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
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 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
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Neither of the sources here I believe are up the standards of Wikipedia. I clicked on this article hoping for a nice piece of new history instead I find one link that doesn't work (at least for me), and another that seems like a primary or high school history lesson. It has references of it's own, so I clicked on them. #1 Doesn't explain where it's getting the information from. Firefox blocks #2 as a dangerous website, #3 doesn't explain where it's getting this information from, #4 leads to a dead page, #5 doesn't explain where it's getting this information from, #6 is a book I don't have access to.
I really don't think this information is trustworthy. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, it looks like their assuming from depictions of it in art. But who's doing the assuming? Is it premier Egyptologists, or whatever you call experts in this field? If so why isn't the article linking to those people? It says above the subject/headline that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" and to me (and others given the template asking for more sources), this information isn't verifiable. 2001:8003:8888:4E00:8DB3:A7EB:E989:E0F8 (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
_01.svg){kind=small}
