Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pepi I Meryre/archive2

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 23 January 2021 [1].

Pepi I Meryre

[edit]
Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Pepi I Meryre third pharaoh of the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt in the 24th century BC, who faced many challenges yet became one of the most important Old Kingdom pharaoh. This is this article's second FA nomination: it has received a thorough copy-edit by Twofingered Typist since its first FAC. In addition, all changes advocated by wikipedians during the first nomination have been implemented, including a layout change. I am pinging users who supported or participated in the first FAC: Aza24, A. Parrot and Dudley Miles.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]
buidhe THe book was published in 1907, I updated the wikicommons info with a web-access and publication year. In addition, the author, Eugene Grébaut, died in 1915.

Support (incl. source review) by A. Parrot

[edit]
  • If I remember correctly, you generally write in British English, but that isn't consistent here; "center" instead of "centre", for instance, appears several times. (As an American, I'm not likely to catch all the Americanisms).
Done for all instances of center and for americanisms wherever I could catch one.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's more usual and more intuitive to place notes after ordinary citations, rather than before them. Notes are like separate passages of text, and they often have citations of their own, so they shouldn't come between the text that precedes them and the citations that support that text.
You mean like this ?Iry-Hor (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. But to clarify, you put, e.g., Note 6 before Citation 51, even though Citation 51 seems to be supporting the passage that comes immediately before Note 6. A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done A. Parrot Ok I had totally misunderstood you and thus had inverted the order of the footnotes and references sections at the end of the article, now back into normal order. For the footnotes' placement in the text, it is now done throughout as you advocated.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was the son of the founder of the Teti dynasty…" I'm not as familiar with the sources on the Sixth Dynasty as you are, but I've never seen it referred to this way. Since the name "Sixth Dynasty" is mentioned in the previous sentence, you could say "He was the son of Teti, the founder of the dynasty…"
Fixed this was written during the copy-edit and I did not catch it. I have changed it back to the right version.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sixth Dynasty necropolis at Saqqara was used as a stone quarry from the New Kingdom until the end of the Late Period with the dismantling of the necropolis' monuments resuming later in the Mamluk era of the Middle Ages when most of Pepi's pyramid complex was destroyed." This sentence needs simplification, and the two phases of the dismantling aren't significant enough that they absolutely need to be in the lead. Perhaps "Pepi's monuments began to be quarried for their stone in the New Kingdom, and in the Mamluk period they were almost entirely dismantled."
Done I agree with you, this wasn't crucial info. I modified to your sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the Byzantine scholar George Syncellus, Africanus wrote the Aegyptiaca mentioning the succession…" The wording here is rather opaque.
Fixed, another sentence changed during the copy-edit which I did not catch. Now changed back to the original "According to the Byzantine scholar George Syncellus, Africanus wrote that thee Aegyptiaca mentioned the succession "Othoês → Phius → Methusuphis"", unfortunately the way the Aegyptiaca is known is as byzantine as Syncellus !Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph about the Sed festival is somewhat unclear. When it says "The festival had a considerable importance for the king," is it simply establishing general background about the nature of the Sed festival, or did Pepi emphasize his festival more than other kings did? Similarly, it's not 100% clear that "…the state administration seems to have had a tendency to mention Pepi's first jubilee repeatedly in the years following its celebration…" is meant to indicate something that was unique to Pepi's reign.
Clarified the former sentence regards all kings of the Old Kingdom period, as the source explicitly says "every king" (although in the context of Old Kingdom archaeology); while the latter is specifically for Pepi. I wrote : "The festival had a considerable importance for Old Kingdom kings. [...]As further evidence of the importance of this event in Pepi's case, the state administration seems to have had a tendency to mention his first jubilee repeatedly...".Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm uncertain about the organization of sections on politics and economics. The politics section seems to be a catch-all section for major events of Pepi's reign, and the "politics and power play" title for one of its subsections creates redundancy. Moreover, that subsection deals with administrative matters that seem to have some overlap with the subsection on domestic and economic policies.
Unfortunately, I do not know which is best. The current layout was suggested by Dudley Miles in the first review. Do you have a proposition ?Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think you could retitle "Politics and power play" as "Provincial administration", or something similar, and move the first sentence of "Domestic policies" into it (as that section is about domestic economic policies, which that sentence doesn't address. A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done we will see if someone else raises the problem of the layout once again. I hope we can converge to a consensus.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…he desired political appeasement in times of troubles." "Appeasement" doesn't seem like the right word here.
