Talk:Khufu/Archives/2022/April

Dates

Hi, This has Djedefre before Khufu. Is that right? --Kylemew 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• The dates in the text and on the table differ. I'm happy to change this but which is right? --Kylemew 15:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

khufu

How did khufu die??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.134.5.117 (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

hard to tell, the end of his reign is as mysterious as his sons reign after.--Jakezing (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Length of reign

This article is very unclear. It gives the length in the infobox as 23 years, per the Turin Kings List, but then gives evidence that there are documented insciptions of his 13th and 17th counts. Considering that the cenususes in Egypt were biannual, don't both of these contradict the dates on the Kings List? The list has been wrong quite a few times before so it's possible this article needs to be updated. 90.192.223.127 (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The article shouldn't really say that The Turin Canon gives his length as 23 years. The name is completely missing from entry III, 10. Egyptologists merely go by their knowledge that Khufu succeeded Snefru to fill in his missing name, but the statement "...23 years, which is the number ascribed to him by the Turin King List" is technically incorrect -- it's the number ascribed by the Canon to what is believed to be him. 216.138.230.98 (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Article name

I was a bit surprised to see this article at Khufu rather than Cheops, and more surprised to see that there was no discussion of the name here.

I'm sure there are reasons for this name selection, and I seem to dimly recall being involved in a discussion years ago. But perhaps that is deja vu.

Has there been previous discussion? Regardless, why is Khufu preferred to Cheops? Is it that people think it's the more common name, or are there other reasons?

I'm not proposing a move. I just think that the reasons for this particular name should be on the talk page. Andrewa (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the naming rules of Egyptian pharaohs, but I note that the Wikipedia articles on the early pharaohs consistently use the original Egyptian names rather than the Greek or Roman version of those names. As I understand it, the name Cheops comes from the Greek. Thus the redirect from Cheops to the Egyptian name for this pharaoh. --Chaleyer61 (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, thanks for the reply. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) doesn't mention this, nor does Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Non-European and non-Western(names and titles). And while it's not in the scope of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans), I note that the convention there reads in part The "most common" rule always trumps, so for instance we use Livy instead of Titus Livius, and Germanicus instead of Germanicus Julius Caesar.

So are there any naming rules of Egyptian pharaohs, and if not, why don't we follow WP:NC and use the common name, as we do for the ancient roman emperors? Andrewa (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you take this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt - I'm not happy with the suggestion and think it needs wider discussion. Doug Weller (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is exactly what I'm after. Obviously someone thought or thinks that the current article name of Khufu has merit, and both you and Chaleyer61 sort of imply that you like it. But neither of you have said why.

I'm inclined to leave it at that. IMO it's not likely a move would succeed, and not terribly important so long as everyone is happy with the existing practice.

Feel free to raise it at the Wikiproject if you think that would be of benefit. Andrewa (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Khufu was the native ancient Egyptian name of this king whereas Cheops was a foreign 2,000 years old later Greek name for this king. We must follow the native spelling for his name. Even the BBC calls him by the name Khufu and it is a WP:RS Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, there's nothing forcing us to follow the native spelling for his name. However the BBC reference is a good one. Andrewa (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I should note that Khufu means 'Protected by Khnum' as Peter Clayton's 2006 paperback book Chronicle of the Pharaohs records. Hence, the convention of naming a pharaoh's WP article by his native Egyptian name, not a foreign Greek name, makes sense and should be followed. The name Khufu has a meaning whereas Cheops is just a later foreign (Greek) translation of this king's name. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Understood, but is this convention documented anywhere? Has it been adopted, either formally as a Wikipedia naming convention, or less formally simply by consensus on a discussion page? Andrewa (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify: I'm asking has this convention been documented anywhere in Wikipedia. There's no question that other authorities adopt it. Andrewa (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Brittanica also uses the term 'Khufu' here: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/317046/Khufu#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Khufu%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia If possible. it is always preferable to call an Egyptian king or person by his/her proper native name. Up to the late 1980's, Egyptologists (like Grimal) occasionally used the Greek term Sethos to name Seti I but today virtually all the major Encyclopedic publications have shifted to this person's Egyptian name. I cannot cite the particular WP 'rule' here but this convention respects a person's native name. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

it is always preferable to call an Egyptian king or person by his/her proper native name... That is a widely help opinion among those involved with this article, obviously, from the above discussion, and it also seems to be current practice. But as Wikipedia policy and guidelines currently stand, it seems to me they conflict with this opinion and practice. Assuming there's consensus that this practice should continue, it would be good to document that consensus. Which is what we're doing. Andrewa (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing:

There seem to be two arguments in favour of the current practice so far:

• Several people have expressed a personal opinion that the Egyptian names should be used.

• Other encyclopedias, and the BBC, use the Egyptian names.

Both of these seem to me to be inconclusive. We're not Brittanica, and one of the ways we specifically differ is in generally using WP:common names for articles. The BBC is likely to follow these other encyclopedias. Are there any other arguments I've missed?

In particular, is there any evidence that Khufu is in common use? Cheops certainly is; The Great Pyramid is almost universally attributed to Cheops. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Egyptologist Jaromir Malek in his chapter (ch 4) on the Old Kingdom in the well respected 'The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt' as edited by Ian Shaw (2000) consistently refers to 'Khufu (Herodotus' Cheops)', 'the long reign of Huni, Sneferu and Khufu', 'Khufu's son Hardjedef' and explicitly notes that Khufu's full name was "Khnum-khufu, meaning 'the god Khnum protects me.'" (pp.94-95) He also talks about the intact treasure of Khufu's mother Hetepheres I and this ruler's pyramid before moving on to Khafra and Menkaura. (pp.94-97) He also notes that the names Khafra and Menkaura were derived by Herodotus who lived more than 2,000 years after these kings died. (p.97) Personally I accept the ancient Egyptian's names rather than Herodotus.

