Talk:Djedkare Isesi/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Djedkare Isesi. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Merge with Ptahhotep?
Merge with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptahhotep since they are the same person? 174.4.163.53 (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- 174.4.163.53 Djedkare Isesi and Ptahhotep are not the same person: Djedkare was the king, Ptahhotep one of his viziers. Iry-Hor (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Djedkare Isesi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 19:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Starting first read-through. I'll add my initial comments as soon as I can. Tim riley talk 19:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tim riley thanks, I am looking forward to your comments! Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Iry-Hor: in my read-through I have run across a few phrases that are not quite idiomatic English. Please consider how you wish me to deal with them: I can either amend them myself or alternatively list them here for you to consider. I'm happy to do whichever suits you: please let me know. Tim riley talk 15:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tim riley if that is not too much work for you, I believe it would be better that you correct these sentences given that I am not a native English speaker and may therefore not correct them appropriately myself. I will look closely at your changes to learn from my mistakes. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Your English is 99% spot-on, and being myself someone whose French is about 09% spot-on I remain as impressed with your prose as I have been in your earlier articles. First lot of tweaks now done – more to come – which please check to make sure you're happy with them and that I have not distorted your intended meaning, Tim riley talk 17:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tim riley Thanks for your edits! Iry-Hor (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Your English is 99% spot-on, and being myself someone whose French is about 09% spot-on I remain as impressed with your prose as I have been in your earlier articles. First lot of tweaks now done – more to come – which please check to make sure you're happy with them and that I have not distorted your intended meaning, Tim riley talk 17:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tim riley if that is not too much work for you, I believe it would be better that you correct these sentences given that I am not a native English speaker and may therefore not correct them appropriately myself. I will look closely at your changes to learn from my mistakes. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Iry-Hor: in my read-through I have run across a few phrases that are not quite idiomatic English. Please consider how you wish me to deal with them: I can either amend them myself or alternatively list them here for you to consider. I'm happy to do whichever suits you: please let me know. Tim riley talk 15:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I've made a few more minor tweaks, which please check. Throughout I kept noticing italicised phrases that I wouldn't italicise and that I don't think the Manual of Style would have us italicise, but I think this has come up before for Ancient Egyptian articles, and italics are the norm. Anyway, that is not a point that stands between the text and promotion to GA. I have much pleasure in passing the article for GA. I'm about to vanish on a Wikibreak while I concentrate on a publishing commitment elsewhere, but I'll gladly look in to make an exception for articles like this if you take it to FAC. Please ping me if so, Tim riley talk 17:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Well illustrated.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well illustrated.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- Tim riley Thank you very much, I am taking the article to FAC as soon as I have looked into the issue with italics. I will let you know asap. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Djedkare Isesi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160411203357/http://www.ifao.egnet.net/bifao/Bifao085_art_23.pdf to http://www.ifao.egnet.net/bifao/Bifao085_art_23.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Retain original setting
In accordance with WP:ERA I reset the original era setting that was changed by user Iry-Hor for no reason in [[1]] edit which had no edit summary either at the beginning of a long series of other edits to the text. I am therefore reverting the edit that removed my restoration.--Mevagiss (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Mevagiss It seems you are getting it wrong: the original era setting was BCE (I know I wrote the article!), it was changed by Newzild and I simply changed it back. Note also that my edit has a summary. It seems however that I undid too many edits by error, I only meant to undo those of Newzild, and I still intend to remove them. Indeed, Newzild removed statements which he decided where controversial but are in fact backed by evidence: for exemple "which heralded a new period in the history of the Old Kingdom" but this is in a source, cited in the text, that says his reign "marks the beginning of a new era". Newzild's edits, although well meaning, are in fact destructive, for he did not take the time to actually consider the article content and only chose to modify it here and there, when he felt something was amiss. I