Talk:Ahmose I/Archive 1

message: Hi,
The sA-ra carthouche on the page reads mn-iaH-ms: <- mn:iaH-ms-s -> but the image of the stele further down the page has a name cartouche that has no mn glyph, just iaH-ms: iaH:ms*s Can someone clear this up? Is it an althernative name?
--Cliau 12:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternative spelling, I believe. Whenever the name occurs, it's iaH-ms-s in my texts most of the time, but there is no such thing as the "right" spelling in the hieroglyphich language. Just the most common. Thanatosimii 18:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but determinatives rarely occur in royal names, and mn has no value here. According to my notes mn has no value other than the phonetic mn, which has no place in his name. I have never seen mn either anywhere else. I'm assuming it's a mistake, unless I can find this spelling somewhere...  Also the golden horus name seems to have an extra horus in it --Cliau 05:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hieroglyphs

message: The copyedit has been moved back to this page from where it was. By all means, this does not mean cease to do any copyediting, but you can do it here now. Thanatosimii 23:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The long awaited copyedit 

message: ===Automatic peer-review===
Below is automatic peer-review, hope this helps ....
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.See footnote Lead is long enough; more info would be overkill Editor at Large(speak)
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article. removed unnecessary linkage: only left some for older dates which may be helpful Editor at Large(speak)
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.  See footnote
*If this article is about a person, please add  along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information. Persondata added: should be checked over by someone Editor at Large(speak)
:PersonData is coped with in the Pharaoh infobox Markh 11:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed some unneeded generalities, however these words are necesarry when indicating a general consensus of an ambiguous scholarly body, as seems to be the case in many instances.
Since some footnotes are in the middle of sentances, there doesn't seem to be much we can do about them.
Perhaps we can do away with some of the redundancies, but in such a poorly understood topic, where vague words and point-counterpoint arguments are bound to turn up, I think it's a miricle that we've kept them down to 16.
When these concerns are either fixed or deemed unhelpful, it's time to put this back in the main article.Thanatosimii 16:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The lead was probably taken to be the "for the sixteenth dynasty king sometimes..." section. The real lead is certainly long enough. — Editor at Large ( talk) 02:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the edits to that version, but with the exception of a few I quite honestly don't think very much of them. If something seems to have been wise we can always change it here too. Thanatosimii 04:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no objection to the page "going live", but can we sort out the multitude of duplicated references – see Edna R. Russman  and Wente, Edward F references? Not a major problem, but FA review seem to be very pedantic! Markh 11:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also from the auto-peer review "..This article has 17 additive terms, a bit too much...." Markh 11:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be given a bit more time. I just doesn't scream "Feature Article!!!" yet; once you get it up on the real Ahmose page and ask a few more people for feedback, we might be able to nominate it for GA (if they deem it worthy). It's a great article to me, and you guys did a great job; but lots of info and a good copyedit don't necessarily mean it's ready. I'd say get some influential people to look it over for us and give us their opinion and go from there. — Editor at Large ( talk) 15:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we've already had a peer review, and not all that much came out of that... I do believe this is GA material, and the GA feedback will probably help make this FA. One thing I am concerned about- the main picture is called public domain, however photos of three dimentional objects are considered, at least under US copyright, an original work which can be copyrighted. I personally do not believe that there are any GFDL images or public domain images of any of his three three-dimentional objects out there, so we might have to crop a 2-d picture and use that instead, if it comes down to it. The citations look more compressed now, and there are a few less also's, however it is important to note that because of the tenative nature of these reconstructive theories, there will never be very much consensus on this, and so a lot of "This, but this, and also this, however this" is not quite as bad here. Since there seems to be no objection to putting this back on the main space at least, I think I'll keep to the schedule and give this about four or five more hours for any last minute "STOP"s to come in, and then return it. That'll also give us a good oppertunity to look at the changes made to that article and evaluate them to see if we should save them. Thanatosimii 19:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  -- well, the copyedit has been moved back to the normal page. By all means continue to take care of anything else, but it's on the normal page now.Thanatosimii 23:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Imported talk page comments from sandbox where copyedit was performed

message: Below is automatic peer-review, hope this helps ....
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.See footnote Lead is long enough; more info would be overkill Editor at Large(speak)
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article. removed unnecessary linkage: only left some for older dates which may be helpful Editor at Large(speak)
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.  See footnote
*If this article is about a person, please add  along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information. Persondata added: should be checked over by someone Editor at Large(speak)
:PersonData is coped with in the Pharaoh infobox Markh 11:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed some unneeded generalities, however these words are necesarry when indicating a general consensus of an ambiguous scholarly body, as seems to be the case in many instances.
Since some footnotes are in the middle of sentances, there doesn't seem to be much we can do about them.
Perhaps we can do away with some of the redundancies, but in such a poorly understood topic, where vague words and point-counterpoint arguments are bound to turn up, I think it's a miricle that we've kept them down to 16.
When these concerns are either fixed or deemed unhelpful, it's time to put this back in the main article.Thanatosimii 16:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The lead was probably taken to be the "for the sixteenth dynasty king sometimes..." section. The real lead is certainly long enough. — Editor at Large ( talk) 02:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the edits to that version, but with the exception of a few I quite honestly don't think very much of them. If something seems to have been wise we can always change it here too. Thanatosimii 04:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Automatic peer-review

message: I think it's time to put this on the main ahmose page and nominate it for GA. I've been saying that in a vague sense, and I know we could fiddle with this forever until we think it's just perfect, but I think we need a tenative deadline or we'll never finish. Unless there are objections here, I'm planning on moving this article back to the main ahmose page sometime friday around 6 PM local time... that's GMT -5:00 for me, I believe. At which time I think we need to take the plunge and nominate it, which I probably will thereafter unless there are other objections. Questions? Comments? Support? Crys of Outrage? Thanks. Thanatosimii 21:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to the page "going live", but can we sort out the multitude of duplicated references – see Edna R. Russman  and Wente, Edward F references? Not a major problem, but FA review seem to be very pedantic! Markh 11:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also from the auto-peer review "..This article has 17 additive terms, a bit too much...." Markh 11:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be given a bit more time. I just doesn't scream "Feature Article!!!" yet; once you get it up on the real Ahmose page and ask a few more people for feedback, we might be able to nominate it for GA (if they deem it worthy). It's a great article to me, and you guys did a great job; but lots of info and a good copyedit don't necessarily mean it's ready. I'd say get some influential people to look it over for us and give us their opinion and go from there. — Editor at Large ( talk) 15:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we've already had a peer review, and not all that much came out of that... I do believe this is GA material, and the GA feedback will probably help make this FA. One thing I am concerned about- the main picture is called public domain, however photos of three dimentional objects are considered, at least under US copyright, an original work which can be copyrighted. I personally do not believe that there are any GFDL images or public domain images of any of his three three-dimentional objects out there, so we might have to crop a 2-d picture and use that instead, if it comes down to it. The citations look more compressed now, and there are a few less also's, however it is important to note that because of the tenative nature of these reconstructive theories, there will never be very much consensus on this, and so a lot of "This, but this, and also this, however this" is not quite as bad here. Since there seems to be no objection to putting this back on the main space at least, I think I'll keep to the schedule and give this about four or five more hours for any last minute "STOP"s to come in, and then return it. That'll also give us a good oppertunity to look at the changes made to that article and evaluate them to see if we should save them. Thanatosimii 19:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  -- well, the copyedit has been moved back to the normal page. By all means continue to take care of anything else, but it's on the normal page now.Thanatosimii 23:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finished?