Bill Manley--who also edited Egypt's 70 Great mysteries, wrote another book titled 'the Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt' in 1996 and again mentions Khufu, Khafra and Menkaura in his list of Egyptian kings. (p.132) My point is Khufu, Khafre/Khafra and Menkaure/Menkaura are the main academic references that Egyptologists call these kings today, not Herodotus' Cheops, Chepren and Mycerinus. Is it proper if someone calls you 'Iandruva' 2,000 years from now instead of your proper User name 'Andrewa.' Of course not. That is the point here. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be appealing to the same two arguments already given by others: Personal opinion, and scholarly use.

I have no objection whatsoever to the French calling me André or the Australian aboriginals calling me Anterunya, which they do. It's prefectly proper for them to do so. If anyone calls me Iandruva in 2,000 years, I'm delighted that they call me anything at all. Where did this version come from? I'm curious. Andrewa (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to measure popular use. Ghits can't be used for something like that. One of the most popular tourist sites, touregypt, uses Khufu (mentioning the name Cheops as well), but that doesn't make it the most popular use. Doug Weller (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good start... URL? Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There are three options for going further:

• We don't need to go further at all! As I've said from the start, I'm not proposing a page rename. I'm just trying to clarify what is going on.
• We could propose a new naming convention, saying I guess something like that this and similar article names should follow ancient Egyptian usage.
• We could justify this current name in terms of existing conventions, and in particular, that this is already popular usage.

They all have their pros and cons. But what I'd caution strongly against is arguing that Khufu is the name people don't yet use but should. This is advocacy, and likely to be rejected by the wider community as contrary to Wikipedia's basic principles. Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Andrewa. I already gave proper academic reasons why this article is titled Khufu and not Cheops. I cited the BBC, Jaromir Malek, Bill Manley. E. Brittanica was used as a guide for how traditional encyclopaedia's refer to this king. What else do you want? I clarified the issue and also mentioned what Khufu's full name, Khnum Khufu, translates in Egyptian. I've justified the existing convention for calling Khufu by his proper Egyptian name. Personally, I prefer your third solution. Thank You. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I prefer that solution, too. But where ever did you get the idea that quoting proper academic reasons would achieve that? I've already answered the appeal to traditional encyclopaedia's (sic). Where do our naming conventions mention these? What more do I want? Simply that we address the issues. Andrewa (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I know Google has been mentioned disparagingly above, but I get 189,000 ghits for Khufu pyramid and only 54,600 for Cheops pyramid. This to me supports the contention that Khufu is in popular usage. Yes, you need to be careful of Google, but I think this statistic would need to be answered in order to justify any move. (Your results will depend on many factors and may differ to mine, that's why from bitter experience I don't give the URLs for these searches.) Andrewa (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

