Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Valley of the Kings/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Valley of the Kings

edit

Self-nom. Hi I have confidence that the article is factual, neutral and concise, and that it is of FA quality. Any comments and feedback and advise is welcome. Markh 20:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are trying to highlight the tombs that are of interest, is it that the tomb descriptions are too short, or that they shouldn't be there at all? Markh 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answering here, since I have the same concern. The sections are short and choppy, and the entire thing should be better "prosified". It needs to be compelling, brilliant prose, and feels too listy as it is presented. Sandy (Talk) 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would "prose-ifying" the list do the trick? In other words, take the current content of the list and talk about each in terms of general tomb development, where it fits into the overall historical picture and the like? Just looking for guidance. Captmondo 14:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have change most the tombs section to be more narrative, and it looks better, but is now more choppy! Will have another go look at this later in the week. Thanks for pointers everyone, it certainly looks much better now Markh 13:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Capitalized, or not?
    • 4.2 Eighteenth Century
    • 4.3 Nineteenth Century
    • 4.4 Twentieth century
    • 4.5 Twenty-first century
  • Please expand blue links in notes to full biblio entries, including last access dates. For example:
    • ^ [29] Tourists massacred at temple
    • ^ [30] Projected visitors
    • ^ [31] New visitors centre
Changed, but not sure whether this is what you suggested! Markh 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seen your examples, understand now. Cheers Markh 21:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add ISBNs on books.
Done the further reading, will add the books from the notes section later Markh 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled all the books details out and put them in the references section, some of them (older books) I cannot find ISBN's for. Markh 11:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a bit choppy, with a lot of content amounting to one or two-sentence paragraphs. Sandy (Talk) 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for correcting the capitalization in the Table of Contents: just a note, you should wait for reviewers to strike their own comments rather than striking yourself. I expanded two refs to give you a sample of the work needed. For example, on one, you had not identified your source as a BBC News source, and had not provided the publication date. On another, you had not identified the website, and the title (Projected visitors) was not the title of the webpage. If your links go dead, readers should have enough bibliographic information to be able to locate the information. Sandy (Talk) 21:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I corrected more refs to get you started: there are a number of books in the Footnotes that have no publication date or publisher. Sandy (Talk) 22:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thanks for the advice. Markh 12:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once you've filled out the information on the books in Footnotes, I'll show you how to cite those globally in References, giving only the page no. in Notes. Sandy (Talk) 17:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have done the above, I changed all of the web references and books in the reference section to use citation templates (that way I dont have to worry about what should be shown). I am going to redo the middle 'important tombs' section, merging the lists into a narrative. Thanks for all the advice. Markh 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are still web references that need to be expanded (what is the website, etc.). There's a lot of inconsistency between the Footnotes and the References. There are books listed in References that aren't used in Footnotes (should those be listed as Further reading, or were they actually used as references?), there are publication dates and publishers that differ between Footnotes and References, and there are some books used several times in Footnotes that aren't listed in References, and that don't include full biblio info such as publication date. I did several samples to show you how these can be cleaned up and made more consistent, and I left some inline notes where I found inconsistency. Sandy (Talk) 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, hopefully the references are now consistent and all the books referenced are in the References section, with as full a biblio as I can find (I didn't do some of the references). Now redoing middle section which seems to be the major problem (into a more historical narrative). Again cheers for all the help and advice. Markh 11:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your referencing looks to be in order now, minus a few page numbers on some footnotes - I left inline notes. VERY nice progress so far ! Sandy (Talk) 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started through the prose now (reading only the first three printed pages), and have some concerns - a fresh set of eyes to do a thorough copyedit and reorganization of text and sections might help:

  • MOS indicates work needed on "century" capitalization throughout.
Done (also sorted out AD/BC issues) Markh 09:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Stands on, across from, within the, under the, behind the - YIKES - I felt like I'd been on an all-day hike by the time I got there.) The valley stands on the west bank of the Nile, across from Thebes (modern Luxor), within the heart of the Theban Necropolis, under the peak of the pyramid-shaped mountain al-Qurn, immediately behind the temple of Hatshepsut of Deir el-Bahri.
Chopped the breathlessness of the sentence, to give a more general location. Markh 09:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead could be expanded (see WP:LEAD).
  • There are many instances of terms and concepts being introduced and used before they are explained. I'm confused about how the Theban *Hills* work into the entire picture. The first time we encounter mention of hills is in Geology, and the hills aren't specified - are these the Theban Hills? This doesn't seem to be clarified early on in the article, which delves into terms as if everyone knew that info. The placement of the Geology section is also confusing, as it uses concepts and terms which are discussed more fully in later sections. The entire paragraph about "The problems of tomb construction" was confusing, as it relies on information not yet presented. Another concept introduced a paragraph before it is explained is Old Kingdom.
Specified which hills they are.
  • In History, we start to encounter prose issues:
    • It has a pyramid shaped appearance, and it is thought to have been the reason why the kings of Egypt started to be buried beneath it, echoing the pyamids of the Old Kingdom. Thought to have been (by whom)? "Started to be buried" isn't understood (presumably, they were buied elsewhere prior). Old Kingdom is explained in the next paragraph.
Reference first part. Rearranged second to explain first. Markh 09:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite needed - probably, according to whom? The tombs of Ahmose and his son Amenhotep I were probably (their exact location remains unknown) in the Seventeenth Dynasty necropolis of Dra' Abu el-Naga'.
cited. Markh 09:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article needs a reorganiztion with a fresh set of eyes - reading it, I get the impression that the author is very familiar with the Valley, and might not realize that the unfamiliar reader can be lost by the order in which terms, thoughts and concepts are presented. That's as far as I got. Sandy (Talk) 22:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is great, so thanks. I have made most of the changes, and someone has volunteered to copy-edit it later this weekend, so hopefully that will sort some of the comments out. Markh 09:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the "in fiction" section as it is too short and there is probably not enough information. Tutankhamun's tomb is mentioned in the introduction and there are 9 Ramesses's burials in the valley, most of which are mentioned in the historical section. list of burials in the Valley of the Kings is mentioned (as a see also in the Tomb Development section). Cheers for the suggestions and help 09:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawal

edit

Clearly this needs to be copyedited by someone else, so I have withdrawn the FAC. Thanks for all your time people. Markh 11:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Valley_of_the_Kings/archive1&oldid=211399742"