Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ancient Egypt

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 00:24, 30 March 2008.

[edit] Ancient Egypt

Check external links

I feel this article is now essentially complete. It covers every single aspect of ancient Egypt, including legacy, and is reasonably concise. It is well referenced, and the bulk of the sources, landmarks in their field, were published within the last ten years, so it is current. The article has 3 featured pictures and other carefully selected images, such as the golden mask and Rosetta stone that are touchstones of the ancient culture. The writing has been polished by months of work, peer reviewers and copyeditors. (Self-nom) Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please add publisher information to all of your websources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't hide the Table of Contents: see WP:WIAFA, criterion 2b. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment support - rename the section tecnology, medicine and mathematics in culture. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 06:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is already a culture section; the Table of Contents was hidden. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Just a few quick notes:

• I notice the historical eras are all capitalized in {{Small Egyptian Dynasty List}} (and presumably in the linked articles), but only some of them are capitalized in section headers here.
• Pharaoh should only be capitalized when used as a title with a name
• Some of the subarticle links use {{Main}} while others use {{See also}}; that's logical in theory, but in some cases it looks like Main would be more appropriate than See also.
• Image captions that are complete sentences should end with a full stop
• It looks like most of the links in the See also section are already presented in {{Ancient Egypt topics}}, and perhaps the ones that aren't in the template should be considered for inclusion there
• In references, use endashes rather than hyphens for page ranges (p. 67–69)
• Reference 16 is missing a page number - "Robins (2000) p."
• In references that refer to books listed in a bibliography, the year is only used to distinguish between multiple books/editions by the same author. Here, there is only one ambiguity—two books by R. H. Wilkinson—so references to those books are the only ones that need a year or a title listed.
• In the Bibliography, one item ("Günther Hölbl") doesn't begin with 'lastname, firstname'

These are just from a cursory review; I'll try to get back here and do a thorough readthrough soon. Maralia (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the see also section by moving appropriate links to the template as you suggest, others already linked in the article. Ref formatting should be fine now, and the main/see also is fixed as well. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Also, this site http://mtcs.truman.edu/~thammond/history/EgyptianPyramids.html seems to be a review of books and I'm not sure it's the best source for information about the appearance of the Golden Mean in Egyptian architecture.
• Only concern (and it's rather minor) about the references is the Clarke book. It's published by Dover, and it would be nice to see a more academic book if possible.

Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I switched the touregypt source to a book published one. As for the truman site: I'll make a special trip to the university library and drag out the original article. As for the Clarke book: don't judge a book by its cover; it's a reliable technical book; not a lightweight at all. It was originally published by oxford university press, so it should be fine. "Some books give place of publication, others don't..." fine, I'll add whatever I can. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Perhaps show in the bibliography that its a reprint of an earlier book? I know Dover does a lot of those types of reprints. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Note added to the citation about the Dover reprint giving full details. My library doesn't have the book giving the info about the golden ratio, but since this sentence is really not that important, I've removed it. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the useful information on the golden ratio because the entire sentence can be attributed to Kemp (1989). Jeff, in the future, if you need help with finding or accessing sources, please post on the article's talk page or ask me directly. I might be able to help. — Zerida ☥ 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I used to edit this article a long time ago, so I am not giving a support or oppose per se because I'm not sure if my past involvement has a bearing on its promotion. Since I was pretty inactive between November and February, I haven't followed the article's progress, so I feel that I can at least offer some comments. First, I am not clear why neither this nomination nor the peer review (which I just finished reading) was announced on WP:KMT (didn't find anything in the archives). Not everyone will necessarily be watching the article (I didn't) or may be busy with other articles. I point this out because it's critical that such a visible article on this topic undergoes review by editors with knowledge of the topic.

I am not going to spend much time going over the technical aspects since they're already being covered, except I will mention that this is a bad idea here because from what I see the article uses several references by the same author(s), and it's not clear which one is being cited.

In terms of criteria, the article more or less meets most of them, but to varying degrees fails "Comprehensiveness", "Factual accuracy" and a little bit of criterion 4 ("unnecessary detail").

