Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ramesses VI/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2018 [1].

Ramesses VI[edit]

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Ramesses VI, one of the last kings of the New Kingdom period. Ramesses faced strife and unrests early in his reign and Egypt definitively lost the last remnants of its former empire in Canaan in the meantime. Egypt's economy was seriously declining if not collapsing at the time, the high-priest of Amun essentially established a second center of power in Upper-Egypt controlling the country's finances, and Ramesses dedicated most of his efforts to usurping his predecessor's monuments. As a ruler he said that he "covered all the land with great monuments in his name" yet is now seen by Egyptologists as "a king who wished to pose as a great pharaoh in an age of unrest and decline". Ramesses' tomb (which he had usurped form his nephew!) was pillaged less than 20 years later when chaos had finally engulfed the country, his mummy heavily damaged in the process.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Louvre_122006_029_RamVI.jpg is quite blurry
Removed.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ramesses_Vi_closeup.jpg: what was the author's date of death, and what source was published before 1923?
Done The drawing was originally made by the Franco-Tuscan expedition in 1829 and published in 1832. I believe the author was was Rosellini who died in 1843. In any case, all members of the expedition died before 1900.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

A few minor comments on the prose. Nothing to make any difference to my support.

  • Lead
    • "strife and unrests" – the plural reads rather oddly, and I'd have "unrest" singular here.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He laid undisturbed in his tomb" – the verb "lie" in this sense has two different past tenses depending on whether it is used transitively or intransitively: they laid him in his tomb, but he lay there. (As I have said before, don't look for logic in the English language.)
Done, I chose the active tense, so "lay" it is.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parents and early life
    • "The relief shows no less than ten princes" – a touch of WP:EDITORIAL here? I might trim to just "The relief shows ten princes" and let readers decide for themselves that it's quite a large number. (There are, moreover, some pedantic souls who will insist that it should be "no fewer than ten princes", but this is a very debatable point, and best avoided.)
Done you are right. Besides 10 isn't that much when you think about Ramesses II.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "on a door-jamb of her tomb of the Valley of the Queens" – "of the Valley" looks a bit odd instead of the expected "in".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consort and children
    • "A stelae ... demonstrates" – trouble with singular and plural here: either "stelae demonstrate" or "a stela demonstrates". A blue link would be a good idea too, for those who are not familiar with stelae, e.g. me.
Done, my mistake, singular it is.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reign length
    • "eighth year of a king which" – "a king who", perhaps?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Indeed, the reconstruction" – I see this is the first of four emphatic indeeds, all of which strike me as a bit editorial and none of which are really necessary.
Done I have removed all the "indeed" of the article, with the exception of one. My articles are plagued by "indeed" and "however".Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early reign: strife in the Theban region
    • "an hypothesis" – the "h" is aspirated, and so the indefinite article is "a" not "an". (Oxford English Dictionary)
Done I should have known it! Believe it or not my inner English voice has a terrible French accent which cannot accomodate the aspirated 'h'.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later reign
    • "no less than six tombs" – as with the ten princes, I'd remove the "no less than"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dynasty of Ramessesnakht
    • "Merybaste control" – I think this is meant to be "Merybaste's control"
Done, indeed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "high-priestwood" – a typo I imagine, but am not sure enough to interfere with it
Done, actually this was in a source, but I removed it because I too think it sounds strange.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "high-offices" – I'm not sure why this is hyphenated
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final decline in Canaan
    • "Opponents to the Egyptian authority were of local extractions, likely originating" – needs a bit of tweaking on the lines of "Opponents of the Egyptian authority were of local extraction [singular], probably originating".
Done but why is extraction singular ? For example, if I say person A if from New Jersey and person B from Connecticut, should I not say that they are of US extractions ? I mean if I write "US extraction" they could possibly be from the same place, but I know they are from 2 different places.
As I said above, don't look for logic in English. If you took the similar word "origin" it would be plural if you cast the sentence one way but singular if you cast it the other: "Their origins were French and Spanish" but "They were of French and Spanish origin". You do brilliantly to cope with our eccentric language as well as you do. Tim riley talk 09:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tomb
    • "more than one occasion, alternatively" – you want a stronger punctuation mark than a comma here. A semicolon would do nicely.
Done I have changed the previous sentence slightly (removing the "indeed") and consequently introduced a period between the two.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mortuary temple
    • There's another "likely" here that I'd make "probably" if you're aiming at BrE throughout the article.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of any great consequence there, and certainly nothing to prevent my adding my support. -- Tim riley talk 08:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley thank you for your help, I have addressed all the points your raised.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk (Support)[edit]