Actually this is the exact word used by the source. I would thus prefer to keep it.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…see this as highly unlikely and outright extravagant respectively…" "Extravagant" is a strange word to use for a hypothesis, though something like "outlandish" might work.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…the concepts of family and power were still close, that is the bureaucracy had not replaced the family in the business of government." A bit awkward; maybe something like "the government was still dominated by the royal family [or "powerful families"?] rather than the bureaucracy."
The source is talking more broadly about the notion of family and not just about the royal family. He is saying that family / bloodlines are the primary factor in determining professional status, duties and allegiance. Also, "not replaced the family in the business of government" is almost word for word the way the source phrases it. From the context of the source, I take it to be a general observation on the organisation of Egyptian society at all levels of power in the time of Pepi.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Maybe it could say "...at the time of the Sixth Dynasty, government was still shaped by family relationships more than by the bureaucracy", or similar. A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done I wrote "...government and power was still largely determined by family relationships rather than by bureaucracy."Iry-Hor (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming that "for the first and last time until the 26th Dynasty some 1800 years later" means Nebet was the first woman to be a vizier, but the text doesn't actually state that.
Clarified yes I clarified this: "for the first and last time until the 26th Dynasty some 1800 years later, Khui's wife Nebet, a woman, bore the title of vizier of Upper Egypt".Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could still use some adjustment. Perhaps: "The political importance of these marriages is further demonstrated by the title held by Khui's wife Nebet, that of vizier of Upper Egypt. She was the first woman to hold such a title and the last until the Twenty-sixth Dynasty some 1800 years later." A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The spelling of Coptos/Koptos is inconsistent.
Fixed to Coptos everywhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's best to specify that the temple of Min is thought to have benefitted because it was the same region that Khui's family was from.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said at the Unas FAC, I dislike the use of "Bedouin" to refer to the desert dwellers in dynastic times, as the term is generally applied to Arabs, an ethnic group that probably didn't exist at this time. "Semitic people" is all that needs to be said here.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…the Egyptians did invade their opponents…" sounds strange, and I think the whole sentence could be reduced to "The Egyptians campaigned up to what was probably Mount Carmel or Ras Kouroun, landing troops on the coast using transport boats."
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Weni reports the destruction of walled towns…" This sentence feels a bit awkward. I suggest "Weni reports that walled towns were destroyed, fig trees and grape vines were cut down, and local shrines were burned."
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ka is treated inconsistently: sometimes capitalized, sometime lowercase and italicized.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The close association between Ka-chapels and temples…" I think clarification may be needed here. I'm irked that no Egyptologist seems to have supplied a definition of the difference between a temple and various other religious buildings that are often called something else, and the distinction is particularly a problem in the Old Kingdom, when the tradition of massive buildings dedicated to deities didn't really exist. "Temples to deities" might be better here than simply "temples".
Done, now that you point this out, it is true that a Ka chapel is a temple after all ! I think the sources make it clear that a Ka chapel is really a small room with a naos housing a statue of the Ka of the person being venerated. I believe this is what they mean by Ka chapel, as opposed to an entire temple dedicated to a deity. But I haven't seen a discussion of the difference between both concepts, although I haven't specifically looked for it either.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "…the consolidation of the Heliopolitan cults at the time" mean?
Fixed here in the sense of strengthening, I wrote so.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says the necropolises of Merenre and Pepi II border Pepi I's complex, but looking at a map, the pyramids of Merenre and certainly Pepi II look like they're a sizable distance from that of Pepi I.
Actually, this is not what the text says: "Pepi I's mortuary complex was neighbored on its south-west corner by a necropolis built during his own reign and those of Merenre and Pepi II". It says only that next to Pepi I's pyramid is a necropolis built during his own reign and those of Pepi II and Merenre. But this necropolis is not the same as the necropolises built around Merenre's and Pepi II's pyramids. Indeed, from the sources, it is rather clear the necropolis around Pepi I's pyramid was being actively built during his reign and those of his sons. Is the sentence not clear ? Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a bit ambiguous, but fortunately it can be fixed with just a tweak: "the reigns of Merenre and Pepi II". A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tombs of Meritites and Ankhsenpepi III, both built after Pepi's reign, and tombs from later periods of Egyptian history in the necropolis are not discussed here." This kind of self-referential remark (Wikipedia talking about what Wikipedia is about to discuss) is generally not found in regular article text, and it's not clear why one would expect these tombs to be discussed here.