• Sources: There is an over-reliance on books and web sites. In a featured article about an academic topic, in particular one that is generally about ancient Egypt, I'd also prefer to see several peer-reviewed journals or magazines cited, which are especially useful in reporting on recent finds/archaeological discoveries. Ideally (though I wouldn't expect it), an article such as this would be referenced by French and German-language sources because most Egyptological literature in the West is actually in these languages.
  • I'm afraid I don't have much access to KMT, JEA, or JNES, and I don't read French or German. If you do have sources you think should be included, by all means add them as additional reading. I'll add links to KMT and the others in the see also section. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comprehensiveness vs. Too much detail: The article gives too much detailed coverage of the major historical periods (especially the NK), but fails to mention or doesn't go into enough detail about several important topics. The Government and Technology sections are pretty good; the Culture section could be better and *better referenced*. Some topics that need more coverage, using specific examples/figures, are professions; courtship and family relations; towns and township; the role of women; festivals; education and learning; housing (royalty vs. commoners); contacts with other nations; sports and crafts; animal and stock-breeding. The historical periods should be truncated and have a link to the main article on each one underneath the section heading (e.g.; {{main|New Kingdom}}). Some of that material appears to be copied from the main articles, like the Ptolemaic dynasty for example, so I'd suggest at least eliminating those portions as there is no sense in having the exact same information in both articles (this is otherwise OK, just not in a featured article I feel).
  • Predynastic: The section goes through the major predynastic sites of Upper Egypt, but makes no mention at all of the major Lower Egyptian sites like Maadi, Faiyum and Merimda, among others. This is an important detail that should not be overlooked. The northern sites predate their southern counterparts by several centuries, and our knowledge of predyanstic Lower Egypt has expanded in the last couple of years with discoveries such as this one.
    • A good point. Added mention of northern Egyptian cultures engulfed by the Naqada, but no room to elaborate on details. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Roman Domination": This section like the Ptolemaic one needs to be re-written, with more references, focusing more on aspects of continuity and change in Egyptian culture itself. This after all is an article about Egypt, not the Ptolemaic, Roman or Byzantine empires. We're interested in Egypt under Graeco-Roman rule, with less focus on the rulers and more focus on the culture being ruled. I am unclear what this means: "a Christian, Greek-speaking state that had little in common with the Western Roman Empire, and which disappeared in the face of the Islamic invasions in the fifteenth century." What "Islamic invasions" and what does Byzantine Egypt have to do with the 15th century? Is this a reference to something that happened elsewhere after Byzantine rule ended in Egypt many centuries prior? Of what relevance is this to the article?
    • These sections have been rewritten, with extra sources. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Language and Literature: This is by far the most problematic section for me, not only because it happens to be an area of specialization of mine, but because it suffers from all the problems that I mentioned: gives very superficial overview of the language, is not entirely factually accurate, contains typological errors ("Like the semitic [sic] languages,"), and inadequate coverage of the major works of Egyptian literature, its genres and famous papyri. Admittedly, when that section was first written, it gave an overview of the major phases of Egyptian, but since then each one has been transferred to its own separate article. The section therefore clearly needed to be rewritten, but this does not give it justice. That the language section is superfically covered is also evidenced by the fact that only one reference is cited (a popular introductory grammar of the Egyptian language) and only to the first few pages. Furthermore, it makes the claim that Coptic "remained" in use in the Egyptian Church and that is still in "limited use" today. This claim cannot be attributed to Allen, a violation of WP:V and WP:SYNTH. It is also factually inaccurate because, if anything, Coptic is used more often in the liturgy today than it did a century ago. Another factual inaccuracy is that Cushitic is a language group of North Africa. Also no mention is made of the scribal tradition or the Per Ankh.
    • Thanks so much for helping out with this section, it's so much better. I did find a source which does a good job describing the Per Ankh, and I will try to incorporate this into the article soon. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Art and Architecture: I already mentioned housing. Needs more specific and wide ranging examples from different dyansties. Needs to mention Amarna art and why it's important, as well as Saite revival. Art depicting everyday life, examples like the Meket-Ra model, etc.
    • Added this to the art section, which is now significantly more comprehensive, an excellent suggestion. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Looks great. I added a brief on palaces to give an idea of domestic architecture. — Zerida ☥ 09:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Religion Needs to mention Akhenaten and atensim. Detail on the role of the priesthood. Important religious festivals. Important rituals and ceremonies like the Isis and Nephthys mourning scene or the anointing of the god's statue (doesn't have to be one of these, just something interesting and unique). Last paragraph in Burial customs needs a citation.
  • Legacy and rediscovery: This is awkward: "As the traditional establishments in Egypt were disbanded by early Christians, the authentic knowledge of Egyptian history was displaced by second-hand accounts and the invented stories of tourists and treasure-seekers." This is cliché and a bit Eurocentric: "Interest in Egypt was re-awakened by European travellers of the 17th and 18th centuries". Egypt is a country. The point you want delivered here is interest in Egyptian antiquity, which was not started by modern Europeans, but can be traced through Graeco-Roman and medieval Islamic writings (meaning it was always there). The scientific investigation of Egyptian civilization however (like everything else) begins in the early modern period.
    • Reworked the section, should be OK now. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is all I have time for now, but it covers the major areas that need attention. A lot of effort has clearly been put into the article. It appears to have just been promoted to GA status. But this is not an automatic step to Featured status. There is no hurry--unless there is an urgent need to get the article featured within a week, I think it needs more time for further development and refinement. — Zerida ☥ 02:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Announced. I will begin working on your helpful comments. Do you think I have referenced too many books? For this topic, I don't see how journal articles are better than books, since this is intended to have broad-brush coverage. The role of women is covered in the Legal section, is this enough? The article discusses farmers, artisans, overseers, is this enough on professions, or what else are you looking for? The article discusses contacts with other nations in the history sections especially, is there something specific that is missing? I'm not sure what about animal breeding needs to be in the article. It would be helpful to have specific examples.

