Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Egypt/archive1

List of World Heritage Sites in Egypt

Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Egypt/archive1

Nominator(s): Tone 06:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pharaohs! Pyramids! And ... ancient whales, wow! Egypt has 7 WHS and a series of tentative sites. Standard style. The nomination for Argentina is already seeing support so I am adding a second nomination. Tone 06:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Alavense

"The latter is also the only natural site in Egypt, the other sites are listed for their cultural properties" --> "The latter is also the only natural site in Egypt, the other sites being listed for their cultural properties"
Is the capitalisation really needed in "Ruins of town of Elephantine" and "Stone quarries and Unfinished obelisk"?
"around the tomb of Menas of Alexandria who died in 296" - A comma is missing.
No need for the capital c in "Classical antiquity".
"Mount Horeb - the place where" - Use {{endash}}.
"the latter has been listed as a World Heritage Site in 2002" - That one should also by preceded by an {{endash}}.
"It was first used by Sneferu of the Fourth Dynasty who constructed the Bent Pyramid" - A comma mising before "who".
"and statues.|"
In "The monasteries of the Arab Desert and Wadi Natrun", the description reads a bit convoluted. Maybe something along the lines of "Other monasteries include those of Saint Paul the Anchorite, Saint Pishoy" and so on?
Shouldn't it be "a 30-inch reflecting telescope"?
The references are used not only for the description, but also for the other columns, so I think it would make more sense to have them isolated in another column to the right of the description.

That's all I saw. Thanks for your dedication to the list, Tone. Kind regards. Alavense (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks! As for references, the table is already rather busy, so additional column would make it worse, stylistically. I think it is rather clear for the reader what they refer to. The capitalizations are per source. The rest I've fixed. Tone 07:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Support. Alavense (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

"The monuments are: Abu Simbel (commissioned by Ramesses II, relocation pictured), New Amada, New Wadi Sebua, New Kalabsha, the Philae temple complex (on Agilkia Island, from Greco-Roman period), Qubbet el-Hawa (Old and Middle Kingdom Tombs), Ruins of the town of Elephantine, Stone quarries and Unfinished obelisk, the Monastery of St. Simeon, and the Fatimid Cemetery."
"It was a major city during the Islamic Golden Age and beyond," It isn't clear if beyond means before the golden age OR after OR both.
"The main buildings were constructed in".
"stability of the clay-based soils," Also end this sentence with a full stop.
"oldest Christian monastery still in function" to "oldest functioning Christian monastery"
wikilink "oracle temple"
"comprises the Temple of Serabit Khadem"
"military expeditions in both ways" to "military expeditions in both directions"
"Feiran Oasis has" to "The Feiran oasis"
"to the dorcas gazelle" in two places
wikilink "humid periods".
plularize "dugong".
There seems to be a lot of overlap between "Southern and Smaller Oases, the Western Desert" and "Kharga Oasis and the Small Southern Oases", An explanatory note would be good here.
That's all I got. Please ping me when you fix these. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks! Great comments. Tone 14:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"First sites in Egypt were listed in 1979" => "The first sites in Egypt were listed in 1979"
"The latter is also the only natural site in Egypt" => "The latter is the only natural site in Egypt"
"resulting in threats to structural integrity of the monuments" => "resulting in threats to the structural integrity of the monuments"
"Main monuments date from the period from 1500 to 1000 BCE" => "The main monuments date from the period from 1500 to 1000 BCE"
"Ruins of the town of Elephantine," => "the ruins of the town of Elephantine,"
"Stone quarries and Unfinished obelisk," => "stone quarries and an unfinished obelisk,"
"The latter has been listed as a World Heritage Site in 2002" => "The latter was listed as a World Heritage Site in 2002"
"on a mountain at the height of 2,150 m (7,050 ft)" => "on a mountain at a height of 2,150 m (7,050 ft)"
"The complex contained two basilicas, an oil press, rooms for monks, and was surrounded by defensive walls" > "The complex contained two basilicas, an oil press and rooms for monks, and was surrounded by defensive walls"
"Alexandria was founded in 332 BCE by Alexander the Great and was an important centre of arts and learning in Classical Antiquity," => "Alexandria was founded in 332 BCE by Alexander the Great and was an important centre of arts and learning in classical antiquity,"
"There used to be a large lake in the Antiquity" => "There used to be a large lake in antiquity" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all, thanks! I was not sure about the Nubian monuments capitalizations but since you are the second reviewer that pointed that out, I fixed is as suggested. Tone 08:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I see this on the source reviews needed list. Just taking a look at the lede & the heritage sites for now, not the tentative list.

Prose (usual disclaimer that these are suggestions, not demands, feel free to decline):

There are a lot of parenthetical comments in the lede. I've used those myself in the lede to introduce technical terms, but I'm not sure they're really required here? Why not just use sublists and semicolons? e.g. "of monuments such as architectural works, monumental sculptures, and inscriptions; groups of buildings; and sites, including archaeological sites."
Wadi Al-Hitan is the most important fossil site to study the evolution of cetaceans from terrestrial to marine mammals. The source says demonstrate the evolution of whales. This phrasing makes it sound like you have to actually be in the valley to study them, rather than safely back at the air-conditioned lab. Maybe rephrase to "the study of" or the like? something like "The fossils at Wadi Al-Hitan are key evidence in the study of the evolution of cetaceans from terrestrial to marine mammals"? Up to you.