These tombs are really in the midst of the necropolis of Pepi I and are always talked about at the same time as the other tombs of the necropolis in the sources. Yet, they are subsequent to Pepi I's reign and thus cannot be described in details in this article as the sources all do (because the typical source on the subject isn't specifically about Pepi I but rather about his necropolis). Thus, a reader acquainted with sources could be surprised. In fact, looking at e.g. the German wikipedia, we find that they included these later tombs in the article as the sources do, but I don't think this is right other than in passing, as this article is on Pepi I.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. A. Parrot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vertical columns of inscribed hieroglyphic text…" I think this sentence would be better if split, so that the part about the paint and its symbolism is its own sentence and the location of the text is established first.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. Parrot Thanks for this first round of comments !Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Almost all sources are impeccable, and the few that one might question are mostly straightforward descriptions of artifacts. I have a couple of small points, though. Lehner's Complete Pyramids was published in 1997, and I don't think it received a new edition, so the 2008 date must be a mere reprint, which I wouldn't count as a publication date. My other question is about Bongioanni and Croce: what are their qualifications? Is the book authorized by the museum? (Hawass would be an RS, but he only contributed a preface to it.)

A. Parrot This is a good question: I actually do not know, I thought the book seems legit and I can't tell more precisely as I don't own a copy of it. I don't find anything on how this book could be crackpot stuff. It is on oclc, owned by Trinity College, Dublin's Library for example. Two of the contributors Amenta, Alessia and Araldo De Luca have a bit more publications including at least one conference proceedings from Egyptology. Croce, Maria has a few more similar books presenting museum collections. Bongioanni has written books on Egypotlogy see here. Also the list of editors/authors for the book is not the same on Amazon and oclc.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'd like to see the date for Lehner changed to 1997, but that's a minor point.
Done thanks I had forgotten to do this after searching about Bongioanni and Croce.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also spot-checked 25 citations, and although most checked out fine, there are a few problems. I've labeled the citations based on how they were numbered at the time I made this edit. A. Parrot (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 17a: The source mentions the decree in Coptos and Iput's pyramid, but it does not mention inscriptions in that pyramid.
Fixed. I added a reference to a source mentioning the inscriptions and more. I would have like to say even more by I don't have access to Grajetzki's Ancient Egyptian Queens: A Hieroglyphic Dictionary, so I used another, less exhaustive source.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17c: This fact is found on page 78, not 76.
Ok thanks for updating. Weirdly on my version it is p. 76, however it is probably an overseas edition and not the one in ref list so I think it best to keep p. 78 as you changed.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 35: Strudwick 2005 p. 353 says "great of affection" but doesn't use the Egyptian "weret-yamtes". The Egyptian term might be mentioned elsewhere in Strudwick (I can't access a full preview of the book and can't tell). The article text should probably explain the meaning of the Egyptian words.
Fixed Indeed Strudwick does not say "weret-yamtes" at all, but directly translates the title as you pointed out. I updated the text in consequence, gave another ref for the untranslated version "weret yamtes" and also pointed to Strudwick's footnote 25 on p. 377 which emphasizes that this is a title and not a name and that her name is purposefully lost.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 106: I can't find this on page 151, and the organization of the book doesn't make it easy to find where the conspiracy might be mentioned.
I don't understand: to me it is on p. 151 of the document (in the source link, click 04prosopographical register dynasties I-X.pdf) and watchout p. 151 of the document is actually p. 171 in any pdf viewer.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake; I wasn't looking at Volume III! It checks out. A. Parrot (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 125a and b: 125a can be deleted, as text supported by 125b, which has an identical page range, comes immediately after it. However, "The Hatnub inscription may simply show that Manetho made an error…" isn't supported by that citation.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good, but the sentence about the Hatnub inscription that precedes it still isn't sourced. A. Parrot (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I based this assertion on Baud & Dobrev 1995 p. 50 quoted just the sentence before. They state (I translate directly from French): "It is not possible to consider that his years of reign were numbered starting from his hypothetical accession to the throne [they are talking about Merenre and a coregency] to reconcile the Hatnub 5th occasion, that is 10 years, inscription with the 7 years credited to him by Manetho". Since this is already said in a clearer fashion in the previous sentence, I removed the one about the error. It is possible that I wrote this with another source at hand where it really talked about "error", but I can't find it anymore thus it is in doubt and it is better to remove the statement. This is surprising though, it is not something I would do (to have written that without a source).Iry-Hor (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 159: The citation should be expanded to include page 132 as well as 133.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 200: This quotation should be attributed.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 205: The source supports Pepi's connection with Hathor, but not that "son of Hathor of Dendera" was found on numerous vessel, just one example (which is on a different page, p. 144).