There seems to be a de facto naming convention that Wikipedia articles on the early pharaohs use the original Egyptian names rather than the Greek or Roman version of those names. Andrewa (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that might be premature. Discussion above is continuing. There seems a strong consensus that the existing name should be retained, but most of the reasons given seem to ignore Wikipedia policy. Andrewa (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of arguing from silence, the probability that anyone will come up with any justification for the current practice in terms of current policy (excepting of course WP:IAR) and guidelines seems to be rapidly vanishing. That doesn't mean that the practice should change. Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it. Andrewa (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is not an argument in silence. Egyptologists such as Jaromir Malek call this king Khufu, and note that his Greek name was Cheops. Are we going to rename Menkaure's article next as Mycerinus when most people don't even know this 4th dynasty king's name next? Names are very important--you either follow a native Egyptian's name or you don't. Since their Egyptian names are known, we must use them. In most case, a king's Egyptian name actually conveys a meaning. That is why we should always abide by them. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The National Geographic style manual says "Khufu, the Arabic spelling, is preferred to Greek spelling Cheops for the pharaoh who built the Great Pyramid.". Doug Weller (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Another good scholarly source. But should we follow these? That's the question. And if so, why? Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference to argument from silence was in connection to my own argument, nobody else's. I'm wondering why nobody is giving any evidence of popular usage of the name Khufu. To go from this lack of evidence to a conclusion that there is no evidence is an obvious but risky step that I'm tempted but reluctant to make, that's all I'm saying. Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Andrewa you seem to be advocating that we hoist a foreign, ie: Greek Herodotus based name to refer to an Egyptian king who has a proper identifiable Egyptian name. If a person didn't have a proper native name (that we could locate), then certainly we would use the Greek version. In the case of the 4th dynasty, we know Khufu's full name Khufu Khnum which means "the god Khnum protects me" and I even gave a proper academic source. The name has meaning in its context. And still you reject it and want to call him Cheops even though WP's article on Khufu gives Cheops as the Greek form of his name. This tells me you don't accept the judgment of Egyptologist's and would rather advocate your own POV here. One point: the name Cheops was in more popular use in the past (on TV programs) because Khufu's name was either lost until Ancient Egyptian was translated or more emphasis was placed on their Greek derived names. But nowadays, most programs' and web sites would say Khufu or Cheops' pyramid, etc and give primacy to his native Egyptian name. They say Khufu, then Cheops' pyramud/reign/family, etc as TourEgypt does here: [1]
  • No, I'm not advocating that at all. I'm not advocating that we hoist anything on anyone, just the opposite. But you're right, I don't accept the judgment of Egyptologist's (sic) on this matter, not because it's my POV, but because it's Wikipedia policy. If you're correct and can make a case... as I think you are doing... that Khufu is the more normal current usage, then there's no problem with this article. There may be on others, if (as I suspect) the naming has been based on the judgment of Egyptologist's (sic) rather than on WP:NC. Andrewa (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• May I note one exception: the Greek priest Manetho writes that a certain Salitis was the first Hyksos king to conquer Egypt by force. Whether this is true or propaganda (I think it was more of a peaceful takeover of Lower Egypt by the local Semitic population in Lower Egypt...just as the local Libyan population of Lower Egypt later ruled the 22nd dynasty) is immaterial. The point is...since no one knows what Salitis' Egyptian name was, it is right to acknowledge that a certain king named Salitis was the first Hyksos ruler as TourEgypt notes and as WP does here This is an instance where the use of a foreign name is justified. But certainly not in the case of Khufu, Khafra/Khafre and Menkaura/Menkaure who are all attested in contemporary old Kingdom documents by their proper Egyptian names. Please kindly stop making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Please comment on content, not on the contributor. It's frustrating for me, too. All I asked was that the naming be explained, as the name appeared to me to violate the naming conventions. The explanations initially offered confirmed that the conventions were being ignored, and some of the latest still indicate this. This is something that needs to be fixed eventually. And it doesn't mean that the name is wrong; It may be a case of the right name having been picked for the wrong reasons. I'm still hopeful that's the case, and it's why I have not pushed for a renaming, just an explanation. Andrewa (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Andrewa, I acknowledge that there are more google hits for Cheops pyramid here: [2] at 31,000 than Khufu's pyramid here: [3] at 9730 but that isn't really grounds for renaming an article from Cheops to Khufu. We can't rely on google hits here if WP is a serious encyclopedia. Why would we rename a pharaoh with a name created by Herodotus 2,000 years after this ruler's death rather than this king's proper name? When people type the name Cheops on WP, they get redirected to Khufu...and they can see that it is the same person. Remember, if we rename Khufu to his Greek name, we would have to rename the 4 Amenhotep kings as 'Amenophis' and the 2 Seti kings as Sethos...which would not be historically accurate. Then we lose consistency here. Its preferable to follow the practise of the academics. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • We would rename it if Cheops was shown to be significantly more easily recognizable by English speakers (WP:NC), unless there were strong reasons for departing from this. The only reason generally accepted as valid for departures from this basic criterion has been ambiguity, for example in the case of articles about European monarchs. The opinions of scholars and the practices of other encyclopedias have in general not been accepted as good enough reasons. So while you might think its preferable to follow the practise of the academics, this hasn't been the general consensus of the community up until now. Consistency does have some following, but again doesn't in general override the basic criterion. And consensus can change. But I don't think the probability of an exception being supported in this case is very great, I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have seen a number of arguments (and good ones, at that) stating that the academic term Khufu should be used. So far I have only seen a single reference (within Wikipedia no less) stating why it should be Cheops. A single reference for "Cheops" does not make for a well-argued case of it being the most "popular" name for this pharaoh, especially since that same reference mentions "Khufu" as well.

My understanding of the name derivation is that the name Cheops was commonly used by the ancient Greeks for naming the person who built the pyramids. This is also the name that crept into early Egyptological works by Victorian-era Brits, French and Germans who produced early histories. In many cases they used the Greek naming conventions, and these are the names that ended up being used by non-academics.

Around the time of the opening of the tomb of pharaoh Tutankhamun the naming convention used by academics switched over to a phonetic pronunciation of the pharaoh's name as written in Egyptian hieroglyph, which is where Khufu comes from. Over time this name has been adopted more and more widely, and I would argue is at least as "popular" as Cheops these days. Never mind academic journals, as most newspaper references I have seen tend to refer to the acknowledged Egyptian pronunciation as opposed to the old Greek naming convention, which in English at any rate sounds archaic (i.e. the old, Victorian-era name that was used). So let's see a good argument as to why Cheops ought to be used other than just "because it should".

Some newspaper articles that reference "Khufu's pyramid" (or similar phrasing) as opposed to "Cheops":

• http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-08-12-egypts-ancient-pyramids-get-modern-makeover
• http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/science/01pyramid.html
• http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20050312.CAIROPARK12/TPStory/specialTravel
• http://articles.latimes.com/1997/nov/23/news/mn-56977

Further, while I've seen the WP:NC argument bandied about, there has been considerable discussion on this type of point by the online Wikipedia community interested in Egyptology, which has provided a consensus that the Ancient Greek naming conventions should not be used, see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian). This came out of a similar discussion surrounding KV62, arguing over the merit of that name versus "Tomb of Tutanhkamun".

So, I'd like to see some evidence that "Cheops" is more popular and in wider usage in English than "Khufu", preferably referencing outside contemporary sources of comparable weight, and why the considered opinions of the Egyptological community at Wikipedia should be disregarded in this case. I really want to see a stronger "pro-Cheops" argument at this point, as I don't think it has been convincingly made. Captmondo (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! Yes, now it now comes back to me!

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian). While this convention was proposed more than a year ago, there's been little progress towards formally adopting it. It's slipped throught the cracks.

Of course the considered opinions of the Egyptological community at Wikipedia should not be disregarded. But neither should the wider policy.

Wikipedia is a work in progress. Time for a bit more. Andrewa (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am unaware of the formal adoption process you speak of. If there is one, I'd like to know about it. Then perhaps further progress can be made. In the meantime, it is certainly a valid guideline that has been proposed (if not "formally adopted") by the Egyptology community here, and should not merely be brushed aside.

Is the fundamental argument pro-Cheops still forthcoming? The absence of a backed-up argument (rather simply the assertion) in the face of everything provided for the pro-Khufu side is not likely to sway an impartial voter against the renaming of this article as-is. Captmondo (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

See below regarding the process, or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian)#Proposal or guideline.