hope he will realise that the article has undergone thorough GA and FA reviews where all of these points have been scrutinized. Iry-Hor (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- No the original setting was the one first used in the article. This was introduced in the infobox earliest and then in the text subsequently by a range of editors some time before your first edit; when the use of the BC setting is in place. Your edits later on, starting 14th August 2012 are when the article did not use BCE and in fact there was no use of the BCE era style until you replaced all the BC dates with BCE in November 2015. It is quite easy to check the edit history of the article. You should not have changed all the dates in the edit I highlighted above. That is why I reverted your edit today. Some of the edits earlier today are unhelpful but the BC era setting is the valid one in this article. Note that your big improvements to the article should not include taking ownership or making unilateral decisions on control of the article.--Mevagiss (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Mevagiss Fair enough, I did not mean to convey the impression that "I owned" the article, which certainly is not true, I genuinely believed it had been BCE since the beginning but I recognize that my memory failed me on this and it is clear that, indeed, I had switched the era format over the course of editing. Thus, I reverted all dates to BC instead of BCE. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- The first use of any era notation was here [2], where BCE was used. In the very next edit, here [3] this was changed to BC. Soon after, all references to era notation were removed, until here [4] when era notation was again used, and it was BC. Arguably this was the first substantive edit. BC was then used for several years, right up to at least late 2014 (at which point I stopped checking), and I suspect BC has remained until recently. The upshot of this is, despite the 'first claim' for BCE, this article has used BC for a long time and its use has become established. Accordingly, this should not now be changed. As I write, we have BC, so let's keep it at that, please. 5.81.164.11 (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Mevagiss Fair enough, I did not mean to convey the impression that "I owned" the article, which certainly is not true, I genuinely believed it had been BCE since the beginning but I recognize that my memory failed me on this and it is clear that, indeed, I had switched the era format over the course of editing. Thus, I reverted all dates to BC instead of BCE. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- No the original setting was the one first used in the article. This was introduced in the infobox earliest and then in the text subsequently by a range of editors some time before your first edit; when the use of the BC setting is in place. Your edits later on, starting 14th August 2012 are when the article did not use BCE and in fact there was no use of the BCE era style until you replaced all the BC dates with BCE in November 2015. It is quite easy to check the edit history of the article. You should not have changed all the dates in the edit I highlighted above. That is why I reverted your edit today. Some of the edits earlier today are unhelpful but the BC era setting is the valid one in this article. Note that your big improvements to the article should not include taking ownership or making unilateral decisions on control of the article.--Mevagiss (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Mevagiss It seems you are getting it wrong: the original era setting was BCE (I know I wrote the article!), it was changed by Newzild and I simply changed it back. Note also that my edit has a summary. It seems however that I undid too many edits by error, I only meant to undo those of Newzild, and I still intend to remove them. Indeed, Newzild removed statements which he decided where controversial but are in fact backed by evidence: for exemple "which heralded a new period in the history of the Old Kingdom" but this is in a source, cited in the text, that says his reign "marks the beginning of a new era". Newzild's edits, although well meaning, are in fact destructive, for he did not take the time to actually consider the article content and only chose to modify it here and there, when he felt something was amiss. I hope he will realise that the article has undergone thorough GA and FA reviews where all of these points have been scrutinized. Iry-Hor (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Djedkare Isesi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402105848/http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf_library/baud_famille_2.pdf to http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf_library/baud_famille_2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Djedkare Isesi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402154623/http://www.ifao.egnet.net/bifao/Bifao095_art_03.pdf to http://www.ifao.egnet.net/bifao/Bifao095_art_03.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Djedkare Isesi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110201085933/http://egyptologie.ff.cuni.cz/pdf/Forgotten%20Pharaohs%2C%20Lost%20Pyramids.pdf to http://egyptologie.ff.cuni.cz/pdf/Forgotten%20Pharaohs%2C%20Lost%20Pyramids.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130407194835/http://egyptologie.ff.cuni.cz/pdf/ABUSIR%20VI.pdf to http://egyptologie.ff.cuni.cz/pdf/ABUSIR%20VI.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)