Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ahmose I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ahmose I

Ahmose I has been under construction for several months now and is basically complete. Ahmose I is not the world's most well attested pharaoh, and this page contains basically everything of note about him. It is more exhaustive than any topical paper encyclopedia, from Shaw's "Dictionary of Ancient Egypt" to Redford's three volume monstrosity. Certain places are vague, but with egyptology that is the nature of the beast. His dates, his campaigns, his sucession, his family -- all these things are not perfectly understood, so effort was made to include the major reconstructions on each point. All in all, anything wrong with this article is of a minor blemish sort, and those kinds of objections can be dealt with quickly here. Thanatosimii 01:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, excellent article. A few minor points that I think can be improved, though:
    • The alignment of the two hatnotes should be identical.
    • I'd use {{details}} instead of {{further}}.
    • Drop {{cquote}} in favor of regular blockquote formatting, perhaps?
    • The page number should always be in the same place from citation to citation; at the moment, it moves around quite a bit. Kirill Lokshin 01:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd thought of the quote bit too, the problem being that I don't know exactly how to do that from a technical standpoint. I'm getting on the page numbers now. Thanatosimii 03:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Just enclose the quote in <blockquote></blockquote> tags instead of the template. Kirill Lokshin 04:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep, done that Thanatosimii 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the hatnotes. — Editor at Large(speak) 19:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent! Some comments:
    • During his reign he completed the conquest and expulsion of the Hyksos from the delta region and restored Theban rule over the whole of Egypt and successfully reasserted Egyptian power in its formerly subject territories of Nubia and Canaan. IMO, this sounds better: "During his reign he completed the conquest and expulsion of the Hyksos from the delta region, restored Theban rule over the whole of Egypt, and successfully reasserted Egyptian power in its formerly subject territories of Nubia and Canaan."
    • as his much-wounded mummy gruesomely suggests <-- nice :)
    • Might want to wikilink "regnal year". Also "stele" in the caption and the first instance of "stelae" in the text.
    • Despite this, it is interesting to note that only three statuary images... I generally advise staying away from phrases like "it is interesting to note that", as they are almost always superfluous.
    • ...it is quite likely that it was one of his subjects who developed the craft. Source?
    • In Upper Egypt he built at the temple of Amun at Karnak and the temple of Monthu at Armant. Is it "built at the temple" or just "built the temple"?
    • The city of Thebes became the capital for the whole of Egypt. Does this mean it became the capital under Ahmose's reign? If so, might want to make it more explicit ("Under Ahmose's reign, the city of Thebes became...").
    • This jumped out at me: "believed to be monuments to the kings who built them rather than their tombs. Ahmose's pyramid is like these cenotaphs, but because it has a mortuary temple, some believe that in this case it was built as a tomb.[38] However, the pyramid is believed to have had no interior or subterranean rooms; this has led other Egyptologists to believe that it is a cenotaph"
    • Ahmose I's mummy was discovered in the Deir el-Bahri Cache above the Mortuary Temple of Hatshepsut, revealed in 1881 Kind of awkward and ambiguous. "...Hatshepsut, which was revealed in 1881" might be better.
    • Finally, there is the fact that Ahmose's wife... --> "Finally, Ahmose's wife..."
    • Overall, great work! Well researched, well written, and a very interesting article. Gzkn 05:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Have incorporated/changed the text thanks to Gzkn's keen editorial eye. Thanatosimii: The only bit I didn't chage/update was reference wanted for the assertion that the craft of glassmaking may have been invented during Ahmose's reign (point #5, above). I would guess that the same reference provided for the previous sentence would apply, but I don't have that book and didn't want to leap to that conclusion. Captmondo 14:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it is the same source. I put the same citation on that sentance too now. Thanatosimii 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Changes look great...except for: The fact that Ahmose's wife, Ahmose Nefertari, was called both "King's Great Wife" and "King's Mother" in two stelae which were set up at the limestone quarries of Ma`sara in Ahmose's 22nd year. <-- incomplete sentence. Oops! My recommendation is to get rid of "The fact that"...see Strunk and White. :)Gzkn 01:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
"The fact that" duly removed. Thanks again. Captmondo 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Well researched and using recent sources. I will come back with any comments that I have, but I want to clearly support before making them. Geogre 13:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Its good to read a well written article; writing on this period must be like constructing a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing.
A few typos:
Centre and center – two different spellings used
Under the heading Art and monumental constructions:
The art during of Ahmose I's reign harkened
Under the heading Succession:
wouldn't should be would not
Lead – should be led
Good work Raymond Palmer 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
These issues have now been adressed. Thanatosimii 18:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I caught the "during of" that Thanatosimii missed (he focused instead on the slightly archaic "harkening", replacing it with "was similar to") and I removed the superflous "of". Thanatosimii has taken care of everything else. Captmondo 18:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Whoops.. I can't believe I missed that. Ah well, it's fixed now. Thanatosimii 18:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support very intresting article. The prose issues above appear to have been dealt with. - Tutmosis 19:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well written, interesting article. One minor suggestion - have a separate Notes and References headline, with the latter listing all the major reference work, so that interested parties dont have to hunt through all the footnotes to see what books they should consider reading. Abel29a 02:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Just checking: would the example at the bottom of Pericles be a good model? Am not sure I can divide things evenly into Primary and Secondary sources (I think most are primary). Just looking for a good model, as the last time I did an FA submission (Delrina, some time ago), I suspect this type of referencing format wasn't available. Captmondo 14:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The Pericles article illustrates what I mean, but you wouldnt necessarily have to divide them into primary and secondary. If they are all primary just list them all together under references. Then again most FA articles recently uses the method already used in this article, but personally I find it easier to see with a glance what references are used, instead of having to read all the notes. This FA illustrates how I prefer it Kochi_(India). Abel29a 22:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you think it better to have the bibliographical information for only the cited books in such a section, or should we compile a list of works that ought to be consulted for further reading, although were not of use in composing this particular article? Thanatosimii 03:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Have compiled a separate "References" section, and re-titled the previous section to "Notes". I think this is sufficient for FA purposes, and I leave it to Thanatosimii if he would like to add a purely optional "Further References" section. Captmondo 10:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah excellent. It's much more accesible now. A "further reading" section would be nice for those wishing to delve even deeper into the matter, but it certainly isnt required. Abel29a 09:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - excellent article (although the Temple of Montu at Armant is still cited as a major monument in the infobox without being mentioned at all in the article). Yomanganitalk 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, we just found a missing slash in a "</ref>" which was hiding that reference, along with two other paragraphs. Whoops. Thanatosimii 03:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the best articles on Wikipedia. Beit Or 20:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work from all involved Markh 17:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)