Talk:Ahmose I/Archive 1

Archive 1

Seknet-re

The Wikipedia says that Ahmose I married his sister Ahmose Nefertari. However, sources such as the one below say he married his sister Seknet-re.

"Ahmose I was supposed to have married his full sister, Seknet-re, which would mean they should share mtDNA (having the same mother) and some of the HLA alleles or nuclear DNA, if they had the same father. This was supported by the DNA evidence. It was assumed that Amenhotep’s mtDNA would be different from Ahmose’s, as his mother was probably not part of the lineage. This too was borne out by Woodward’s DNA findings. It is possible that Ahmose Nefertari may have been Amenhotep’s mother."[1]

Problems with this article

This article has quite a few direct lifts from this article (especially the list of sons and daughters) [2]

Work to be done.

Although I am away from the majority of my resources until late august, I plan on beginning to integrate at least some information from Grimal's history of Ancient Egypt and Breasted's Ancient record of egypt. As I include new material only lightly touched by the old article, I will remove/edit it accordingly, until what remains will be a reasonable length introduction.

Too much of this article is directly lifted from the one referenced above, so I hope to replace it with less... plagerized information. Thanatosimii 04:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

To update, I've added a section on his campaigns, a section on the dates and length of his reign, and a section on trade and building. That is a place-holder name. Unfortunatly, the two subjects have to be dealt with together, since in ancient egypt, building of temples and tombs usually hinged upon having the resources to construct them and the gold, silver, and gemstones with which to fill them. I can't call it domestic affairs, because trade is foreign, and I can't call it foreign affairs, because building projects are domestic. Thanatosimii 19:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I added some additional material based on references I have at hand. I think I solved your naming problem by calling the section on trade and buildings "Trade and monumental construction". Have revised the section on his family, based on the fairly recent researches of Dodson and Hilton (see reference to their book in the article). Also added brief section on his mummy, which was found in the Deir el-Bahri cache. This is slowly coming together as a decent article on the pharaoh. Captmondo 01:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that looks better. I also moved the stele picture into that section as well, since I referenced stelae quality during his reign in the middle of that paragraph. I've got no sources besides a few scant books until I get back to my library this fall, so I think I'll just go down the list and reorganize and addend info to the rest of the 18th dynasty, one by one. I mean, I know that Akhnaten and Hatshepsut are interesting charecters, but if any one pharaoh should have the largest article, it ought to be Thutmosis III... Thanatosimii 04:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, does anyone know how if the cartouche/name things can be used to show the entire fivefold titulary, or only the praenomen and nomen. I mean, that kind of information is virtually nowhere, but I could theoretically get my hands on the horus name, nebty name, golden horus names, of all the pharaohs from one of my professors, but would it be possible to display them? I really think wikipedia ought to have this data if we can get our hands on it, since nowhere else on the internet does it exist. Thanatosimii 04:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

For examples of the pharoah infobox, see the articles on Horemheb and Ramesses I as good examples as to what can be added. Go to the edit page of either article to see the necessary code to make it work, and just replace with info appropriate to Ahmose I. Somebody(s) on the Spanish version of Wikipedia has already done the work on converting most pharonic names into kingly titles, so you can grab the hieroglyphic code that spells out the horus/nebty/golden horus names from the equivalent article at: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebpehtyra-Ahmose. You might want to ask your professor about what they translate into English though (that info always seems harder to come by).

One comment: I don't really like the way the dates of his reign are left dangling at the moment. While the dates for Ahmose are in dispute, I don't think they are any more or less in dispute than most other pharoahs (I may be wrong about that of course). I know the dates that Ian Shaw proposes in the "Oxford History of Ancient Egypt" are seen as one of the more defendable chronologies. His proposed reign length for Ahmose I is: 1550-1525 BC. As it is the lead paragraph almost implies that we have no idea at all when he reigned, when in fact it's more the range which is in dispute (which is noted further on).

Found my copy of the book on the Royal Mummies which gives Maspero's original description of the unwrapping of his mummy. Time allowing, will add that info this evening. Captmondo 09:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I have a better idea about how to do those dates. The potential for elasticity with dates of certain pharaohs is so large that certain ones ought to have entire sections about believed reign dates, lengths of reign due to manetho, highest dated monument, etc., wherein all potential disputes can be disucssed. If, however, the conventional dates are set as a link to the dispute section when one exists, like I've done here, it'll avoid giving readers the immediate impression that the dates are set in stone, only to confuse them with the conflicting sources later. Thanatosimii 17:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Mummy info added. Also threw in some external links which might be of interest. At least one of them summarizes all of the major chronologists' times for his reign. A couple also explain the meaning of at least a couple of his names.

