The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 30 November 2019 [1].
The decipherment of these scripts, of which hieroglyphs are the most famous, was a much longer process than it is often thought of as being. I've made an effort to give credit to everybody who contributed to the process of decipherment, and to give an impartial account of the controversy between the two who contributed the most, Jean-François Champollion and Thomas Young. I've also tried to write in British English, given that all the English-speaking figures in the story were British, but some Americanisms may have crept in. This article complements our FA on the Rosetta Stone and GA on Champollion, and it has been informally looked over by User:Andrew Dalby, who contributed to the former, and User:Iry-Hor, who has helped maintain and improve the latter.
The tables of glyphs use WikiHiero, but unfortunately WikiHiero characters don't display in the mobile version of Wikipedia. I've filed a bug report but do not know if it will be resolved. There are alternatives to WikiHiero (images and Unicode characters), but they aren't as flexible or easy to integrate into a table as WikiHiero. I hope this problem will not be an obstacle to the article's passage. A. Parrot ( talk) 09:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I would be glad to review this stellar contribution to Wikipedia. I will write my comments shortly. Iry-Hor ( talk) 09:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I will write all the things I see, but some might be nitpicking, so feel free to ignore them:
Now on the first section:
Second section:
I have reached the "Reading texts" section with no further comments for the moment. I will wrap up soon. Iry-Hor ( talk) 16:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I have reached the end, it is an excellent article. One would like to read about the next stages of research on the matter, perhaps a paragraph on modern research pertaining to understanding the Egyptian language although I guess this is beyond the scope of this article. In any case, the feeling that one would like to read more testifies to the quality of the present article. Good Job! Iry-Hor ( talk) 16:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Forgive me, I don't have time right now to do a proper review, but I've watched the article develop and I consider it a great piece of work. It merits featured status. Andrew Dalby 18:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
A fascinating topic that I've always found interesting. Reading through the article I see no issues, and it comes across quite clearly for something quite complex. Kaiser matias ( talk) 16:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Brianboulton ( talk) 23:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
In an article this refined and of such overall excellence, its not easy to spot issues, but a few quibbles:
-- MONGO ( talk) 07:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@ A. Parrot and HaEr48: I have read through the article several times, and I don't find any major issues in it. The only suggestion I could give is to change the spellings of "favors", "fervor", and "traveled" to "favours", "fervour", and "travelled" if you want to stick with BrE. Otherwise, the article is in magnificent shape. Kudos to A. Parrot for such a well-written piece. If I have time, I might actually translate this to Indonesian and bring it to FA status in id.wiki as well. You might want to ping somebody to do an image review, though, since it still lacks one. Masjawad99 💬 01:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I am only reviewing proper images, not the WikiHiero glyphs as I don't have the expertise to judge these:
All images are in good sections, with respect to ALT text some of that needs to be rewritten - the scope of ALT text is to substitute for the image, not simply to describe it, and I am not sure that File:C+B-Egypt-Fig2-LetterDevelopment.PNG has the best ALT text possible there. In general, the images of older works need to be appropriately tagged as commons:Template:PD-Art and commons:Template:PD-scan. Also, not really relevant to anything but the fact that we are dutifully copyright tagging an over one millennium old image like File:Ibn Wahshiyya's 985 CE translation of the Ancient Egyptian hieroglyph alphabet.jpg amused me a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
This looks great, good job! I took the liberty of merging a short paragraph into the preceding paragraph, but other than that this looks good. I'm not the biggest fan of "Further Reading" sections in FAs, as I believe that an FA should generally be all the reading a non-specialist needs on a subject, but I believe that the subject at hand is sufficiently specialized, and the given readings too primary for actual incorporation into the article, that the Further Reading section here is actually an improvement. This certainly isn't fatal and a bit nitpicky, but for future work I'd recommend you use {{ sfn}} rather than ref tags for {{ harvnb}}. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 23:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 30 November 2019 [1].