There has never been a proposal to rename this article. That's one of the misapprehensions that has prolonged and heated this discussion unnecessarily. And even if the (proposed?) naming convention were to be rejected, I think that, as you suggest, there's now been enough evidence that Khufu is current usage that a move request would fail even without the guideline. Andrewa (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for misconstruing your intent. Have followed the links you have made, and am I right in thinking that the "discussion" to formalize the current proposed naming schemes is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian)? I only ask because there doesn't seem to be much of a discussion there (as yet), and don't want to miss out. Captmondo (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian) is certainly appropriate. But in that this seems to have stalled a year ago, I've raised it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian). Discussion of any new proposed guideline should be raised there eventually, and this one doesn't seem to have undergone such scrutiny yet. There are several other forums that could be relevant, the most important IMO is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Andrewa (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

While the current English usage has shifted towards Khufu within last couple of decades, older usage was nearly exclusively Cheops. Thus, while the correct name is indeed Khufu, I'll put Cheops as the second non-parenthesised word in the article (it's currently not mentioned until well into the article's body, the float excluded). KiloByte (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hi. Just discover now this strange naming decision on the English version of WP. Cheops is still strongly used by non English native speakers in English documents, because Cheops (with its orthography variants) is still the name used in most countries/languages. WP is not really coherent with this English Khufu: Deutch WP: Cheops, French WP: Khéops, Portuguese WP: Quéops, Spanish WP: Keops, Italian: Cheope, etc. . Aktrasys ()08:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Naming convention

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian). Andrewa (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You'd expect this great Pharaoh

To have more statues and information about him, considering the Great Pyramid and Sphinx were supposedly built for him. 174.16.108.193 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Naming Convention

Naming should be used to give readers the RIGHT information::::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordsBok (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Need to break up references for GA

THanks to the editor(s) who worked so hard on this important article. It's looking very good. One issue that a GA reviewer will raise (I was considering reviewing but noticed this) is the clustering of references at the end of paragraphs. The references need to follow the information they support, and when they are books, the specific page number(s) need to be indicated for that piece of information. Clustering them together doesn't allow the reader to verify the content or learn more about a particular piece of information by returning to the source, since they don't know which reference will address the information provided. Clustering references together should only be done when more than one reference covers the same material, and only when multiple sources are needed to make that point, such as when the information is contentious or when making a "numerous studies say..." type statement. More than one reference can be used within a single sentence, typically following punctuation: blablabla,[1] blablablabla.[2] 41.186.11.210 (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanx for your critics, I will take care of it as soon as possible. --Nephiliskos (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

GA?

hello,

I don't think this is near GA-status. First why is this infobox used instead of the standard Template:Infobox pharaoh? The bulleted lists in the first section are distracting and they need to be removed for flow; suggest use prose to describe his relatives, or if that is not possible consider adding a link to his tree. Also see the German article which has no such bulleted lists. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 11:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ummmmm... if you had taken a look to other articles of pharaos, you would have noticed that the orange infoboxes will replace the older ones. This was decided due a long lasting discussion within the portal members. This has three reasons: The older boxes were not made for displaying the hieroglyphs in which the royal names are written, with the new boxes we can display and translate the names completely and the place of origin can be named; for second, the informations within the older box can be better presented and explained in the articles themself, from this sight the older boxes were redundent. And, for third, the new boxes can show short infos about the throne sequence and length of reigns.

About the family list. I don´t get it. I´m not sure if it does matter if the list looks like that or if it´s pressed into text blocks. Name list remains name list.

Now, that is really interesting: You praise the way in which the German article is created, but on the other side you don´t want a German infobox in the english version? Get your way, will ya... --Nephiliskos (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"Now, that is really interesting: You praise the way in which the German article is created, but on the other side you don´t want a German infobox in the english version?" - I do not praise that article at all. There is no specific infoboxes for pharaos in the German wikipedia.

"About the family list. I don´t get it. I´m not sure if it does matter if the list looks like that or if it´s pressed into text blocks. Name list remains name list. " - Well, I am pretty sure most of the users will prefer prose over lists. It does not look professionally at all and is distracting. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 13:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

To the first point: That is not quite correct. ;-) German Wikipedia has three sorts of boxes: the simple box for personal and place names, the pharaoh´s box for kings and queens and the box-of-the-gods. But in english Wikipedia there´s no technical possibility yet to use all kinds.

To the second point: Ok, ok... I will try to compress the list into blocks. But if it looks to shitty I will dissolve it again, ok? --Nephiliskos (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello guys, I have to say that I agree with Nephiliskos when it comes to the pharaoh infobox: in particular Khufu, who reigned before Djedefra did not have a son of Ra name, when the pharaoh infobox necessarily put s3 r' before the nomen, something terribly wrong here. Thus the current infobox is rigorously better. As for the list, we can organize a vote, because I personnally prefer a list (or even better a familly tree if possible), over prose.... Iry-Hor (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wut about THIS: I can create a family tree by graphic software based on excellent sources. This family tree can be presented in an extra article under the lemma "Family tree of Khufu". Your thoughts, peoples? --Nephiliskos (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds awesome to me! I think the article deserves to be GA rated, especially in regard to other GA articles. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I like this format. A family tree would be nice, but this is not required.--GoP_T^C_N 16:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Khufu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 09:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll read through later and begin the review proper then. Looks interesting though! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll run through this bit by bit, using the criteria below. I'm not a specialist in Egyptology, so please shout if you think I'm just "not getting" why something is important, or has to be presented in a particular way. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, pretty much done. There's a lot of work on the text to be done before the article's ready for GA status, but if you're prepared to slog through the comments below, it could be done. Some issues may emerge once the text is better sorted; we can deal with those if they emerge. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi - just thought I'd drop by and see how things were progressing. Are you content for me to leave the review open for now? Hchc2009 (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Work has rather slowed down on this, so I'm reluctantly going to fail for now. Based on the research that's gone into it, though, I'm convinced it has the potential to be a GA, and I'd encourage the main editors to consider perhaps trying the Guild of Copy Editors for some assistance on the copyediting. Happy to re-review if it comes up again at a later point. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