On the whole (though this largely a personal preference) I think the pharaoh infobox conveys more information than the fivefold titulary (and I devised the latter template). For a picture, a close-up of the image on the stelae that appears within the article might be a good idea.

I also note that a scan of the head of his mummy can be found at: http://www.narmer.pl/ima_mum/ahmose_2.jpg, which is a someone's scan of Plate XII from "The Royal Mummies" by G Smith. As the original book dates to 1912 (I own a preprint), arguably the mummy image is in the public domain. I'd add it myself but it's getting late... Captmondo 01:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, by my count, the author of that work died 69 years ago, and the public domain laws put everything over 70 years since death in the public domain. Thus, it isn't, unless however the work was written as a collaborative effort, in which case it counts from the date of publication, and is in.

Could the pharaoh infobox be somehow combinded with the titulary? If the hieroglyphic symbols could be easily integrated into the five spots in the pharaoh infobox, we could get all the data in. But I'm not a technically minded person.Thanatosimii 03:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: copyright: sorry, I was going by British/Canadian copyright, which is 50 years after the dead of the author (Smith died in 1937). But if I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#United_States_copyright_law correctly, as a work published before 1923 it would be in the public domain.

As for the titulary, I believe it can be combined within the infobox, if only going by the example of Horemheb (there are spaces to insert the names, and presumably the hieroglyphs to). I may have the time later today to tackle that.

Well, that'd be a very large box, but it looks promising. As for copyright, you're right. It's just that wikipedia policies don't do a very good job of explaining that outright, and one actually needs to read the silly laws page. Thanatosimii 17:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Will try to get around to adding the mummy head image via Wikipedia Commons this evening or over the weekend. I tracked down some additional materials on the art in his time, as well as what remains of statues (as opposed to 2D bas relief images) depicting him (there are only three known 3D representations of him that are fully attested, apparently). After that I would like to fix the Pharaoh template to include the Horus name serekh, and I have pretty much exhausted the sources I have in my library that reference him.

I don't think this is ready for Feature Article status (more info in general would be needed), but I think this is good enough to qualify for good article status. Since you've done the bulk of the additions I'll leave that to you, if you want. Captmondo 10:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with these good/featured article processes. I know of them, but haven't dealt with them before. I wouldn't know where to go to do that, but if you do, I do think with a little more work, this article could make good article status.
The one bit nagging at me right now is that the page is a little poorly illustrated. I've reached the same conclusion as you: there are very small numbers of images of ahmose, but if we could get the picture of his mummy, and a good statue picture to put in the infobox, the stele could be moved back to the monumental construction bit, in that both it is evidence of good, high quality stele carving, and that it also is a record of the command to give Tetisheri a cenotaph and funerary cult at abydos. Of course, an image of his own cenotaph/pyramid, or his work at karnak, would work equally well, but would be harder to get one's hands on. Thanatosimii 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Once we are done with this, I can nominate the article for as a good article. If the edits I am able to add are extensive enough, it might even be worth trying for Feature Article status. I believe the way it works (for both) is that the article is then evaluated and you can expect comments from others who will have a hard look at the article and make suggestions to improve it.

I know what you mean about the scarcity of images to be had, though we ought to be able to effectively use the Fair Use provisions for a few images.

I also went rooting around in Project Gutenberg and found at least one fair use book that might be mined for further info: History Of Egypt, Chaldaea, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria, Volume 4 (of 12), by G. Maspero, at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17324/17324.txt. There are likely to be some good quotable quotes that can be lifted directly from that text without any problem, and I would guess that there would be more there, and possibly images too. Will investigate further, likely this evening. Captmondo 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm considering asking http://touregypt.net/ if they'd GFDL license some of their images... I don't know if they would, but if they did, there's at least one statue of Ahmose and some interesting pictures from his mortuary temple. I've also added a lot of text and fiddled with the intro to make it more of a summation, moving family text into another section. Thanatosimii 19:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly can't hurt to ask. In the meantime I have added a few images, including a head-shot of a shabti of Ahmose I from the British Museum, the Jewelry of Queen Ahhotep (his mother and possibly wife?) plus the head of his mummy. Have also moved things around a little bit, removed the "trade" part of what was "Art, trade and monumental construction" section since it talks more about re-establishing quarries abandoned since the Middle Kingdom, rather than trade with other countries. I have pretty much exhausted the sources I have at hand at this point, so I will leave the rest to you.

