This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles
We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.
Cleanup.
To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?
Standardize the Chronology.
A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)
Stub sorting
Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .
Data sorting.
This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to Archive 3. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
I am reviewing this very old FA as part of WP:URFA/2020, an effort to determine whether old featured articles still meet the featured article criteria. The FAC nominator has not edited in over ten years, and the article doesn't appear well tended. There is uncited text, MOS:SANDWICH of images, haphazard image layout and galleries, unused sources listed in the References section, inconsistency in citation style, and unvetted text as the article has grown considerably since its promotion. Listing at WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article needs serious attention. Over the years, I've periodically cleaned out questionable material that accumulates here, but my last major effort was several years ago.
Wikiuser1314 – Page numbers (or perhaps chapter titles for certain e-books) are needed for the book sources being cited. The citations (specifically cites 198 – 208) also need to be converted to be consistent with the citation format used throughout the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and tried to unify citation formatting (I have excluded the DNA section as that will be getting pruned and I don't know what we will be keeping from it)
While doing this I saw that:
Many of the sources for general statements are webpages. These could probably be replaced with citations from books instead such as Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology by Nicholson and Shaw, (I don't have this one) or similar.
Y Bleiberg (2005) needs a page number
The last two sentences of "Legacy" need a source that better supports them
@Merytat3n, there's a set of sources following Zakrzewski (2007) that don't follow alphabetical order by surname. Many of them also have enormous quotations. Are you intending to retain these sources, or not? In the former case I can sort them into the rest of the source list, but I thought it best to check first. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They definitely need to be cut if FA status is going to be retained. I don't know or care if there's any particular passage in the MOS about oversized notes—even if parts of the wall of text are shoved down into the notes rather than the body, it's contrary to summary style and common sense to discuss the minutiae of Egyptian genetics in an overview article like this.
I think the quotes were added for verification, because the online versions of the papers have no pages. But they could be copyvio. Hypnôs (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an improper use of the edit request template. The template is for proposing specific actionable changes. Access to edit the article is not granted on a request basis because that isn't how page protection works. Beyond that, and with respect, the quality of the writing in this request indicates a command of the language that is well-below the necessary standard to directly contribute to a current FA. If you have an edit you'd like to propose, you can place it within this section and have an experienced editor check over it. Before doing so note that Wikipedia prohibits original research. Any proposed change needs to be backed by a high-quality (i.e. academic) reliable source. There are other policies and guidelines that may need to be taken into consideration, but cross that bridge when you get to it. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The years in subsection titles within the "History" section contradict with our own articles of these periods. For instance, our article stated that the Middle Kingdom ranges 2134–1690 BC, while various parts of our article on the Middle Kingdom stated that it ranges from "2040 to 1782 BC", or even "c. 2055 BC–c. 1650 BC". Should we at least take a look at these periods and check their accuracy? If we cannot form a consensus on when these periods occured then it might be better to remove years in subsection titles and let the subtopic articles discuss about the nuances of each estimated period in detail. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale._01.svg){kind=small}
MOS:SANDWICH images