I considered using {{main|New Kingdom}} etc., but since we have the navbox, having the headings under each section would be redundant. Some of the info in the history section was copied to other articles, not from them, but I will work on them as you suggest. I will also work on the language section, but I am totally unfamiliar with anything called "Per-Ankh", nothing I have come across in my sources mentions this. I will add a paragraph on Amarna art, but Akhenaten and the Aten are given their due weight in the history section. I feel adding it to the religion section would make it too lengthy, but I'm open to change. I'm not sure what you are looking for in the role of the priesthood, but if you have something in mind another sentence could be added. In Legacy and rediscovery, the idea was to point out Egyptomania. How would you put it? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added the years back into all the sources. This could be essential in the future, if another book by the same author is introduced. For the same reason we don't use ibid, it can't hurt to have the years. And besides, taking them out and putting them back in is very tedious, so I'm not going to do it again. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to your questions:

• Do you think I have referenced too many books? To clarify what I said, I think that the article should be referenced by academic journals in addition to the books cited; examples like KMT, the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Journal of Near Eastern Studies and (in an ideal situation) Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur. It may not be one of the criteria, but despite its general scope, I feel that a featured article on Ancient Egypt should contain the most up-to-date archaeological information from academic journals. Since you probably have access to such sources, I would suggest giving them a look.
  • I wish I did have access. If you had something in mind, by all means add it as additional reading.
• The role of women is covered in the Legal section, is this enough? Not quite. I'd want to emphasize the point regarding the status of ancient Egyptian women vis-à-vis other women of antiquity; how despite this status, Egyptian society was still largely male-dominated; what roles they could play (as unmarried, married and divorced women) and what varied positions they occupied; courtship styles; I'd want to briefly mention the role of the Divine Wives of Amun and cite specific examples of prominent ancient Egyptian women, not only queens, but interesting women like Naunakht whose will was found at the worker's village at Deir el-Madinah (I just realized that Deir el-Madinah is not mentioned in the article). Another nice addition would be brief mention of the Instructions of Ptahhotep or the Leiden Papyrus 371 as examples of what you had just talked about wrt women.
• The article discusses farmers, artisans, overseers, is this enough on professions, or what else are you looking for? A brief breakdown of the "social pyramid" as Egyptologists like to call it, and where these professions fit into it. I would briefly emphasize several professions that formed a distinct class, such as scribes, soldiers, medical professionals and engineers (don't forget Imhotep), in addition to those you mention like farmers or court officials. You give a good overview of the role of the priestly class; I'd also want to briefly mention what kinds of lives they led; their families (that they didn't abstain from marriage); ritual cleansing and rites of passage; abstinence from certain foods; their specialize garb; their roles in the major festivals (Opet, etc.)
• The article discusses contacts with other nations in the history sections especially, is there something specific that is missing? More on contact with other nations in the predyanstic period (including Sumer), as well as Kerma later on. I'd again cite specific examples that might be interesting, like the Egyptian statue of Sennuwy which was found in Kerma, and the Minoan frescoes which decorated the palace of Ahmose I in Tell el-Dab'a as evidence of trade and foreign contacts (including within Egypt).
  • Minoan frescoes and trade with Crete mentioned, the article already mentions contact with Nubia, Libya, the Levant and Byblos, Anatolia (tin, bronze), Punt, the rest of the Mediterranean, etc. and it mentions Ramesses's II peace treaty with the Hittites. I think this should be enough. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what about animal breeding needs to be in the article. It would be helpful to have specific examples. This should probably be incorporated into the agriculture section, and I would extend it to fauna in general. I'd give a brief history of the kinds of animals and brids that were bred in Egypt since the predynastic period, or those that figured prominently in the environment. The horned cattle (like those shown in painted reliefs from the tomb of Nefertari e.g.), sheep, pigs, poultry and geese, and how some contributed to the Egyptian diet; or those for transportation like the donkey. You might want to mention that horses were not introduced into Egypt until the Hyksos occupation. You could also mention which animals were deified, like the cat for instance, and those kept as pets like monkeys and lions (royalty). There were also domesticated bee hives. Herodotus described the harmony that characterized the relationship between people and animals in Egypt. You might want to throw in something that sheds light one that.