The lead:

• The first paragraph probably needs a bit of work. At the moment, most of it is spent describing his alternative names and giving pronunciations, whereas what the typical reader is probably going to want to get onto is the information in the second paragraph about who he was and what he did. I'd recommend shifting most of this into the main part of the article (info in the lead ought to be reflected there as well anyway). You could do this by only using one, rather than two, pronunciation guides each time, and leaving the detail for later in the main article. e.g.

"Khufu ( /ˈkuːfuː/ koo-foo), originally Khnum-Khufu ( /ˈknuːmˈkuːfuː/ knoom-koof), is the birth name of an ancient Egyptian king (pharaoh), who ruled around 2580 B.C. during the 4th dynasty of the Old Kingdom. He is equally well known under his Hellenized name Khêops ( /ˈkiːɒps/, kee-ops; Greek: Χέοψ, by Diodor and Herodotus) and lesser well known under another Hellenized name, Súphis ( /ˈsuːfɨs/ soo-fis; Greek: Σοῦφις, by Manetho).[1][2] A seldom mentioned and therefore very less known name version of Khufu is Sofe ( /ˈsɒfiː/ so-fe; Greek: Σοφe, by Flavius Josephus).[3]"

could become:

"Khufu (koo-foo), originally called Khnum-Khufu (knoom-koof) and also known as Khêops (kee-ops), Súphis (soo-fis) and occasionally Sofe (so-fe), was an ancient Egyptian king (pharaoh), who ruled around 2580 B.C. during the 4th dynasty of the Old Kingdom."

• " an ancient Egyptian king (pharaoh)," - you could probably get away with just saying "pharaoh", rather than "king (pharaoh)", as its a fairly common word, it's linked, and is followed by the verb "ruled".

Respond: This form was choosed cuz Egyptologists today prefer to say "king" before "pharaoh", since the latter term is of greek origin and brought up in greek-roman epoques.--Nephiliskos (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• "he followed his father (or stepfather) king Sneferu on the throne." - unclear at this point (although explained later) whether this is telling us that there is uncertainty over his father being his father or stepfather, or if in this context father means stepfather. I'd recommend "he followed his probable father, king Sneferu, on the throne".

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done. --Nephiliskos (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• "He is best known for the Giza pyramid, and there are few hints about his life and his reign" - at this point, this reads really oddly. You've mentioned one of the seven wonders of the world, and we're saying there are are few hints about what he did? How about "He is generally accepted as having built the Great Pyramid of Giza, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, but many other aspects of his reign are poorly documented." or something like that?

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done. --Nephiliskos (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• "The only portrait of the king, that is preserved completely" - "The only complete portrait of the king...?"

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done. --Nephiliskos (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• "7,5 cm" and later measurements - have a look at WP:MOSNUM; this should probably be presented as "7.5 centimetres", and have an imperial equivalent given (you could use the convert template if you wanted - e.g. "7.5 centimetres (3.0 in)".

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done. --Nephiliskos (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• "All other reliefs and statues were found in small pieces" - "were found in fragments"?

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done. --Nephiliskos (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• "and from temporarily much later historical documents." -how could a later historical document be anything other than "temporarily later"? I wasn't sure if I was missing something here.

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done. --Nephiliskos (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• "But most documents talking about Khufu were written by antique Egyptian and Greek historians. " - If you're going to start with a "But...", I'd run it on from the previous paragraph, rather than starting a new paragraph. Also, I don't think an historian can be an antique - did you mean "ancient"?

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done. --Nephiliskos (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Khufu's obituary is presented in ways not easy to evaluate. " - what obituary?
• "Whilst..." - Wikipedia usually prefers "While..."
• "Thanks to these up to this day an obscure and critical picture of Khufu's personality is held." - this sentence needs a bit of work

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done. --Nephiliskos (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Family section:

• First paragraph. I couldn't work out if this para is arguing that it used to be the mainstream, accepted opinion that Khufu was the biological son of Sneferu, but this has now changed, or if the line you're taking below is presenting the minority view.
• "The royal family of Khufu" - could be taken to mean Khufu's wives and children, or his wide relatives. I'd advise dropping it, and starting with the second half of the sentence
• "it is somewhat uncertain if Khufu was actually the biological son of Sneferu. " - "it is somewhat uncertain" > "It is uncertain if..."

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "but only because it was commonly tradition that the eldest son or a selected descendant inherits the throne" - "commonly the tradition" and "inherited" vice "inherits"

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1925 east of Khufu's pyramid the tomb shaft of queen Hetepheres I, G 7000x, was found. " I'd suggest reversing the order here "Queen Hetepheres I's tomb was found in..."; the G 7000x doesn't mean much to me at all I'm afraid.

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "report her title" "reporting her title"

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Therefor it seemed at first to be sure that " > "It seemed clear at first, therefore, that"?

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.

• "both of them had to " - "both of them were "

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "But in more recent times some doubts about this theory came up" - "doubts about this theory emerged"?

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The reason for that is the circumstance, that Hetepheres..." "Firstly, Hetepheres..."?

Respond: Hmmmmm... dunno...--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "indispensable for a queen to make her being a queen" - I didn't understand this.