  • I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, the captions of the two photos after "Dilution of power" could state where these objects are now, as in the other captions.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To prevent the last photo from clashing with the notes, you could maybe left align the mummy photo, and then move the last photo a bit up.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the royal titles/translations in the infobox should be sourced, since they do not seem to be listed in the article body.
Done, I have added the citations (Leprohon - Clayton - Amer).Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wearing sidelock of youth" The sidelock?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and no names written in the spaces next to them" How is it known the names were added later, and were not there originally?
Done I have added a footnote. The hieroglyphs refer to four of the princes as pharaohs, meaning that they were written when they had ascended to the throne, not when they were princes. This coincides with the modification of these princes' figures with the addition of royal attributes (securing the fact that the text was written later than the figure, which were not initially intended to be shown as kings). Finally none of the princesses have text, i.e. none of the subsequent pharaohs who modified the relief to show their name bothered to do it for the princesses.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, he altered his youthful figure with an uraeus" You should make it clear earlier in the sentence that you're talking about the relief mentioned earlier.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such hypotheses have now been conclusively rejected" On what basis?
Question based on a careful detailed analysis of the relief. Kitchen's argument is a bit long though, should I try to synthetise it in a footnote ? Anyway after his paper all publications agree with him.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think a footnote would be nice. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "inst the Valley of the Queens" In?
Done I don't understand what is going on there are spurious pieces of text everywhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Koptos stela of Iset, the daughter of Ramesses VI" On the left or right?
Done right.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A stela recounting this appointment was discovered in Koptos and demonstrates that Nubkhesbed was indeed Iset's mother." Needs source.
Done Clayton. I don't know how I could have forgotten to put the ref here.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in tomb KV13 doo the Kings" Doo?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, all of the princesses are still lacking their names, which was never added." Were?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You changed one instance of inside to "rinside" in your last edits.
Done what's wrong with me.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent in whether you refer to him as Ramesses VI or just Ramesses, the former would probably be better, to prevent confusion with others of that name.
Done now Ramesses VI everywhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a king who can only have been Ramesses VI." Why?
ok I will get the source back to check, but I remember it is about the way the name is written and what is left of the epiteths. Will check this out.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I should be ready to support after this. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "graffito 1860a" Perhaps clarify what the number denotes the first time such a number is mentioned? Museum inventory? Some sort of numeral system for inscriptions?
Question year of discovery I believe but I don't have a source telling this graffito is called like this because it was discovered in 1860. What should I do then ? If I add a footnote, I won't be able to give it a ref.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to do then. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is found on the papyrus Turin Papyrus" Is the word papyrus needed twice here?
Done no!Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes 3, 10, and 12 could get sourced.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The statue is said to receive three services of incense and libations everyday" To have received? Past tense is needed somewhere.
You tell me: the text of the ancient source uses a present tense, because at the time the statue was receiving the three services. If I write "have received" wouldn't it read like the ancient source used a past tense ?Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to do here, so let's just leave it for now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is known to have hold the title" Held?
Done'.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hypothesis of a damnatio memoriae" This concept could be explained in parenthesis.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rices of basic commodities, in particular grain, rose sharply" Why?
Ah! So Janssen has an entire book on the subject. You see the trouble is economy is already complicated in itself but if you try to do it with a 3000 years delay, it becomes extremely difficult. As far as I can tell the processus is complicated and results from the combination of loss of Asiatic territories, possibly difficult harvests (but then copper isn't harvested and its price rose). Short answer is I don't know, longer answer is we need an article on hyperinflation at the end of the New Kingdom!Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " father Merybaste'shigh control" Missing space.