  • New section on livestock added, I covered almost everything you pointed out, but I think a history of domestication would be too lengthy. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• I am totally unfamiliar with anything called "Per-Ankh", nothing I have come across in my sources mentions this. The House of Life was the main office where the scribes worked. There was at least one in the all major cities, comprising libraries (called the House of Books), labs and observatories. One of the oldest was in Damanhur. Not absolutely essential, but would be a nice addition to convey the point that the ancient Egyptians had other interests besides religious pursuits.
• In Legacy and rediscovery, the idea was to point out Egyptomania. How would you put it? I would simply make reference to Egyptomania in colonial times and later one, its positive and negative outcomes, and the scientific discovery of ancient Egyptian civilization (not "the European discovery of Egypt" or something along those lines). Those sentences just need to be reworded to avoid POV. I hope this helps. Good work on the Ptolemaic and Roman sections. — Zerida ☥ 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Legacy section reworked, should be OK now. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Language section also rewritten. Will do a more thorough check on other sections, though things are already looking great. — Zerida ☥ 03:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like most sections at this points get a √. The New Kingdom and Predynastic could use more work. I added to references for the latter under Bibliography. I recommend truncating some of the NK and Naqada material and elaborating a little on predynastic Lower Egypt instead. You mentioned adding something on the Per Ankh institution, so I think that about covers it. — Zerida ☥ 04:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I realized my source for the Per Ankh is a website--a tertiary source that isn't acceptable. Do you have any good secondary sources? In all my books, I've never come across this topic; this may indicate that maybe it's not notable enough to be included. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Will add some background information on it from Strouhal. — Zerida ☥ 03:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• There was some WP:SYNTH in the mathematics section which was pointed out by another editor. I've made additions and rewrote parts as appropriate. I think this is the biggest issue for me at this point, namely synthesis so I recommend going over the citations to make sure that no OR is being introduced. Also, if nothing is done to the PD and NK sections, I will be making changes as appropriate as well. — Zerida ☥ 22:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of a single sentence in the New Kingdom section that isn't absolutely essential. We have to mention Hatshepsut, Akhenaten, and Ramesses II, and the transition to the third intermediate period. I think they are already very concise and mention only the most important points. Since the New Kingdom was the peak of ancient Egyptian power, it makes sense to have this amount of material on it. As for the predynastic, I feel it's already the right length. The focus on the section should be the transition to unification, and I feel the section already does this. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly think of several different ways of truncating the 5 NK paragraphs into more concise prose. You say I can't think of a single sentence in the New Kingdom section that isn't absolutely essential. In fact, the very first sentence in that section ("The pharaohs of the New Kingdom used military force to expand the country's borders..") could be done away with, as it colors the whole discussion of the NK in terms of violence and military conquest. While there is some validity to that argument--that the NK was more characterized by its military interactions with foreign nations than other periods--it does not need to be hyperbolically stated in those terms nor in the very beginning of the section. The length of that section gives the impression that the NK was somehow more important than other periods. While there is also validity to that view for various reasons, Egypt above all is known for its pyramids, which the OK section could use to elaborate on a bit further.