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Instead of the spouse's title Hetepheres " - I'd add a comma after title

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Because of that title it is now thought " - "As a result, it is now thought..."?

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• " apotheosizing his mother due her titles" - I didn't understand this.

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Another clue to the theory of non-biological origins might be the circumstance that Khufu's mother was buried..." > "In addition, Khufu's mother was buried..." (You don't need the first bit of the sentence.)

Respond: Hmmmmm... dunno.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Family Members". There's a bit of repetition here; you've already covered his mother and father extensively in the previous section. The rest needs a little bit of work. e.g.:

• "His wives were: queen Meritites I (first wife of Khufu) and queen Henutsen (second wife of Khufu)." - as an easier bit of prose, this could be "Khufu had two wives, Queen Maritites I and Queen Henutsen." (note the capitalisation of Queen).

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Khufu had lots of children's." - "children.", not "children's."

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Have a second look at "His sons were..." "Khufu had also daughters..." "Also a large number of grandchildren are detected..." (one doesn't normally "detect" grandchildren) "The only for sure proven nephiew..." ("The only proven nephew of Khufu..."?)

Reign:

• "It is still unclear how long Khufu ruled over Egypt." - I'd suggest "As of 2012..."

Respond: No. I think it unwise to use any year number.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "23 years of rulership" - "rulership" is not a common term

Respond: Ummm, in the books it is!--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "All these informations are evaluated today as exaggerations or misinterpretations." - "informations" isn't quite the right word here. "figures"? You don't need to wikilink exaggerations or minterpretations

• "Contemporary sources give two hints:" - "hints" > "key pieces of information"? Contemporary doesn't need to be wikilinked.

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "One of them can be found..." Implies that sometimes it is isn't there.

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.

• "Khufu's serekh name" Serekh?

Respond: Dat´s a fix term in Egyptology. Srry.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The second hint" > "The second source..."?

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "and then lost to historians, in the year 2001 egyptologist Zahi Hawass rediscovered them" - there's a word or something missing missing here.

Respond: ?--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• " In case that the cattle count was held every second year (as it was tradition at least until the end of Snefru's reign), " - I'd copyedit this bit.
• " it would proof that Kheops ruled for sure at least 26, and possibly for even 34 years" > "it would prove that Kheops ruled for at least 26..."

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Why the sudden use of Kheops?

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "There are only few hints about Khufu's political activities within and outside Egypt" - You don't need the "within and outside Egypt" bit.

Respond: sure? --Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Within his own realm..." > "Within Egypt"

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "the horus name " ?

Respond: Another fix term in Egyptology. Srry.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "They were deponated at Saqqara" I'm probably illustrating my ignorance here, but what does deponate mean?

Respond: That they were brought and deponated there.^^--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Khufu with the double crown." - first time the double crown has been mentioned...

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "several expeditions in attempt to found turquoise and copper mines." - "in attempts to find turquoise and copper mines"? "sources of turquoise and copper"?

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "which are also" - "who are also"

Respond: ??? Where???--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "he was looking fo that two precious materials" - "looking for", but I think its probably superfluous to say that if you want to find a copper mine, you're looking for copper.
• "Khufu also entertained contacts with Byblos." - "entertained" > "had"?
• " to Byblos in attempt to trade copper tools and -weapons" > " to Byblos in an attempt to trade copper tools and weapons"

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "This kind of wood was needed for building nice and stable funerary boats, the boats at the Great Pyramid are made of it." - I'd reexamine "nice and stable"; "are made of it" > "were made of it"?

Respond: Ok.^^ Y Done.--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Monuments and statues:

• "The only three-dimensional depiction of Khufu that can definitely be connected with him, " "connected with him" is quite vague, and I wasn't quite sure if you meant "accurately depicts him" or something like that?
• "The figurine was found headless, according to Petrie it was an accident while digging. " - worth adding an "and" after headless? Also, do you mean it was broken by accident while digging?
• "When Petrie rezognized the importance of the find, " - "recognised" (or "recognized)"
• " Three weeks later the head were found" - "was"
• "under its inventory number JE 36143" - could this be footnoted, rather than in the main text?
• "He argues, that no building that surely dates to the 4th dynasty was ever excavated at Kom el-Sultan or Abydos." -worth looking over this sentence again. (particularly the first comma, the "surely" and "ever excavated")
• "Hawass compared" - previous sentence were in the present, not past tense.
• "the artist did not care very much about professionality or diligence." - "professionality or diligence" doesn't read well.
• "And Khufu himself would have never allowed the display of such a comparely sloppy work. And finally..." I wouldn't recommend starting a sentence with "and", and certainly not two in a row.
• The second half of the first paragraph feels like it is giving Hawass's argument undue weight, given that you originally say that most Egyptologists don't agree with Hawass.
• "It is often said that the small figurine was the only preserved statue of Khufu. This is not quite correct." - this doesn't read quite right - it is almost chatty in style. How about "The small figurine is not the only preserved statue of Khufu."?
• "The Palermo Stone reports on its fragment C-2 the creation of two oversized standing statues for the king, one is said to have been made of copper, the other one made of pure gold." I couldn't work out how this showed there were other preserved statues.
• "today the complete or partial preserved cartouches with the name Khufu or Khnum-Khuf are left over." "are left over" isn't quite right. *"shows feet of a seating king from their knuckles downward." ? "shows the feet", but while technically have knuckles (full name being the metacarpophalangeal and interphalangeal), there really isn't much of the foot beneath them! :)
• "Two further objects are on display at the Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim, these are also made of alabaster. One of them shows the head of a cat goddess (most possibly Bastet or Sakhmet). The position of her right arm suggests that the bust once belonged to a statue group similar to the well known triad of Mycerinus." I couldn't work out how this related to Khufu.
• "the head is assigned to Khufu " - "attributed"?
• " The head is made of limestone and with only 5,7 cm comparatively small." - "with only" what?
• "Khufu is personal depicted in several relief fragments found scattered in his necropolis and elsewhere. " "personal" > "personally". "found scattered" - unclear what "found" means in this context (originally found? found today?) "and elsewhere" - where?
• "All reliefs were made of finely polished limestone." all of these reliefs? Are they still made of this?
• " Some of them originate from the ruined pyramid temple and the destroyed causeway, where they once covered the walls completely." - which temple and causeway are these?
• " they were obviously prepared as sacrifices during an offering procession. " - "obviously" according to who? Also, how is a row of oxen a personal depiction of Khufu?
• " And a fourth example shows the king with the double crown and impaling a hippopotamus." - too many "and"s
• The work-off of the relief is likewise to that of king Snefru." - I didn't understand this.
• "At the Wadi Maghareh in Sinai a rock inscription" - is the inscription part of the reliefs in the previous paragraph? If so, was it also made of polished limestone?
• "It is possible, that the lack of this special depicting programm influenced later ancient Greek historians in their assumptions, that Khufu could have actually closed all temples and prohibited any sacrifice." - this sentence needs a bit of work.
• "It is possible that the lack of building space, the lack of local limestone quarries and the loosened ground at Dahshur forced Khufu to move north, away from the necropolis of his predecessor Sneferu." As written, it isn't at first clear that you're talking about a different location, and not the location from the first sentence.
• " a base measurement of ca. 230 x 230 metres and today a height of 138,75 metres. " - you'll need imperial equivalent measurements here.
• "finely polished at their displaying site. " - what's a "displaying site"?
• "The pyramidion could have been covered with electron, but up to this day there is no archaeological proof for that." - in which case, why do we think it might have been covered in electron?
• "one of the hardest stone known at Khufu's time." - "stone" > "stones". I think granite remains a hard stone even today.
• "The used mortar was" > "mortar used"
• "The monument has its original entrance at the northern side" - I'd revisit the "has" - either go for "had", or "The original entrance is at the northern side of the monument."
• "Remarkable is the so-called Great Gallery leading to the king's chamber: It has" I'd revisit "Remarkable..." and the capitalisation of "It has..."
• "At the eastern site, directly in front of the pyramid, the mortuary temple was built." - check the ordering here ("The mortuary temple was built on the eastern site..."?)
• "Today nothing is left over from the temple." - "left over" > "remains of"?
• "king's chamber" and other italicised words - why in italics?
• "(G1-a)" - again, these bold labels don't mean anything to me as a non-specialist, and either need explaining or removing.
• "Close behind the queen's pyramids" - this could mean physically close, or close in terms of time.
• "It's a 73,5 x 20,2 metres large limestone statue" "It's" > "It is"
• "ocher" > "Ochre"
• " it is passionately disputed " - by who?
• "are both pretty similar " > "are both similar"
• "but they also do not perfectly fit." > "but they are not identical."

Khufu in later Egyptian traditions:

• "Khufu enjoyed an extensive mortuary cult during the Old Kingdom." - the cult is red-linked, and you may need to explain what it is for the rest of the paragraph to make sense.
• "at least 67 mortuary priests and 6 independent high officials serving at the necropolis are archaeologically attested. " - The "archaeologically attested" seems a very odd phrase.
• " Ten of them were already serving during the late 4th dynasty (seven of them were royal family members), 28 were serving during the 5th dynasty and 29 during the 6th dynasty. " - I'm not sure I understood this. Were they serving during multiple dynasties?
• " This is remarkable: Khufu's famous (step-)father Sneferu enjoyed "only" 18 mortuary priesthoods during the same period of time, Djedefra enjoyed even only 8 and Khaefra enjoyed 28." - where is the "only" quoted from? I think the article has explained who Sneferu is now pretty well, so you don't need to do so again.
• "Such mortuary cults were very important for the state's economy, because for the oblations special domains had to be established. " - Fair enough, but I'm not sure what this is telling us about Khufu.
• " A huge amount of domain's names is attested for the time of Khufu's reign" - again, "attested"? Are these domains in Khufu's reign, connected to him afterwards...?
• "But already at the end of the 6th dynasty the sum of domains abated quickly. With the beginning of the 7th dynasty no domain's name is handed down anymore." - is this specific to Khufu, or more generally?
• "Because all royal names are written inside cartouches, it was often believed that Baufra and Djedefhor once had ruled for short time, but contemporary sources entitle them as mere princes. " - I'm not sure this is relevant to Khufu.
• "Khufu's attendance roll call in this list might indicate that he (and his followers) was worshipped as a patron saint. " - "attendance roll call"? Not sure I understood this.
• "A literary masterpiece from 13th dynasty talking about Khufu is the famous Papyrus Westcar" - I'd reorder this.
• " Within the story, Khufu is characterised in a difficult-to-assess way. " - This sentence needs work.
• "when deciding to have a condemned prisoner become decapitated " > "when deciding to decapitate a condemned prisoner..."
• "as inquisitive, reasonable and generous: He" > lower-case "he"
• "The contradictory depiction of Khufu is object of great disputes between Egyptologists and historians up to this day." > "This contradictory depiction of Khufu is a subject of continuing disputes between Egyptologists and historians."
• "Especially earlier Egyptologists " Not sure what the "Especially" means here.
• "who described an exaggerated negative character image of Khufu, ignoring the paradoxical (because positive) traditions the Egyptians themselves had always taught." - this sentence needs a bit of work
• "suspect that a difficult-to-assess depiction of Khufu was exactly what the author had planned. " - again, you need to fix the "difficult-to-assess" phrase
• "were newly organized" - "newly organized" or "newly reorganized"?
• "His son and throne follower" - "throne follower" isn't a common term - what does it mean?
• " a temple for the goddess Isis were built" > "was built"
• "the temple got extended" > "got" > "was"
• " priests of Isis" - why the italics?
• " From the same dynasty a golden sealing ring with the name of a priest Neferibrê was found at Giza" - what's the link to Khufu?
• "egyptologists " - sometimes this is capitalised, sometimes not - be consistent
• "question Khufu's role as a still personally adored royal ancestor," - what role? I don't think you've mentioned this yet.

