Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Assessment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information). | ||
| NA | This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale. | ||
Contents |
[edit] I have tried tagging the Shardana
Hi Folks. Can anyone help me with tagging the Shardana article. I feel it is a good start, but needs an image to improve it, and some of the links may need writing or checking. Can anyone help me tag it as a "Start Class"? John D. Croft 12:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tagging the Kings
I just tagged every king from dynasties 1-21 which have wikipedia articles, at least as far as I could find them. a few of them aren't linked together extremely well (fault of the knowledge of the dynasties, not of the editors), and I got lost in sucession a couple of times, but I did tag almost all of them. The evaluation of the text quality was easy enough, but importance was a little difficult to judge most of the time.
- Overall, I assigned low position to most old kingdom rulers, intermediate period rulers, and the end of the ramesseid period. Important people in these periods, like Djoser, Snofru, Apepi, Osorkon, etc, were assigned mid. I think I made Khufu, Khafre, and Pepy II High, given their high notability.
- Middle kingdom rulers were all mid, and Senusret III and Amenemhat III were high. There may have been more.
- New Kingdom rulers are mid at least, most are high, and Hatshepsut and Thutmose III I set to Top a few days back, and I think that's where they belong.
- I believe that the following Kings ought to be set to Top, but I think there should be some consensus on this. Khufu, Amenemhat III, Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, (possibly Amenhotep III), Akhenaten, (possibly Tutankhamun), and Ramesees II. Any more? any less? Thoughts?
Thanatosimii 02:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. We also need to sort out Egyptologists and locations. Markh 13:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have done some of the above kings. What about Karnak, Luxor, Memphis and Giza for locations, I would say that the pyrmaids of Giza should be included, but I hate those articles with a vengance, and would like them to disappear! Ramesses III would be one I think, and I have include Cleopatra, as everyone has heard of her. Nefertiti and Rosetta stone as well whilst I think of it, just 'cos of their notability. On the Egyptology side, Petrie and Hawas would be top in my view – first due to works, second due to notability. Markh 14:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is just a thought, but if we were to use "Importance" for egyptologists to express, more specifically, the importance and schloarly integrity of their works, the next time certain interests want to bicker about who is a legitimate source. I recently was in an arguement with a person who was insisting that Budge was a very good source. Budge, although well known around egyptological circles as a bit of a total joke, is really of very low importance to anyone who wants to do good work.
Integral pages ought to be marked top importance, but with reluctance, I agree. Giza Pyramids as well as Ancient Egypt ought to be top, but they both bother me because of how badly the fringe theorists insist that their views have to be expressed as unbiased fact and that the majority thesis must be referred to as biased.
As for top level other stuff
*Cities, from south to north: (possibly Buhen), Thebes, Amarna, (possibly Abydos), Memphis, Heliopolis, Avaris, (possibly bubastis), (possibly sais).
*Monuments and Temples: Karnak, Saqarra, Dashur, Giza, Sphinx, at least.
*Litereture: Story of Sinuhe, Turin King List, Manetho. Thanatosimii 16:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is just a thought, but if we were to use "Importance" for egyptologists to express, more specifically, the importance and schloarly integrity of their works, the next time certain interests want to bicker about who is a legitimate source. I recently was in an arguement with a person who was insisting that Budge was a very good source. Budge, although well known around egyptological circles as a bit of a total joke, is really of very low importance to anyone who wants to do good work.
- I have done some of the above kings. What about Karnak, Luxor, Memphis and Giza for locations, I would say that the pyrmaids of Giza should be included, but I hate those articles with a vengance, and would like them to disappear! Ramesses III would be one I think, and I have include Cleopatra, as everyone has heard of her. Nefertiti and Rosetta stone as well whilst I think of it, just 'cos of their notability. On the Egyptology side, Petrie and Hawas would be top in my view – first due to works, second due to notability. Markh 14:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- 100% behind the above. I would definatively do Abydos though Markh 16:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I did the ones that I suggested. I think you're right, we should really have a go at Egyptologists... Thanatosimii 01:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bot work
I have asked around and there is bot that is capable of doing this for us (see [[1]]), this would mean that all articles within category Ancient Egypt) would be tagged with the basic banner, saving us weeks of mindless tagging! Markh 13:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- It looks like the bot is now working, although it seems to be double tagging everything, so I will have to go through and fix the double tagged articles later. Hurrah, now we get to see how many articles we are dealing with. Markh 18:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- We have 1474 articles (some of which are categories, templates, etc.) Anyone got any thoughts on how many should be Top importance, 25, 50, 100, 150 (biography has 150)? Markh 09:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- well, it's hard to pick a number just for the sake of having one. Roughly 50 sounds good, but It's really got to be on somthing of a case by case basis. Thanatosimii 14:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- We have 1474 articles (some of which are categories, templates, etc.) Anyone got any thoughts on how many should be Top importance, 25, 50, 100, 150 (biography has 150)? Markh 09:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ratings
hi there, I have problems with some of the ratings for Egyptian kings, mainly of the Second Intermediate Period. Look at king Renseneb. This is a king known only from the Turin Canon and a bead. All these objects are included in the article. I do no know whether the lable stub for him and many little known Egyptian and ancient kings is a good one. Best wishes Udimu 22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there's not really anthing else we could call them. The categories are not our inventions, and all the others are more imappropriate. Thanatosimii 00:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- okay, I did not follow the discussion, just thought that everything is said about Renseneb and the stub label seems to imply that somebody did not do a full job. Udimu 08:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- If the article is complete, then it shouldn't be a stub.
- the article Renseneb is complete, containing all known data about this king (okay I could add a description of the bead...). Which rating would you recomend? Udimu 10:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- If the article is complete, then it shouldn't be a stub.
- okay, I did not follow the discussion, just thought that everything is said about Renseneb and the stub label seems to imply that somebody did not do a full job. Udimu 08:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ahmose I is Featured Article
Well done everyone who had anything to do with this! Markh
[edit] More tagging.
I went through today and put specifics in the fields on many of our banners. Most of them were easy to assess, however I had questions on one. I made Abu Simbel high. Should it be top? Thanatosimii 19:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