As regards the PD section, it is not an issue of length overall, but how much coverage the Naqada period is taking at the expense of the PD northern communities. It is not sufficient to state that all that Lower Egypt is worth mentioning for is that two of its cultures were engulfed by the Upper Egyptian conquest. That does not provide sufficient context to understand these events if one does not know enough about the topic. The other problem is that the main article on Predynastic Egypt itself needs more work because it covers very little of LE with the exception of Faiyum, so we're left with this impression that predynastic Lower Egypt was just not that important. Hendrickx & Vermeersch describe some of the LE sites in the Prehistory section of Shaw, FYI. See also this list. — Zerida ☥ 03:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Zerida, your suggestions have been most welcome and I greatly appreciate the work you've done on the article. I'm glad you've helped make it better, especially with respect to the literature section. However, some of your suggestions are asking too much and I think are taking us in the wrong direction. The PD section does not have to "do justice" to the (let's face it, obscure) lower Egyptian cultures, instead it should provide a synopsis of the transition to unification, the major events of which are social stratification and leadership, adoption of animal husbandry and agriculture, etc. These are discussed in general as "a series of unique cultures." Going into more depth than this, mentioning the names of each, let alone discussing all of them, is not in keeping with the summary style. The Naqada culture is given special priority, because it is the Naqada culture which expands and grows in power, forming political core of the unified state. But you are right, the sub-article Predynastic Egypt should have better coverage on this point. In this article, we are looking for a synopsis only.

As for the NK, just as the era was inaugurated by the sword, so too is the paragraph. My RS show clearly the military nature of the NK, including military-style titles among the administration, military men serving in the administration, expansion of territory, adoption of new weapons, and military iconography proliferating in art. Military is certainly a main feature of the New Kingdom, since this is how they achieved and justified their power. We rightly color the paragraph with overtones of the military.