The only section that I can see that needs a clean-up is the section on his conquests. You might want to mine the Gaston Maspero text for further info, since I note that he extensively references the experiences of a solider and sailor which were inscribed on their tombs. Could very likely pull a good quote or two from that text. Let me know when you are "done" and I will nominate this as a Good Article.

Cheers! Captmondo 01:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Breasted already has those texts translated with commentary, and I've read them several times, without finding very much specifically of use. Maspero has some potentially useful things, but he calls the Hyksos "the shepherds," and that's usually a terrible sign that he's way out of date. I've found some debate as to what military role Ahhotep had as regent. I'm going to have to do some work on that, and I might not get it done well until I get much advice from one who knows (and owns) extremely good books.
The pictures look good as well... those were, basically, what the one site had that I was going to ask for, except a little more black and white and not copyrighted.
My sources are basically out for now as well, however I can get some more, but that will take about two months at the longest. I think this is good article quality, except I'd really like to straigten out that campaign data with some clearer data. Thanatosimii 18:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I am going to ask for a peer review, however. The article has to be not only complete, but fairly easy to understand as well, and the work of only two editors won't smooth out possible quirks and idiosyncricies as easily without some feedback.Thanatosimii 01:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly worth doing, if only to get some decent feedback from others. I don't know if we are likely to get any Ph.D's commenting on this material and suggesting relevant sources — in terms of wishful thinking I think that may be an extreme example ;-) — but knowing where the holes actually are in the article is worth knowing. Will keep tabs on the Peer Review for this article, and comment as appropriate.

Cheers! Captmondo 14:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick follow-up: I have gone around and asked some of the more regular contributors on the Egyptology sections to provide critical comments on this article at the peer review link. Hopefully we will get some some good directions on where to go with this (and maybe, just maybe, get other people contributing as well.) Captmondo 15:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw Captmondo's request for input, & am leaving a few, brief notes:

• There's a reference to the work of Kim Ryholt, which I suspect I originally added. Let me take a look thru my notes & see if I can properly source this. (If the information from Manetho needs a footnote, I can provide that from my copy of the Loeb translation of Manetho.
• As it currently stands, this article relies heavily on the work of Nicholas Grimal. While he is a good writer, one should never depend on one source for an article if at all possible. There are a few other works that should be consulted for this article: Ian Shaw's Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, & Donald B. Redford's History and Chronology of the 18th dynasty of Egypt: Seven studies.
• As for coverage, I think the article is quite complete. It could stand a careful copy edit & general polishing, though: I noticed at least one place where some rephrasing & rewriting would firm up the writing. -- llywrch 18:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! But, unfortunatly, I only own Grimal and Breasted's historical records, which makes using other works problematic. Thanatosimii 22:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Check your local library. They ought to have a copy of Shaw's book; if not, request that they buy a copy -- it'll be a good thing for all. -- llywrch 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got "the Shaw book" -- and like Llywrch I would highly recommend to anyone about getting a copy of it, as it is an excellent book. Will look through it tonight/tomorrow and see what I can glean from it for the article.

