. Overall this is in excellent shape, and is clearly a scholarly article, but there are occasional minor infelicities in the prose. I'll read through again once the points above are addressed and hope to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike ChristieThank you for your thorough review, I have updated the article accordingly and hope you will find the fixes have improved the article. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes: I think this almost ready now and we only need a review for source formatting and reliability, which (if I haven't missed it) can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Just two little points which I noticed: Could we date the various theories in "Accession to the throne"? And I wonder is the first paragraph of the lead a little impenetrable to the general reader; do we need to go into detail about the accession theories, or could we simplify that paragraph after "Alternatively, Shepseskare may have reigned between the two as advocated by Miroslav Verner, albeit only for a few weeks or months at the most"? Mike I don't know what you think about that part. In any case, that will not hold up promotion, and unless other issues arise in the meantime, we are just waiting for the source review. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it might be good to simplify or cut that paragraph a little, but I'm OK with Iry-Hor's decision either way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Sarastro1: As a longtime editor on Egyptological subjects, I can say that most of these sources have impeccable credentials. The only ones you might question are old Egyptological sources, which are mostly cited for straightforward descriptions of artifacts and inscriptions, not for interpretations of the evidence; a recent news story that is based directly on what current Egyptologists say about a recent discovery; and a Britannica article that is used only to provide one of many possible date ranges for Nyuserre's reign. I'm not very good at spotting inconsistencies in reference formatting, but it seems consistent to me. A. Parrot (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1Mike Christie I have simplified the first paragraph of the lead, cutting the accession theories and leaving only the mention that Shepseskare's relation to Neferefre and Nyuserre remains highly uncertain. I have also dated Verner's challenge on the royal succession of the mid-Fifth Dynasty in the "Accession to the throne" paragraph in the main body of the article, indicating that the traditional theory is essentially pre-2000, while Verner's is post 2000. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also Sarastro1, I am currently participating in the wikicup and there is an intermission between the 1st and 2nd round until the 1st of March. If the article gets promoted during the intermission, I fear it wouldn't count in my tally, could you hold the promotion until the 1st of March so it gets counted? If you prefer not to, I understand. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: I'm afraid Iry-Hor that we can't really hold up promotion for the wiki-cup. Even without the backlog, and long delays at FAC these days, I don't think that would be a good precedent to set. I'm sure there is a rule somewhere that makes it eligible. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2017 (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/Nyuserre_Ini/archive1&oldid=1144873648"