Fixed you are right and the ref is correct in e.g. footnote 32. The ref here supports the "including vessel found abroad", for the "numerous" part, I have added several sources showing or mentioning vases from various parts of Egypt where Pepi hold the title of son of Hathor, Lady of Dendera. One of the sources explicitely says that many such vessels have been foundIry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Ideally, the Matthiae ref should be used again in the "Temples" section when it brings up the multiple vessels that refer to Hathor. A. Parrot (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 251: 251b can be deleted, as the citations at the end of the paragraph, including 251c, together seem to support the two last sentences of the paragraph.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A. Parrot (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "who ruled for around 50 years during the second half of the 24th century BC". This does not make sense. You cannot rule for around 50 years in a period of 50 years. It also contradicts the infobox, which says "or early 23rd century" and most of the estimates are below 50 years. I suggest "around 40 years at the turn of the 24th and 23rd centuries BC".
Fixed but with "over" rather than "around". Virtually all the recent sources are centered on 50 years of reign for reasons explained below.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "likely around five decades, in the second half of the 24th century BC or early 23rd century BC". This also needs amending to say "likely around 40 years in the late 24th century / early 23rd century BC".
Updated I wrote "over 40 years" though as explained below: this is because some of the slightly older sources have not yet integrated the debate that followed the publication of the Hatnub inscription which probably talks about Pepi's 50 year of rule.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several difficulties accumulated during Pepi's five decades on the throne" I suggest "Several difficulties accumulated during Pepi's reign"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making both Khui's wife Nebet and her son Djau viziers" You could link to Vizier (Ancient Egypt). This article implies that there was only one vizier at a time. Were they viziers jointly or successively?
In general, there were multiple viziers simultaneously, as the article implies in several places such as "the viziers Inumin and Khentika, who served both Teti and Pepi I" or when the article says there were viziers in Upper Egypt but not in Lower Egypt. However, the article does say explicitely that Nebet and Djau were viziers successively, presumably because they belonged to the same family and in this case the parent (Nebet) was the original recipient of the title, while the son only inherited it.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a queen is thought to have conspired to make her son heir, should her son not be listed as another probable son of Pepi?
Well these are suppositions: the cause and objective of the conspiracy is not mentioned by Weni so nobody really knows. The sources do not credit Pepi another son in consequence, they just conjecture that this is possible.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Length of reign'. This discussion is contradicted by most of the reign length estimates in the infobox, which as commented above are shorter. You need to discuss the shorter estimates - or delete them if they are not worth discussing.
Fixed I have updated the content to make this clear. This has to do with the reading of the South Saqqara stone in 1995 and 1997, which seems to mention Pepi's 50 year of reign and the subsequent debate in Egyptology. Older sources tend to credit him a shorter in consequence, while the more recent the longer. Most estimates are over 40 years, while the most recent center on the range 49-50+.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The circulation of high officials in key positions of power occurred at an "astonishing" pace" This is unclear. Do you mean that they only served for a short period or that they circulated between different positions?
The source means both : they were awarded various charges in quick succession and changed positions regularly after serving what Garcia deems to be short terms.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I clarified, however I hope I am not saying something wrong now. The source does not attempt to make statistics on who might have been sacked vs who simply changed position. We do know that some weren't sacked but assume numerous duties one after the other since we can see the many charges they held throughout the course of their careers in their tomb biographies (see Weni).Iry-Hor (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that A. Parrot commented while I was drafting these comments, and would add two comments on his comments. 1. I have copy edited the quarry text since he queried it. 2. The use of "likely" to mean "probably" is another Americanism.
Changed likely to probable/probably.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles Thanks for your comments !Iry-Hor (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shows that the person of the king was no longer untouchable" Why no longer untouchable? His father was murdered.