I don't have the Redford book, but the local reference library has a copy. Not sure when I'll be able to head down that way though. I also note that the publication date for the latter book is the mid-60s; is that work considered the latest/best word on the subject? (I know I referenced turn-of-the-previous-century Maspero directly in the section on his mummy, but that was largely for description and "colour"). The only thing I could find by Kim Ryholt out of my local reference library's catalog is "Acts of the seventh International Conference of Demotic Studies, 1999", which I suspect is not the book you are thinking of. Captmondo 06:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Redford's book offers a number of interesting discussions about the 18th dynasty. The research may be out of date in places, but I believe the problems have yet to be conclusively resolved. As for Ryholt, I consulted his The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period (Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications, vol. 20. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1997), which I obtained thru InterLibrary Loan (I think it came from the U of South Carolina College Library).llywrch 18:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I differentiated between the two Apepi's. Awoserre and Aqenienre are believed to have been different kings, the first contemporary with Kamose, the second contemporary with Ahmose. Thanatosimii 18:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I just fiddled with the sucession bar at the bottom of the page. This integrates the sucession from the 15th dynasty into the page. Hopefully, in the long run, whenever egypt begins/ends a civil war, sucession could be indicated this way, which gives a better idea of who ruled what when, and creates a better view of continuity. Granted, data from the second intermediate period makes this very difficult, but I think it would help the general, otherwise uninformed reader, to understand what's going on. Thanatosimii 00:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I recently wrote the page, Tura (Egypt), and in the process of it, I dug up some info on the quarrying and use of the limestone to build two more temples, which were never finished. I'm still trying to figure out "southern harem of Amun" means, but apparently Ahmose built one. Thanatosimii 19:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I recently got my hands on a not insignificant amount of good works. First, I now posess a good work by Redford concerning egypt's relations with caanan which might clarify the campaigns better. Second, I got access to an online journal repository. I found a very good article arguing that Ahmose may have had a coregency with Amenhotep I. It isn't a majority thesis, but the author did such a good job of concicely arguing that it was possible and would have been wise that I thought that his basic arguements should be covered. A side effect of reading that article was that I found some info on the development of egyptian glassworking, which was probably developed during Ahmose's reign. And back to searching I go... Thanatosimii 22:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So, what with the fact that I just literally exhausted every significant reference to Ahmose in three major academic journals(at least as far as a fairly good search program gave me), and since Captmondo just cited our only "citationneeded" left, what exactly is there left that anyone thinks we should do before we nominate this for Good article? ...Besides a good copyedit, that is. I'm not exactly comfortable with the readability of the prose in my recent edits, but the data there is good.Thanatosimii 00:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I managed a trip to the local reference library and managed to photocopy key sections out of over a half-dozen or so works covering different aspects of Ahmose's reign. The other evening I added more about his cenotaph complex (with a bit more to come), will be adding some more about the shift in religion from worshipping Re to Amun, a bit about the likely mode of warfare in his time, and as you have noted, I just finished adding a cited reference to the verso of the Rhind Papyrus, which removes the remaining *citation needed* request for the article as a whole.

I think given the changes we can easily re-apply for, and get, Good Article status, but I think we can now seriously think about submitting this for Feature Article status, if you agree. It is certainly the right length and no-one can claim it is not fully referenced. ;-) Going through that process would mean we would both have to watch the comments and respond to them in a timely fashion. Let me know if you are interested/are ready for going through with this process.

Before we do either, I also agree that it needs a good copyedit. Maybe Marhk could do the honours?

Cheers! Captmondo 01:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Timely manner might be just a small bit of a problem in the coming days, as I am going to be moving in a few days. I suspect that we can, once you take care of what you've said, easily get good article, and we shouldn't have significant objections that need long responses, so good article nomination can be as soon as possible. I can respond quickly to that. Feature article on the other hand would probably be better done in a couple of weeks. And although we've both come up with some pretty comprehensive sources, I'll have invaluable access to a real egyptologist in a week and a half's time, who could probably help me dredge up a few more useful things which might smooth out any rough spots that might be pointed out during evaluation. And, hopefully, he might liscense some of the pictures he's taken over the years, since FA candidates generally are rejected if they use fair use images, unfortunatly. At least, Hatshepsut keeps facing that problem. If he has anything relevant at all, it's still better than fair use.
Yes, Marhk also seems like the obvious one to ask, since neither of us are going to be able to identify our own possibly deleterious idiosyncrecies. Thanatosimii 01:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes... I found in a book of Redford's a rather lengthy arguement that the verso of the rhind papyrus must be written from a northerner's view, and that the dates are thus not Ahmose's. I'll see exactly what he says and note somthing.
Upon re-reading the article, I get the feeling that because "campaigns" and "art and monumental constructions" were composed paragraph by paragraph, the sections read just like a string of loosely related paragraphs that could stand a little reorganization. Subsection divisions might help a little.. Thanatosimii 14:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I just did some of that reorganization. The content of the art and building section is effectivly divided into a half about art and a half about building. I don't know what to do with this, though: "He made Thebes, the capital of his ancestors the capital city for the whole of Egypt. This was also a strategic choice, as Thebes lays in the center of Egypt, and repelling any opposition would only entail at most traveling over half of the country to reach the land's boundaries." This doesn't really go in an art and building section, and It really sounds like a 19th century interpretive blunder, since it is from maspero, whose work is generally considered fairly obsolete. It sounds like maspero is trying to explain why the capitol is in thebes, without knowing it was there long beforehand... but I'm not sure, and haven't read his claim in context. Thanatosimii 15:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting about the Rhind Papyrus, as I have not run across anything to that nature, and it begs the question: who was it in relation to then? (Apophis or another Hyksos king?)