Done and I am missing sleep...Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "poessibly because" There are many weird stray letters in this article!
Done I don't knoe what happened. I am tired, let's face it, I am very tired these days.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't complain, I usually request copyedits before nominations so that my own typos will be fixed by others... FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "been abandonned" Typo.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Egyptian control of Nubia seems to have much firmer at the time" Have been?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "did not held his predecessor in high regard" Hold?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Archaeological excavations show much of its extend decoration was made" Is this intentional?
Done it should be extent right ? Nothing is intentional in this article!Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was more wondering about what is meant? FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk I meant to say that most the decorations of the temple that have survived to this day have been made under Ramesses VI as shown by the presence of his cartouches on these decorations. I have added a footnote to clarify this.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was fond of cult statues of him" Himself.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk)
  • "Egyptologists now characterises Ramesses VI" Characterise.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk)
  • "a king who wished to pose as a great pharaoh in an age of unrest and decline". It seems a bit strange to attribute a single quote to multiple writers, unless it is from some multi-authored source.
Done explicitely quoted Amer here.Iry-Hor (talk)
  • I only see a few unanswered follow up comments above. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk Yes these are not forgotten, I need to summarize Kitchen's arguments in a footnote and add a footnote pertaining to Janssen's argument about the Year 8 of Ramesses VI. I will do so shortly, as soon as I have enought time to review and summarize the sources.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk That's it I have addressed all your points, see footnotes 3 & 6. It was a lot of work to summarise Kitchen's arguments and Janssen's ideas. On this later point, I would like to acknowledge the help of Prof. John Baines who provided the necessary resources.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good to me now, tnat's one epic footnote 3! But I think the article is better for it, after all, it will probably be the main source of knowledge on this subject for most laypeople looking it up, so the extra work is worth it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • A few of the notes are lacking citations
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mdashes in some of your page ranges should be standardised to ndashes.
Look I can't even tell them apart, I can't see which is what. And which one is which – is ndsash and this — mdash ? I can't see the difference! I would like to fix the issue, tell me how to distinguish them so I can go to the text and fix the wrong ones. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The mdash is twice the length of the ndash, although this only becomes apparent when you save. Thus, ndash is –, mdash is — (edit this to see how they are formed). ndashes are used for page ranges, mdashes rarely used at all. Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton Thank you for your patient explanations! I have put ndashes throughout in all pages ranges.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 32 needs pp. not p.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise ref 62
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 90 needs pp. added
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link in the Brescinani et al source doesn't seem to go to the required web page
The link works for me, it should lead you to the page of the book with the drawing of pharaohs, Ramesses VI is bottom right.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The link goes to these images, but I'm confused by your citation to "Brescinani et al. 1993, p. 85", as I can't find any references to Bresciani on the linked page. The image seems to come from a much older book. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton The image comes from the original book published by the Franco-Tuscan expedition in Egypt, its illustration were then re-edited with commentaries in the more recent book. Given that the images date back to the mid 19th century with authors long dead, the copyrights are fine, in fact the image was uploaded by the New York Public Library in a drive to upload all their materials free of copyrights see here.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • mdash in page range in Hovestreydt source
Which one is mdash ? The left one or right one in the editor ?Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legrain source - language is French
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • mdash in page range in von Beckerath source
Again, I can't tell n and m dashes apart, and I don't know which is which. So I did a modification but am not sure that it is correct.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Iazyges (Support)[edit]