Fixed removed "no longer", this was meant to be understood as a comparison with times prior to Teti/Pepi I.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is the same problem with the new version. The murder had already showed that the king was not untouchable. Also, if the nature of her crime is not known, how do they know that it was a conspiracy against him? Why not adultery or an assault on someone else? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles Well Weni was appointed as a special judge by the king himself and there is little that a queen could do that would lead to such a trial if not a direct attack against the king (here parallels with Ramses III's reign come in mind). Furthermore, I emphasize again the conjectural nature of the murder of Teti and of the conspiracy involving Pepi's vizier. In fact the one involving this queen is the only one with direct solid contemporary evidence even though we do not know what she did (a source sees this as evidence that she did something really grave). In comparison, Teti's murder is reported only by Manetho and the other conspiracy is pieced together from controversial evidence by Kanawati. This is why I want to keep the sentence or another meaning the same thing: because the source referenced to here recognizes that we know little for sure about these (possible) conspiracies. But the accumulation of hints demonstrates that something was probably off for the king at the time, hence the source conclusion that this shows the king was no longer untouchable. Of course if you think it is a given that Teti was murdered, then it is weird to point out that the king seems no longer untouchable. But such certainty is nowhere to be found in this article ! I conclude from this that the article is not cautious enough about the uncertain nature of Teti's murder, so I emphasized this (see the changes). Remark that this "no longer untouchable" (quoting the source directly) was the one conclusion from this source on this matter!Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well the New Kingdom bit is just something I thought: it is of course not in the article, nor in the source. The source makes a general plausible reasoning, pointing out also the increase in the number of bodyguards and the quick removal of some of them accompanied with the desecration of some of their tombs. All of this is also in the article.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iry-Hor (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "for the first and last time until the 26th Dynasty some 1800 years later, Khui's wife Nebet, a woman, bore the title of vizier of Upper Egypt". This sounds a bit odd. We do not need to be told that Khui's wife was a woman. Maybe "for the first and last time until the 26th Dynasty some 1800 years later, a woman, Khui's wife Nebet, bore the title of vizier of Upper Egypt"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pepi grants exemptions to the people serving in the two pyramids of Sneferu". This is confusing as it appears to refer a town's two pyramids but Sneferu links to a pharaoh. I suggest "Pepi grants exemptions to the people serving in two pyramids dedicated to Sneferu" The following quote refers to "these two pyramid towns" Which towns?
Clarified, actually it should read "people serving in the two pyramid towns". To understand this, you have to know how royal tomb building functioned in the Old Kingdom. In fact close to each pyramid a small town was built early in the first stages of planing to house the workmen and all the people require for work to advance properly: bakers, beer-makers, water-carriers, scribes etc. These towns perdured after the construction of the pyramid itself, as they would continue to house craftsmen, priests, builders and the like. There were a lot of pyramid towns in Egypt, notably next to Sneferu's Bent Pyramid but also in Giza and most certainly in Abusir as well. I have added a footnote to explain the concept with a wikilink.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Egyptologist David Warburton sees such perpetual tax exemptions as capitulations by a king confronted with rampant corruption." No change needed but this seems to me very dubious. Strong kings have often granted such concessions to favourites.
Yes I agree I find the argument a bit misconstrued in the context of Pepi's reign. That said Warburton is also pointing out the problem that such repeated exemptions pose on the long term: all kings since the 5th Dynasty did at least some of that, so that towards the end of the Old Kingdom period, the amount of land under direct royal control and which would be available to levy tax was reduced to next to nothing. In addition, it seems that at least some of the exemptions granted by later 8th dynasty kings were nothing more than an official recognition of a de facto existing state, whereby people would have long stopped to pay anything to the king and the king would tell them they have the right to do so.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent whether to hyphenate 'Ka chapel'.
Fixed all now hyphenated.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not link the first usage of Ka.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to [[Ancient Egyptian conception of the soul#kꜣ "double"|Ka]] is wrong. It should be [[Ancient Egyptian conception of the soul#Ka (vital essence)|Ka]]
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Ka is so important in the article, you should explain it (which you do not unless I have missed it) as well as linking it.
Done Added a footnote at the point where Ka appears the first time in the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pepi I's mortuary complex was neighboured on its south-west corner by a necropolis built during his own reign and the reigns of Merenre and Pepi II." What does "was" mean here, that the necropolis no longer exists?