Also agreed that the present article reads as if it was assembled piecemeal, which it was after all. ;-) A good copyedit pass by someone else ought to go some way towards fixing that.

The capital of Thebes with Maspero reference needs re-wording, but I think it is accurate as far as it goes (and have not seen anything contradict him). And Maspero did know that that was where the royal family came from (that would be a point hard to miss, given the finds of his immediate ancestors found in the area. ;-)

Your chance to meet with an archeologist is interesting, and getting freely available pictures would go a long way towards making this a worthy Feature Article candidate. Am about to ask an Egyptologist for use of a couple of photos taken from Ahmose's pyramid on flickr.

An article that may be of interest that I ran across from an EFF link: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/755/he1.htm. Not sure how to fit it into the overall article, but I thought I would mention it out of interest's sake.

Cheers! Captmondo 14:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, If I were going to do the interpreting of the Rhind papyrus, I'd say that since it can't be the Apepi that ruled for 40 years, and it's too long of a reign to be Khamudi, It'd be good evidence for me that Grimal's two Apepi model is correct, and it's apepi II whose dates are being used. However, I can't find anyone who argues that, however, so I don't think we can include anything like that.
Rewording of the Maspero quote is more of what I was aiming at. I think it's hard to argue that Ahmose's intent in having his capitol at Thebes was specifically to cut travel time between the south and north boarders, especially since thebes, being in the third (or fourth? not sure) nome, is almost at the boarder of Egypt anyhow. But I guess I'm just a little suspicious, I don't have anything hard which goes against the statement.
Now, upon examination, the Maspero images are public domain, and the stele was GFDL liscensed, so the only thing that really would stand in the way of this article getting featured status is the fair use status of the shabti. Since there are only three three-dimensional images of Ahmose, that might be hard, but if all else fails, copies of two dimensional objects cannot be copyrighted, so we might be able to find one of those.
The content of that link might be useful as well. It's a good commentary on Ahmose's strategy as well. let me see how I can fit that in... Thanatosimii 15:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I just ran this through a wordcount. The article itself is 16000 charecters, or 16 kilobytes, it's the footnotes and infobox that are pushing it over the 30k mark. This does mean that the intro paragraph is "supposed" to be a little longer than it is now. I have a few ideas for that. Thanatosimii 16:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved some text around in the intro, and added some more. The second paragraph in the old intro was just about the only text left over largely intact from the pre-expansion article, so this bit of editing we've been doing can now be considered total. Thanatosimii 16:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I expanded the section on Thebes, fixing the awkwardly worded sentence around the Maspero citation, and emphasizing it as a growing religious center. Also tacked on further info about the subsequent decline of pyramid building, and why. I still have some interesting material relating to the style of warfare in his time that I will add a subsequent night. Also did a thorough spell-check of what was there, and made a number of corrections to various typos.

It is getting seriously long at this point—any copyeditor should give thought to removing material that may be tangential to the heart of the main article.

Cheers! Captmondo 02:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved most of the text on the tempest stele to the Thera Eruption page, where it fits better. Thanatosimii 02:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems fair. One interpretation I've seen of that was that the need for the restoration of the temples, which were in need of the most basic of furnishings, if it was not due to some cataclysm was more likely due to the predations of Ahmose's ancestors, who used the precious materials to re-establish the Theban power-base. Haven't added it so far since there's no direct evidence that supports this theory, but it may be worth throwing in as well (am pretty sure it comes from one of the Shaw books I have, whom I would tend to trust).

I also got permission from the Ehyptologist who took some pictures from the top of Ahmose's pyramid to upload them to WikiMedia. She apparently has other photos from the Thebes area which she has not posted to Flickr. Any requests?

Cheers! Captmondo 10:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hieroglyphs

Hi,

The sA-ra carthouche on the page reads mn-iaH-ms:

but the image of the stele further down the page has a name cartouche that has no mn glyph, just iaH-ms:

Can someone clear this up? Is it an althernative name?