I think the article is well balanced; I've carefully and critically studied many publications and the Digital Egypt site. To the best of my ability, the weight I've given each topic is in direct proportion to the weight the topic is given in the sources. I've given special emphasis to getting a very broad scope on topics such as daily life and social status, which aren't so awe-inspiring as to have been written about extensively. It's a delicate balancing act, and one can always point to things that aren't in the article, simply due to the richness of the culture. But we have to know when to stop. As I said above, I believe the article is essentially complete. We can always put in this or that or the other thing, but we would end up with extensive bloat that is no fun to read. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is such thing as a "complete article" on Wikipedia. This is Wiki after all so other editors will always want to make contributions to existing articles if they happen to fall within an area of interest. But I must again stress the issue of inappropriate synthesis of material that I've been noticing lately. I will assume good faith with your intentions, but you must absolutely be vigilant about what it is that you are claiming in the article and attributing to the authors cited. I have pointed out several instances of these, including a recent one of a reference that *I* cited. I understand that my editing may seem a bit heavy-handed to you, but that fact is that much of what I do on Wikipedia involves contributing to articles about Egypt. So if an article has "Egypt" as part of its title, I will potentially have a lot to say about it, especially if it is bound to get a lot of exposure. I get the sense that you really want the article to be featured, so I hope it does, but my priority here is for the article to be as balanced and factual as possible. Furthermore, your last comments on the article's talk page are indicative of strong ownership tendencies. Since I am not going to stop editing the article, I hope you can find a way to accommodate my edits. — Zerida ☥ 08:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I wrote anything that indicated ownership, it's not my intent to do this and I hope you don't stop editing, because you've made several excellent improvements and suggestions. If there are still problem areas, I would like to continue working together to reach a mutually agreeable solution. I feel we have done a reasonably fair job of this already, although not perfectly. Reading the math section after your last revision, I am satisfied with it, even though I don't agree completely, because you were able to fix some of the objections I had. I'd say 2-3 factual errors (which have now been corrected) in a 100kb article is doing pretty well, isn't it? Like you, my primary goal is to have the article thorough, balanced, and accurate. It might be helpful if you could summarize, giving clear specifics, what you think still needs work on this article, because otherwise I can't see what if anything could be improved. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's OK; the tendency to be a little possessive of articles which bear our sweat is an issue that all good writers run into from time to time. As I mentioned though, the PD and NK sections needed work, so I've gone ahead and expanded the PD with more information on northern cultures, and tightened the NK a little bit. Most of the major points are still mentioned. I will be going over the items I brought up in my review here, making changes or additions if the need arises. If a point of contention comes up, we can continue discussing on the article's talk page. BTW, there is a hidden image in the PD section; not sure if this is waiting to be revealed or if something else will replace it. — Zerida ☥ 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I hid the image a while ago because of lack of space for it, with the idea that it might be useful in the future. There might be space for it now. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to have the image where it is now, or can we move it down to the second paragraph in the PD section? It's squishing the text against the navigation template facing the other side. I am not terribly familiar with image MoS. — Zerida ☥ 06:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it seems to vary based on system and browser used. — Zerida ☥ 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Well, as founder & an inactive member of the Ancient Egypt WikiProject you've done a lot with this important article. (I had to dig deep into the article history to see if I had edited this article. There are quite a few important Wikipedians who appear in those pages.) I do have some suggestions:

• Dates. Maybe because that's the part I focussed on the most back when, I feel something needs to be said about the problems of dates in ancient Egyptian history. Not that the modern equivalent of these dates can be shifted to whatever value a scholar wishes, but that there is a lack of precision the further one goes back. (ISTR reading the figure of a couple of years either way for the New Kingdom, a decade either way for the Middle, & a century either way for the Old.) I wrote an incomplete attempt to explain the problem at Egyptian chronology, an article that deserves more attention.
• Links to the articles on the individual Dynasties. Please add them, as I think they are appropriate.
• Keeping the footnotes & bibliography in sync. I noticed that the footnotes refer to a source "Allen (2000)", but there is no matching entry in the Bibliography. I didn't check to see if there were similar
• If you need help with providing cites to translations of various texts, I do have a copy of Ancient Near Eastern Texts & Moran's translation of the Amarna Letters -- as well as a few other scholarly Egyptological works. Drop me a line & I'll see what I can do. (At the very least, both of those books ought to appear in a "Further Reading" section.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Added Allen to the source list, and I'll add links to the dynasties. The MoS says to link only the first occurrence of the term, so that's what I'll do. As for the dating, do you think putting that in a footnote would be a good strategy? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnote on chronology, link to Egyptian chronology and citation added. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support As the comments above show, no article on such a vast topic can please everyone, but I think this already clearly meets FA standards on content, referencing and general style (I didn't really look at MoS detail points). If something needs to be cut, the bit on glass-making in the technology seems way too detailed, especially given that we don't know if it was all imported or not. The art section would benefit from a sentence or two on media, mention that not all art was massive sculptures, and more links, and a few more bits dotted in the history sections on the political context of neighbouring powers would help. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Meets the FA criteria to the best of my knowledge. VanTucky 03:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comments

• I see a cite for Robinson (1998) but no Robinson in the bibliography. Probably Robins (1998)
• Cite for Billard (1978) p. 109 but nothing in bibliography
• Ditto for Aldred (1988) p. 259
• Guessing by the page numbers, I think I'm seeing two instances of Loprieno (1995) that probably should be Loprieno (1995b)
• Several books in the bibliography that are not cited in the text. Do we wanna move to to a "Further reading" section? What does Wikipedia's guidelines etc. suggest?