Fixed you are right it should be "is".Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The tombs of Meritites and Ankhsenpepi III, both built after Pepi's reign, and tombs from later periods of Egyptian history in the necropolis are not discussed here." This should be in a note, not the main text.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles All done so far !Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in the same fashion as royal pyramids since the reign of Djedkare Isesi" it would be helpful to add the approximate number of years earlier.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent how to spell Ankhsenpepi or Ankhesenpepi.
Fixed well spotted thanks.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent whether serdab is capitalised.
Have you fixed it already ? Because all instance of serdab have no upper case first letter in the current version.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it assumed that the pyramid of Ankhsenpepi I has disappeared?
It is not known where her pyramid is. A few reliefs bearing her name have been found but the location of her tomb remains unknown.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the necropolis throughout the end of the third millennium BC until the Middle Kingdom". "throughout the end of the third millennium BC" sounds odd. I would delete.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later, during the reign of Ramses II, some sort of restoration works" I would delete "sort of" as vague and colloquial.
Actually I wrote this because Egyptologists disagree on the nature of the works and their extent. Some say restorations did take place at the time, while others contend that "restoration" is a modern word and Khaemwaset's works were really not that extensive, merely writing his name here and there. I propose " limited restoration works" has I don't have a good source specifically addressing this debate in the context of Pepi I's pyramid.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""recalled his proprietor for posterity". I do not understand this.
Proposed solution. This is quoted verbatim from the translation of the Egyptian text. Proprietor means "the holder of property", here the pyramid original owner. So Khaemwaset essentially made Pepi's name remembered for posterity. As I can't change the sentence as this would not be the Egyptologist's translation anymore, nor can I put a footnote with my explanation as I don't have a source to support it, I propose to wikilink proprietor to the wiktionary. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The royal annals bear the mention of the feast of the union of the two lands" This sounds odd. Maybe "The royal annals mention the feast of the union of the two lands".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles I think I am up to date with your observations, let me know if I missed something !Iry-Hor (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Comments from Jens

[edit]
  • Consort, wives, queens: these terms are used as if they mean the same, but I guess they don't?
They do mean the same in this context, and are used interchangeably to avoid repetitions.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would always use the same term for the same thing. Because readers have to assume that different terms refer to different things if they are not sure what they mean. I think this is just confusing, and repetition is the lesser evil. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well then by the same token, shouldn't all synonyms of a word be avoided ? I propose to include a footnote explaining that the terms designate the same thing here instead of putting everything back to one version.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Within the same text, definitely. See e.g. [2]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure a footnote will be of help here. The footnote would have to be attached to the first mention of one of the synonyms, in this case "consort". When first reading "consort", the reader thinks he knows the word, and reads on without clicking on the footnote. Then he encounters the other synonyms, thinking "hey, wait, were there different hierarchies of wives in ancient Egypt, the queen being the highest, maybe?" At this point, he has already read past the footnote (and may have forgotten it exists in the first place). I think this confusion is unnecessary and avoidable. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jens LallensackFixed I wrote "consort" everywhere I could instead of queen or wife. The word "queen" was retained in certain places where it cannot be avoided, for example the name of the pyramids of Pepi's consorts are always "queens' pyramids" and "queens' necropolis" in the sources and so it is in the text. I hope the current state is ok for you.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and succeeded by Merenre I Nemtyemsaf – "was succeeded by"?
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • made in celebration of his first Sed festival. – Maybe state this celebrates the 30 year jubilee right away? All the background information on this festival comes quite late, would be great to have this explanations earlier.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examples can now be found in museums throughout the world: – I think it is nonstandard to refer to figures this way. I would simply provide a list of examples to make the text as independent from the figures as possible.
If this is acceptable to you, I would prefer to keep this, although I recognize that this is non-standard. Yet this is not against the MOS usage as far as I can tell.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is ok with me, I just wanted to mention it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • said Pepi's father's own bodyguards assassinated Teti. – I think "Pepi's father" and "Teti" are the same person? If so, it is highly confusing to use different names for the same person this way.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • identity and his relationship to the royal family remain uncertain. – Make clear it refers to Usherkare, that does not become clear.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • as he reused the blocks for his own mortuary temple – It does not become clear what the evidence is for this reuse.