The decipherment of these scripts, of which hieroglyphs are the most famous, was a much longer process than it is often thought of as being. I've made an effort to give credit to everybody who contributed to the process of decipherment, and to give an impartial account of the controversy between the two who contributed the most, Jean-François Champollion and Thomas Young. I've also tried to write in British English, given that all the English-speaking figures in the story were British, but some Americanisms may have crept in. This article complements our FA on the Rosetta Stone and GA on Champollion, and it has been informally looked over by User:Andrew Dalby, who contributed to the former, and User:Iry-Hor, who has helped maintain and improve the latter.
The tables of glyphs use WikiHiero, but unfortunately WikiHiero characters don't display in the mobile version of Wikipedia. I've filed a bug report but do not know if it will be resolved. There are alternatives to WikiHiero (images and Unicode characters), but they aren't as flexible or easy to integrate into a table as WikiHiero. I hope this problem will not be an obstacle to the article's passage. A. Parrot ( talk) 09:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I would be glad to review this stellar contribution to Wikipedia. I will write my comments shortly. Iry-Hor ( talk) 09:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I will write all the things I see, but some might be nitpicking, so feel free to ignore them:
Now on the first section:
Second section:
I have reached the "Reading texts" section with no further comments for the moment. I will wrap up soon. Iry-Hor ( talk) 16:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I have reached the end, it is an excellent article. One would like to read about the next stages of research on the matter, perhaps a paragraph on modern research pertaining to understanding the Egyptian language although I guess this is beyond the scope of this article. In any case, the feeling that one would like to read more testifies to the quality of the present article. Good Job! Iry-Hor ( talk) 16:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Forgive me, I don't have time right now to do a proper review, but I've watched the article develop and I consider it a great piece of work. It merits featured status. Andrew Dalby 18:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
A fascinating topic that I've always found interesting. Reading through the article I see no issues, and it comes across quite clearly for something quite complex. Kaiser matias ( talk) 16:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Brianboulton ( talk) 23:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
In an article this refined and of such overall excellence, its not easy to spot issues, but a few quibbles:
-- MONGO ( talk) 07:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@ A. Parrot and HaEr48: I have read through the article several times, and I don't find any major issues in it. The only suggestion I could give is to change the spellings of "favors", "fervor", and "traveled" to "favours", "fervour", and "travelled" if you want to stick with BrE. Otherwise, the article is in magnificent shape. Kudos to A. Parrot for such a well-written piece. If I have time, I might actually translate this to Indonesian and bring it to FA status in id.wiki as well. You might want to ping somebody to do an image review, though, since it still lacks one. Masjawad99 💬 01:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I am only reviewing proper images, not the WikiHiero glyphs as I don't have the expertise to judge these:
All images are in good sections, with respect to ALT text some of that needs to be rewritten - the scope of ALT text is to substitute for the image, not simply to describe it, and I am not sure that File:C+B-Egypt-Fig2-LetterDevelopment.PNG has the best ALT text possible there. In general, the images of older works need to be appropriately tagged as commons:Template:PD-Art and commons:Template:PD-scan. Also, not really relevant to anything but the fact that we are dutifully copyright tagging an over one millennium old image like File:Ibn Wahshiyya's 985 CE translation of the Ancient Egyptian hieroglyph alphabet.jpg amused me a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
This looks great, good job! I took the liberty of merging a short paragraph into the preceding paragraph, but other than that this looks good. I'm not the biggest fan of "Further Reading" sections in FAs, as I believe that an FA should generally be all the reading a non-specialist needs on a subject, but I believe that the subject at hand is sufficiently specialized, and the given readings too primary for actual incorporation into the article, that the Further Reading section here is actually an improvement. This certainly isn't fatal and a bit nitpicky, but for future work I'd recommend you use {{ sfn}} rather than ref tags for {{ harvnb}}. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 23:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)