Khufu in ancient greek traditions:

• Check the capitalisation of the section heading
• "and credited him with a rulership of 63 years" - this has already been said above.
• "Obviously, Manetho thought " - "obvious" to who?
• "as a heretic and cruel tyrant." - "heretical and cruel tyrant"?
• "Khufu received a contempt against the gods and that he had written a sacred book about that and that he (Manetho) received that book during his travel through Egypt." - how do you receive a contempt? I can't work out who wrote the book.
• " that such a precious document could be sold away so easily" - "sold away" - not sure what you mean here.
• "In chapter 124–126" - "chapters"?
• ""As long as Rhámpsinîtos was king,..." - this badly needs editing down. It isn't the place, really, for a huge verbatim quote from a primary source.
• "The same goes for the story about king Khafre." - what's this paragraph got to do with Khufu?
• "and their sources, which were available at their lifetime, surely were antiquated." - worth having a check over this sentence, it's a bit awkward.
• "because they surely remembered the heretic pharaoh Akhenaten and his megalomaniac building projects." - they might surely remember him, but it's the first time he's been mentioned in the article, and you may need to explain a bit more.
• "This extremely negative picture was obviously " - again, "obvious" to who?
• "the permission of the creation" - ?
• " At their lifetime, the Greek authors and mortuary priests and temple priests couldn't explain" - "In their lifetime"? "couldn't" > "could not"
• "since scandalous stories were easier to sell to the folks than positive (and therefore boring) tales" - worth editing this; it is bit casual in tone.
• " but from the citizens living since ages close to the necropolis, too" - what does "living since ages close" mean?
• "Within the 'simple folks' also negative or critical views about the pyramids might have been handed down and the mortuary cult of the priests was surely not done only because they liked to do, but because of family traditions." - second half of this sentence doesn't run on too well.
• "Additionally a long time handed down literary tradition must not proof popularity." ?

Khufu in modern cultural depictions:

• "Because of his fame," - You don't want to start with a "Because..."
• " object of several modern receptions," - receptions? Doesn't seem quite right.
• "documentations." - Are you sure this is the right word?
• "The story describes the citizens of the 22nd century, which became technically high advanced at one side, but totally immoral on the other side." - the "sides" doesn't fit with the "citizens" or the "which"
• "Only the mummy of Khufu can save them." - "can" > "could"?
• "stories of Papyrus Westcar;" - full stop, not semi-colon
• "are picking out Khufu and his tomb as a theme" - check the tense here.
• "Well known cinematic movies" - as opposed to non-cinematic movies...?
• "A close-to-orbit asteroid bears Khufu's name: 3362 Khufu." - I'd avoid a single-sentence paragraph if you can.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Dablinks shows three disambig links to deal with.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• It appears to. I'd advise adding the "German" tags to highlight the German articles.
• There's a particular formatting style in the footnotes, illustrated here: " Flavius Josephus, Folker Siegert: Über Die Ursprünglichkeit des Judentums (Contra Apionem) (=Über die Ursprünglichkeit des Judentums, Volume 1, Flavius Josephus. From: Schriften Des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum, Westfalen Institutum Iudaicum Delitzschianum Münster). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2008" I wasn't sure what the (=Über die Ursprünglichkeit des Judentums, bit meant - I'm not familiar with (= being used in this way. Is it a particular academic format?
• Some titles are in italics, some aren't.
• Some volumes have location and publisher, some don't.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

• I think this is fine here.

(c) it contains no original research.

• Doesn't appear to.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• Some points covered above.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Some points covered above.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Seems neutral.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• Appear all correct.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• "Kairo" - "Cairo"
• "Geografical plan of the Khufu necropolis" - "Geographical"
• "The great sphinx" > "The Great Sphinx"
• "Cartouche name Chefu in the Abydos King List" why the bolding?

Often not very idiomatic English

It reads in many places as if written by someone whose first language was not English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.54.229 (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Clever boy... ;D --Nephiliskos (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, not the most helpful observation! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Besides: I see often nuff in other articles what kinda "english" is written there. ;-P --Nephiliskos (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Greek sources

Nitpicking maybe, but I just wanted to add the ancient greek sources if anyone needs them:

• Χέοπα (Cheopa?) - Herodotus, "Histories" 2.124 and 2.127
• Χέμμις (Chemmis) - Diodorus Siculus, "Bibliotheca Historica" 1.63.2
• Χνοῦβος (Chnubus) - Eratosthenes via Syncellus in "Ecloga Chronographai"

Both Africanus and Eusebius names him Σoῦφις (Souphis)

As I understand it, Χέοψ (Cheops) is the rendition in modern Greek, not the actually written by the respective authors.

Peter Lundström 22:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLstrom (talk • contribs)

Hi. Very interesting, indeed. We in Germany render the names as:

• Χέοπα = Chéopai → Herodot
• Χέμμις = Chémmis → Diodor
• Χνοῦβος = Chnúbos → Eratosthenes
• Σoῦφις = Súphis I. → Africanus & Eusebius

It would indeed be enrichment to put in these names, but I may admonish you to give credible sources for every addition. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)