Clarified. Blocks inscribed with pieces of reliefs mentioning the queen were found inside the walls and rubble used to built the motruary temple. This indicate that these blocks were taken from their original context (which was thus dismantled) only to be used as infill (construction material) in a new building.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Horus name – link/explain?
Done wikilinked.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the fact that for the first and last time until the 26th Dynasty some 1800 years later, Khui's wife Nebet bore the title of vizier of Upper Egypt. – That means that Nebet had the title again 1800 later, when she was already dead?
Actually, the sentence does not read as you have written: rather it reads "for the first and last time until the 26th Dynasty some 1800 years later, a woman, Khui's wife Nebet, bore the title of vizier of Upper Egypt." which I think make it clear that it is the fact that it was a vizier woman which was unparalleled for 1800 years.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my version which I read offline (maybe two or three days old) "a woman" was not at the place where it is now. Now, this makes sense. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, this is because the sentence was modified several times by the copy-editor, myself and the two reviewer Parrot and Dudley Miles.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack Ok, I am looking forward to the rest of the review!Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In parallel with these developments, Pepi decreed tax-exemptions to various institutions. – The previous sentence was about developments in the preceding dynasty, so they cannot be "in parallel"?
Removed. You are right it makes no sense anymore. This is because this paragraph was moved when a reviewer asked for layout changes. Originally this sentence followed another paragraph about some of Pepi's decisions.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In parallel with these developments, the consequences of the long-lasting cults of Old Kingdom pharaohs during the New Kingdom are apparent in the Karnak king list. – Here I also don't understand the "in parallel with these developments" part, especially since "are apparent" is present tense, so how can they be in parallel? Maybe remove that part if it isn't adding much.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, the Bubastis ensemble of Pepi I – Where is this ensemble located? Can it be linked?
Bubastis is a city, it is the place where Pepi's building is located. Bubastis is already wikilinked to earlier in the text when it is first mentioned. There is no wiki article about Pepi's chapel in Bubastis, but one of the images illustrating the article shows some of the ruins.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • canopic chest – I have no idea what this could be; can it be linked or explained?
Done I added a wikilink in the article, see Canopic chest. It is a chest in which the viscera and brain of the deceased where placed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Pyramid texts in body.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pepi's consort Mehaa was buried in a pyramid on the south-west corner of Pepi's enclosure wall – dot missing
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archaeological evidence shows that these activities continued in the necropolis throughout the end of the third millennium BC until the Middle Kingdom. – bit repetitive as already mentioned in the pyramids section
Fixed: I reduced this sentence a lot, and made what remains of it a part of the previous one.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The buildings are described in great detail, especially in the "Necropolis of Pepi I", where each queens pyramid has a separate heading. I wonder if this is excessive detail, as it is not directly about the figure. I feel this information is better placed in the Pyramid of Pepi I article (where one can already find it); using summary style here would significantly improve reading experience (the article feels quite wordy at the moment).
Regarding the queen's pyramids: those presented in Pyramid of Pepi I include more generally tombs form his necropolis but some are subsequent to his reign, which is far from clear in "Pyramid of Pepi I". Here only those believed to have been built during his reign are identified and presented. I thought they have to be presented somehow as they represent major construction works dating to his rule and which presumably occurred on his direct orders. They do also relate to the section on his family, as they belonged to his consorts. Furthermore, in doing so I am following FA precedent, see e.g. Nyuserre Ini. Regarding the pyramid texts : I thought there was no need to dwell on them as there are several wikipedia articles on the subject already: there are discussed in Unas (first pharaoh to have them inscribed), in Pyramid Texts, and there is also a lengthy exposition of them specifically in the context of Pepi's pyramid, in Pyramid of Pepi I.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a follow up from the note above, I'm wondering if there is undue balance, since the pyramid texts (the longest of the Old Kingdom) are only discussed with a few sentences while there is more than a screen page on the necropolis. Aren't the texts more significant? For example, the content of the texts could be discussed. To be clear, I'm not requesting that such information is added to an already long article; I'm just asking why the buildings are described in such detail while the texts are not.
See my answer above. We could say more about the pyramid texts if needed, but I think it important that the pyramids Pepi made are presented at least summarily in this article.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack Thank you for your time. I hope I addressed your concerns as thoroughly as possible. I am ready to do further modifications if needed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good work this is. Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2021 (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/Pepi_I_Meryre/archive2&oldid=1002343248"