--Cliau 12:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternative spelling, I believe. Whenever the name occurs, it's in my texts most of the time, but there is no such thing as the "right" spelling in the hieroglyphich language. Just the most common. Thanatosimii 18:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but determinatives rarely occur in royal names, and mn has no value here. According to my notes mn has no value other than the phonetic mn, which has no place in his name. I have never seen mn either anywhere else. I'm assuming it's a mistake, unless I can find this spelling somewhere... Also the golden horus name seems to have an extra horus in it --Cliau 05:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The long awaited copyedit

The copyedit has been moved back to this page from where it was. By all means, this does not mean cease to do any copyediting, but you can do it here now. Thanatosimii 23:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Imported talk page comments from sandbox where copyedit was performed

Automatic peer-review

Below is automatic peer-review, hope this helps ....

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. Lead is long enough; more info would be overkill Editor at Large^(speak)
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article. removed unnecessary linkage: only left some for older dates which may be helpful Editor at Large^(speak)
• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, soon might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information. Persondata added: should be checked over by someone Editor at Large^(speak)

PersonData is coped with in the Pharaoh infobox Markh 11:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • it has been
  • allege
  • arguably
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 16 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Markh 11:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

well, my take on that-
The lead is a good size. There's not much more that can be said without brining the meat of the article unduely up into the intro.
I can't seem to find exactly where the problematic dates and measurements are. If they're there, they should be fixed, but I can't find them.
I'm going to have a once over and fix the weasel words

Fixed some unneeded generalities, however these words are necesarry when indicating a general consensus of an ambiguous scholarly body, as seems to be the case in many instances.

Since some footnotes are in the middle of sentances, there doesn't seem to be much we can do about them.
Perhaps we can do away with some of the redundancies, but in such a poorly understood topic, where vague words and point-counterpoint arguments are bound to turn up, I think it's a miricle that we've kept them down to 16.
When these concerns are either fixed or deemed unhelpful, it's time to put this back in the main article.Thanatosimii 16:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead was probably taken to be the "for the sixteenth dynasty king sometimes..." section. The real lead is certainly long enough. — Editor at Large ( talk) 02:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem: all the edits that have been made to the original article are going to be lost if we do a copy & paste job. I think I might start adding the good edits to this version, but it'll take a while... plus, I can't remember which version I used originally. I'll have to check dates. Anyway, good work. I'll help with the suggestions if I can. — Editor at Large ( talk) 02:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the edits to that version, but with the exception of a few I quite honestly don't think very much of them. If something seems to have been wise we can always change it here too. Thanatosimii 04:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Finished?

I think it's time to put this on the main ahmose page and nominate it for GA. I've been saying that in a vague sense, and I know we could fiddle with this forever until we think it's just perfect, but I think we need a tenative deadline or we'll never finish. Unless there are objections here, I'm planning on moving this article back to the main ahmose page sometime friday around 6 PM local time... that's GMT -5:00 for me, I believe. At which time I think we need to take the plunge and nominate it, which I probably will thereafter unless there are other objections. Questions? Comments? Support? Crys of Outrage? Thanks. Thanatosimii 21:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to the page "going live", but can we sort out the multitude of duplicated references – see Edna R. Russman and Wente, Edward F references? Not a major problem, but FA review seem to be very pedantic! Markh 11:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also from the auto-peer review "..This article has 17 additive terms, a bit too much...." Markh 11:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be given a bit more time. I just doesn't scream "Feature Article!!!" yet; once you get it up on the real Ahmose page and ask a few more people for feedback, we might be able to nominate it for GA (if they deem it worthy). It's a great article to me, and you guys did a great job; but lots of info and a good copyedit don't necessarily mean it's ready. I'd say get some influential people to look it over for us and give us their opinion and go from there. — Editor at Large ( talk) 15:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've already had a peer review, and not all that much came out of that... I do believe this is GA material, and the GA feedback will probably help make this FA. One thing I am concerned about- the main picture is called public domain, however photos of three dimentional objects are considered, at least under US copyright, an original work which can be copyrighted. I personally do not believe that there are any GFDL images or public domain images of any of his three three-dimentional objects out there, so we might have to crop a 2-d picture and use that instead, if it comes down to it.
The citations look more compressed now, and there are a few less also's, however it is important to note that because of the tenative nature of these reconstructive theories, there will never be very much consensus on this, and so a lot of "This, but this, and also this, however this" is not quite as bad here. Since there seems to be no objection to putting this back on the main space at least, I think I'll keep to the schedule and give this about four or five more hours for any last minute "STOP"s to come in, and then return it. That'll also give us a good oppertunity to look at the changes made to that article and evaluate them to see if we should save them. Thanatosimii 19:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

-- well, the copyedit has been moved back to the normal page. By all means continue to take care of anything else, but it's on the normal page now.Thanatosimii 23:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)