  • As a prince, he was known as Ramesses Amunherkhepeshef and held titles as royal scribe and cavalry general. suggest you change this to:
    As a prince, he was known as Ramesses Amunherkhepeshef and held the titles of royal scribe and cavalry general.
Done better indeed!Iry-Hor (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • After his elder brother Ramesses IV's son, Ramesses V had died, Ramesses VI seized the throne and was in turn succeeded by Ramesses VII Itamun, A bit complex, suggest:
    After the death of the ruling pharaoh, Ramesses V, who was the son of Ramesses VI's older brother, Ramesses IV, Ramesses VI seized the throne. After his death, he was succeeded by his son, Ramesses VII Itamun,
Done I wrote a slight variant of your proposition : "After the death of the ruling pharaoh, Ramesses V, who was the son of Ramesses VI's older brother, Ramesses IV, Ramesses VI ascended the throne. He was in turn succeeded by his son, Ramesses VII Itamun,"Iry-Hor (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • whereby all references to someone are systematically eliminated so as to remove this person from memory suggest:
    whereby all references to someone are systematically eliminated so as to remove this person from memory and history
Done thank you this is a welcomed precision!Iry-Hor (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Iazyges Thank you for your help in improving the article ! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments tentative support by Casliber[edit]

Looking now...

  • He was in turn succeeded by his son, Ramesses VII Itamun, Ramesses VII Itamun, whom he had fathered with queen Nubkhesbed. - I think this would be better at the end of the lead, after we talk about his death
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and finally buried his predecessor in what is now an unknown tomb of the Theban necropolis. - why "finally"?
Explanation : Casliber as you will see in the article, Ramesses V's body seems to have had quite an adventure and was not buried before his successor's second year on the throne, contrary to the Egyptian custom of burying the dead within 70 days of the passing. This is because of problems in the Theban region at the time and also in order to usurp the tomb originally prepared for Ramesses V. This is the cause of the word "finally" in the lead and is extensively explained in the article. Should I keep it like that or remove "finally" anyway ?Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I 'd take it out of the lead and leave in the body Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done!Iry-Hor (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • .. saving it from a wave of tomb robberies which occurred within 20 years after Ramesses VI's death. --> either "within 20 years of Ramesses VI's death." or "less than 20 years after..."
Done I chose the former option.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth para of lead has two consecutive sentences starting, "Though.." - scans oddly.
Done Somebody has copy-edited this passage very poorly, actually ruining much of the second part of the lead. I have tried to revert to what was there originally.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relief shows ten princes all including Ramesses VI,[8] worshipping their father. - you mean "in all"?
Done yes, the article suffers from spurious letters and misplaced/missing words, the origin of which is unclear. Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speculations in Egyptology during the 1960s and 1970s... _"Speculation" should be singular I think
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...have also proposed, based on circumstantial evidences,.. -"evidence"?
Done. If you say so, I don't know I thought that since several evidences were brought forward, we should have a plural. But I am no native speaker so I trust your instincts!Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's never a plural like that - one might say "several pieces of evidence" - but is generally a collective noun. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • while the Encyclopædia Britannica reports 1145—1137 BC - EB is a tertiary source, so seems odd to include...presumably it was based on a scholarly source of some description?
Well as you know it is not clear who writes what in EB, however given the overall reputation of EB I thought it worthwhile to include the proposed dates. Let me know if you prefer a removal.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Am in two minds and happy to go with consensus (i.e. if anyone else points it out) otherwise leave it I guess Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This conjectural hypothesis was vindicated the next year...' - "conjectural" strikes me as redundant. Can we remove?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • one of the largest funerary establishment of the entire Theban necropolis - "establishments"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have another look a little later. I can't see anything now, but the number of things I found in a quick look makes me want to check again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber Let me know if you find more stuff to modify, and thank you for your help!Iry-Hor (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the Reign length section. It is not an essay, hence you don't need the sentence at the end there "concluding" the section. I would move that the the top and use it to replace "Ramesses is estimated to have reigned eight full years" - otherwise it is labouring the point
Done I have removed the last sentence. The first sentence is now as you advocated.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am cautiously supporting as I can't see anything else concrete to fix. It does come across as a little essay-like in parts, but on reflection I think that is actually good, as the evidence for alot of his life has been fragmentary and relies on extensive interpretation and calibration of facts. Hence presenting that and informing the reader of how investigators have come to conclusions I feel is a Very Good Thing (rather than presenting the article as a bunch of facts). Anyway, congratulations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber Thank you for your support. I would like to understand more precisely what makes the article essay-like so that my next FAC articles can be better ? Iry-Hor (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is tricky to define - I guess it is where there is very detailed arguments trying to support a point of view, rather than just presenting facts. However, some rationale is needed in some areas, where it can be important to explain to the reader how we know a particular fact. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber Thanks for the clarification. I find it difficult to strike the right balance between facts and the surrounding explanations, in particular when "facts" aren't well established things but rather (sometimes contested) hypotheses. As you noted, we actually hardly know much for certain on Ramesses VI, but perhaps this shouldn't surprise us: after all we are asking rather precise questions about events occuring in a time-span of 8 years some 3100 years ago!Iry-Hor (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think wikipedia has a great role in showing lay readers the limitations of what we know and how we know it. And it is hard for most people to strike the correct balance in this situation. So kudos for doing it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 29 March 2018 (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/Ramesses_VI/archive1&oldid=1138469679"