I just added references to be used in one of the sections. Maybe Bibliography is a good catch-all term for now. — Zerida ☥ 18:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Took care of the ref issues above. Earlier I trimmed excess unused references from the bibliography section, but the ones I left in are good general sources. I'm not sure what benefit it would be to put them in a separate section. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Also, looks like named refs could be used for the following:

• Allen (2000) p. 13
• James (2005) p. 54
• Loprieno (2004), p. 161
• Manuelian (1998) p. 358 (five instances)
• Manuelian (1998) p. 372 (three instances)
• Manuelian (1998) p. 381 (three instances)
• Robins (1998) p. 212
• Ryholt (1997) p. 310
• Shaw (2002) p. 146
• Shaw (2002) p. 313
• Shaw (2002) p. 422 Ling.Nut (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a possibility, but it would save only a few characters and is much more sensitive to breaking if the refs are changed or shuffled. If it's really a big deal I guess I can do it, but I'm reluctant. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• As per http://can-we-link-it.nickj.org/, potential high-value wikilinks at:

• Middle Kingdom of Egypt
• Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt
• Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt
• Twelfth dynasty of Egypt
• Psamtik III
• Alexander III of Macedon
• mud-brick
• history of ancient Egypt
• ancient Near East
• James Henry Breasted Ling.Nut (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I linked a few of these, others are linked in other ways or are not relevant. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Wow! Very impressive work. The prose is engaging, brilliant and certainly on a professional standard!! It appears to be comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable, satisfying criterion 1. Criterion 3, a requirement of GA status, appears to also be satisfied. To my knowledge, criterion 4 seems satisfied too, as it doesn't seem to go into an unnecessary, confusing level of detail. I do note that that issues may be raised regarding content by those more knowledgable on the subject (and MoS guidelines may need to be met in some areas), however, as such, the standard of this article is extremely high, and at least, close to being Wikipedia's very best work. While I am making an assumption that any other issues raised in relation to content and MoS are resolved within a reasonable time (if not resolved in this time, then my vote of support would be invalid), I wish to congratulate all major contributors to this article for an oustanding effort in making an article of this quality, and length. It is always a pleasure to review an article of such a standard. So, upon resolving major issues that may exist (if any more, and if raised), this article is indeed worthy FA status, and I therefore submit my vote of support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support, I believe this meets all the criteria. I have no objections. 79.76.234.35 (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You must be logged in. Anonymous editors may propose suggestions, however. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 12:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

79.76.234.35 (talk · contribs)'s only edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Hard to write a short survey article on such a vast topic, and this one does it well. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Appears to meet MOS guidelines, is well-written and stable, and appears comprehensive (although I am not an expert in the field). Karanacs (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Notes and questions: Per WP:MSH, is the capitalization of section headings correct on, for example, Predynastic Period, Early Dynastic Period, First Intermediate Period, etc.  ?? Readable prose size is 71KB, which would make this one of Wiki's five longest FAs; has anyone looked at whether summary style has been effectively employed? Please have a MoS guru (like Tony1 or Epbr123) go through the Math section; I'm not certain, for example, those fractions are displayed correctly, among other things. Please check citations for consistent usage of p pp p. and pp. pp. is not used consistently on plural pages. There are also missing named refs, see WP:FN, one example (all should be checked):

