Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amenhotep I/archive1

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 not promoted 18:03, 4 June 2007.

---

Amenhotep I

I've been working on this article off and on for about seven or eight months now, and finally think it can stand up for FA. The article is now comprehensive to the point of being fairly exhaustive (Amenhotep isn't a very well known character) and well cited with the best academic sources. Thanatosimii 22:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comments, mostly optional suggestions. The handful of online references need to have author/title/date/publisher if available, not just the accessdate. Add a space after note #26. The print sources seem to be repeated often with small changes in the page number. Have you considered using short notes? Rather than notes #11 and #12 giving full bibliographic information (which is listed under referenes again), you could have just 11. Breasted, p.17-18, and 12. Breasted, p. 18. The text seems well-written, but the frequent phrases about this being uncertain, or that probably happening, left me with a nagging sense of uncertainty about the subject. I suppose that's the only way to write it though, and I like the discussion of the background and reasoning behind some of these probabilities, like the family and year of accession. Nice PD images. I don't really like how the pharoah infobox squeezes the lead, but I doubt you can do anything about that. I would prefer sections not have just one subsection. Good PD images. Three of the four captions have periods, that should be consistent. Gimmetrow 04:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I put the author information in; they don't have publishers, though. Space after 26 added. The nagging sense of uncertainty is the nature of the beast, of course, and is an accurate impression of how much we know about the guy. I took out the periods too; periods generally shouldn't be in captions, but only in real sentances. Thanatosimii 06:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I see Gimmetrow's point: providing the complete bibliographic citation for a source under the "Notes", then repeating that information under "References/Print Sources" is repetative. And using short forms of the book titles (e.g., "Breasted, James Henry. Ancient Records of Egypt" becomes "Breasted, Ancient Records) should be done at least after the first appearance of the work. Or you could use Harvard-style inline references. You may want to admit that the actual dates of his reign vary between authorities -- usually (IIRC) within a ten years' window. I also notice that, admitting there is so little information about Amenhotep, you forgot to mention one scrap from a venerable source: Manetho, fragment 50, states that Amenhotep ruled 20 years & 7 months. (I can supply a full cite to the Loeb Classical Library edition of Manetho if you need it.) Whether or not this is still believed, it should be mentioned if only to then explain why contemporary authorities reject this information -- with cites. However, nothing I have mentioned is not fixable & would only improve the article. -- llywrch 00:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I shrank the references; I can see why that might be preferred. As for manetho, if you can provide some references for me to look at, I'd appreciate them. I've never found anything about this scrap, and I've searched all the big sources from cover to cover, so I wouldn't be sure how to begin. Thanatosimii 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked somthing, and the article currently does mention the possibility of 20 years 7 months, which I believe comes from Joesphus' copy, but I still can't find any reference to this "fragment 50" Thanatosimii 15:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Frag. 50" was the identifier used in the Loeb edition of Manetho. (I'm relying on that edition, for better or worse, because I expect it is the least difficult one for the average user to access.) This excerpt is taken from Josephus. (I'm not at home at the moment, but in a few hours I ought to be able to supply the needed bibliographical citation.) -- llywrch 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the citation info at Talk: Amenhotep I. That's an expense but slender book, so if you need more citations from it I'm happy to supply them on request. -- llywrch 02:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this article become rated as a-class first before becoming featured? Dreamy ^{Whats up? Review me?}

It is within the Egypt Wikiproject. We don't have a well defined definition of promotion to A. And I'm not sure there's a particular list of prerequisite tests an article has to pass to get to FA, just the FA nom itself. Thanatosimii 03:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

An article does not have to be rated anything before it arrives at FAC. It could technically be rated "stub." Awadewit ^Talk 02:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is a very well-written article on a difficult figure. I, for one, appreciated the "weasel words" since we do not know many facts about Amenhotep I. To pretend that we do simply for the sake of style would be intellectually dishonest. Also, I am not quite sure why the previous reviewer is insisting on the use of the Manetho king list. That is a primary source and should be used sparingly, if at all; wikipedia articles are supposed to be written using secondary sources (as this editor has done) {WP:RS). Presumably, scholars have analyzed the king list, taken what is reliable from it and integrated it into their own work.

• I also thought that the infobox dominated the article a bit too much, but since infoboxes are pre-designed, there is not much to do about that. Since infoboxes are not required, though, you might think about deleting it entirely and placing the information somewhere else in a more aesthetic manner.
• I am very close to supporting this article because, in general, I thought it was well-researched, well-written, and, from my limited knowledge of the history of the ancient world, it seemed comprehensive. But, the website that is used as a reference is self-published. That cannot be used as a source. Once that is replaced with a reliable source, I will support. Awadewit ^Talk 02:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll get looking on replacing those two. It may take a brief amount of time. Thanatosimii 04:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Awadewit ^Talk 05:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Checking back. I noticed that the British Museum link doesn't work in footnote 4. Awadewit ^Talk 11:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe moved here? DrKiernan 12:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose until a proper copy-edit is done throughout. The lead doesn't fill me with confidence.
  • "sometimes read" is an odd way of putting it; so is "and meaning". Why not: Amenhotep I, also known as Amenophis I ("Amun is satisfied")?
  • Internal link down from the lead not allowed, surely? (generally dated from 1526 to 1506 BC)
  • False contrast: "He was born to Ahmose I and Ahmose-Nefertari, but had at least two elder brothers ..."
  • "However, sometime in the eight years between ..." "some time", surely.
  • his heir apparent died and Amenhotep became crown prince.[3] He then acceded to the throne ..." - How long after his becoming c p did he accede to the throne? ("then")
  • Although his reign is poorly documented, it is possible to piece together a basic history from available evidence." Is it possible to remove the last three words? What else would it be pieced together from?
    • What about listing the kinds of sources used? Ex: "it is possible to piece together a basic history from temple inscriptions..." Awadewit ^Talk 11:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "did not attempt to keep power" - "to retain the power of the dynasty"? Tony 10:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comments (1) "However, neither of these references necessarily refer to campaigning, nor do they even unnecessarily date to Amenhotep's reign." Neither, nor, unnecessarily? It's a little complex, and a double negative. Can you re-phrase? (2) "Issues" - I see the plural is used in other Egyptology articles but it seems strange to me. Issue (in terms of children) can already be considered a plural. "Issues" is an old usage, yes, but I don't think it's common nowadays. (3) The first letter in "ḥtp-dỉ-nsw formula" doesn't show up on my computer (it's just a square). (I often get that though, particularly with phonetic characters.) (4) I recommend that you use citation templates. As I've done for the Andrews reference (note that the author is Andrews not Dunn). DrKiernan 11:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.