75. ^ Manuelian (1998) p. 372

76. ^ Manuelian (1998) p. 372

77. ^ Manuelian (1998) p. 372

To locate others missed, you can go to the printable version, and copy paste the refs into an Excel spreadsheet, then sort to locate duplicates. Is everything listed in Bibiliography really used to source the article, or is some of that Further reading ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Capitalization corresponds to Egyptological convention; same for the main articles on those topics. "Domination" in the Roman section was capitalized before; that's the only one I changed. With regard to length, the History, Art, Architecture and Burial customs are the longest sections. The intro is a little long, and some of that information is mentioned under Legacy. When the article was submitted for FA review it was at 91 kb; now it's at 104 kb. It seems inevitable that the article will be longer than average given the nature of the topic, but there is potential for further work on the longest sections. — Zerida ☥ 20:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of everything in the article, so of course it will cover the same points; I think the length is appropriate for an article of this size, compared with other FAs. One paragraph that is too much detail is under the Predynastic, mentioning the lower Egyptian cultures. I justified earlier why we don't need to have coverage of that topic (See my comments "The PD section does not have to "do justice"..." on this page for an explanation) and removing that would help immensely. Otherwise I think the history section is appropriate. The language section could be trimmed, as it is a little too technical. Architecture, art and burial customs could be brought down some, perhaps by a few sentences. The Predynastic and Language sections could be trimmed by up to a paragraph each, though. I'll implement the multiple name refs thing, even though I hate it because it breaks so easily.Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to revert your unilateral deletion of the the work put into the PD to bring it to balance. A general encyclopedia on ancient Egypt covers every major area or aspect of the civilization. The PD covers 2,000 years of history in three paragraphs. We want a featured article on ancient Egypt to be a miniature version of this type of work. The contention that one part is "too technical" is not a good argument; the same can be said about archaeology or architecture. This type of information is standard in any well-written article on a language. You seem somewhat familiar with Allen, so I suggest going over it in-depth. — Zerida ☥ 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Depth is exactly what is not needed in summary style! But what do I know, I'm not an expert, I just know that I think the language section is too long and technical. Being too technical and having too many details is a perfectly appropriate argument; I don't think the other sections are so detailed or technical as the language section. I've been trimming some of the other sections as you suggest in order to shorten them, they were indeed a little long. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My comment about "depth" was to help you understand the language section if you found it too technical. I wasn't suggesting that we should cover it in-depth in the article, and it hardly is. I'll see if I can work around some details however. — Zerida ☥ 23:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The language section has been truncated, it should be fine now. The Art, Architecture and Burial custom sections are still far too long. — Zerida ☥ 00:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• OK all multiname refs are taken care of and the p. pp. consistency issue as well. Combined with using the "Find on this page" option, the excel-sort approach is actually very effective, thanks SG. The language section is looking much better and the Predynastic shorter, thanks Zerida. I'll ask Tony1 to look at the math section. ([1]) Do we have to put uncited bibliography entries into a further reading section? To me that would look odd, especially considering that many of the bibliography entries could themselves be further reading. Zerida, if those sections you mention are too long, what do you suggest we remove? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed down those sections, see what you think. — Zerida ☥ 00:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I put a few elements back, but it looks a lot better, thanks. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Down to 94 kb. I think that's pretty good for a topic of this scope. — Zerida ☥ 02:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a few minor changes since your last run-through, and I think we're right on track. We haven't lost any content but it is certainly more compact. Given the richness of the content, I'd say we did OK, compared with such monsters as the Byzantine Empire (a whopping 136kb [2]). I'm certainly very happy with the current article. The only thing I'm not sure of is this "further reading" issue. Is there some MoS thing on this? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Better, except for the raging Bibliography; see WP:GTL for discussion of References vs. Further reading. Also, the size is now a much more reasonable 61KB readable prose (9950) words: see WP:SIZE re 10,000 word max guideline. Another issue: see WP:LEAD. An article this size should most assuredly have a four-paragraph lead, and the lead needs to summarize all important aspects and highlights of the article. For an article this size, the lead is underrepresented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought it looked a little small; I'll change back to the previous version. I'll follow your link and fix the bibliography. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I renamed the ref/notes/further reading sections, and removed the entries that we didn't directly cite. Then, I created a further reading section where I put only the most important selections that weren't cited. This is my best understanding of the GTL. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.