Sources:

This is the biggest, overarching one. This list is entirely 100% sourced to UNESCO itself (Which then has a big disclaimer about how "The sole responsibility for the content of each Nomination file lies with the State Party concerned."). I guess the argument is that UNESCO knows what its heritage sites are and why it marked them as such, so they are the best source possible, but it's a little shaky. I get that this is a list, not prose, but I highly doubt UNESCO would talk about any controversies in this list, as an example, or cite a rival country saying that their valley is even better for documenting whales. Are there any secondary sources talking about UNESCO and Egypt together? If so, do they offer anything interesting that the UNESCO website doesn't currently? If not, it may be fine, but we should at least look first.
Egypt accepted the convention on 7 February 1974, making its historical sites eligible for inclusion on the list. First off, "accepted" and "ratified" are not quite synonyms. Both the source and https://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/ explicitly indicate "ratified." Second, no it didn't make its historical sites eligible for inclusion. There wasn't a procedure yet, and it wouldn't be until later that the rules for eligibility were even created (see List of World Heritage Sites by year of inscription). I would just say something like "was the second country to ratify the Convention" which is true and neat, sourced to the webpage linked above.
Memphis doesn't check out. The website says (i)(iii)(vi) but the row says i, v, vi - typo, or are there conflicting sources that need reconciling?
The Notes blurb for Historic Cairo says that "the historical part is well preserved". But Islamic_Cairo#Preservation_status says that this is pretty much false. Even UNESCO's own blurb, which is being used as the source, talks about "huge challenges", "neglect and lack of intervention", and "highly vulnerable". I'm cherry-picking here, but I'm not sure this Notes is an accurate summation of the situation. But this goes to the above question - should this table be strictly summarizing what UNESCO's writeup says (even if hypothetically including "aspirational" claims it would not be diplomatic to point out?)? Or the actual reality on the ground?
This one isn't your fault, but it's a little weird our article on the Nubian monuments is at a title of "International Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia" rather than "Nubian Monuments" or the like. You'd think the monuments would be more important and lasting than the campaign. SnowFire (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No pressure or rush, but just following up and pinging to make sure you're aware of the feedback @Tone. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Busy week. I'll see if I can take care of the comments during the weekend :) Tone 21:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: I finally got to work on the comments, thanks for the great input. As for the intro, I am using standard text that has been polished through years for consistency. But you are right, Egypt ratified the convention years before the first monuments got listed, so I adjusted that. As for the sources, we've had a long-standing consensus that the UNESCO sources are better than the others, as they actually state why something was listed. Other sources are typically derivative, but sometimes I am using others if there is a good reason (reminds me of an updated height of some mountain or sometimes the text in the tentative lists is simply missing). Great spot with Historic Cairo, I updated the text with a 2019 report, after all, the site was listed in 1979. As for Nubia, this is the list where all the monuments are listed in a table, others are stand-alone articles. I was thinking of alternatives but this is probably the best one. Thanks again! Tone 08:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get that this verbiage might be used on other articles, and don't want to necessarily mandate my preferences broadly. That said, if we're saying that "this is what the UNESCO documents say", it's possible this could be described a little more bluntly? The UNESCO links themselves have the above disclaimer I mentioned about "this is from the State Party concerned", i.e. Egypt in this case. If they thought it was worth giving that disclaimer, maybe we should hint at that too.

Also, I don't think this is a major grammar nit, but even if you prefer the parenthetical style currently used in the lede, my understanding is that sentences with "sublists" still need a semicolon to distinguish the overarching list from the sublists. As such, I'd recommend something more like:

Natural heritage is defined as: natural features (consisting of physical and biological formations); geological and physiographical formations (including habitats of threatened species of animals and plants); and natural sites which are important from the point of view of science, conservation, or natural beauty.

Could ditch the colon if you don't like it, but that last list requires semicolons for the top-level one. SnowFire (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks better on the main 7 sites. Anyway, source review on the tentative sites forthcoming... SnowFire (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(non-actionable side chatter) I guess this is fine since we're mirroring UNESCO exactly and they still list it, but "Temple of Serabit Khadem" is weird since as noted, part of it was clearly accepted as a Heritage site a decade later in Saint Catherine's. Seems more like a historical note.
(more side chatter) I don't know if North Sinai Archaeological Sites Zone is notable as a separate article. It just looks like the name Egypt stamped on their UNESCO application, but it doesn't appear to be a real thing that any archaeologist in the area would say if not directly discussing "the application Egypt made to list this as a UNESCO site." (All of the references seem to be to UNESCO.) Maybe something to clean up?
Temple of Hator built by Ramses III: Similar to the mountain height example above, this may be a time to bring in non-UNESCO sources. I'm not sure this site is reliable, but it indicates it's probably referring to Dendera_Temple_complex#Hathor_temple, which was ironically not built by Ramses III. Featured standards are high, but I don't see any other famous Temples to Hathor from a quick Google, so maybe something like "Hypothesized the nomination refers to the Temple to Hathor at Dendera" in the notes? (Skip a picture though since we aren't 100%.)
This nomination comprises sites such as - There are only 8 sites on the list. I'd say just list all of them rather than say "such as" and only list 5/8.
Okay, I'm going to stop commenting on other linked articles as it's irrelevant to this list, but El-Gendi Fortress is another article that causes my eye to twitch a bit as being solely sourced to UNESCO, and seemingly treating a "tentative" list as a lot more meaningful than it really is.
The ruins of a 6th century monastery were discovered in 1984. - Nit: Technically, we should say it was this monastery, not Some Other Monastery - "Rutho Monastery was constructed in the 6th century under Emperor Justinian. Its ruins were discovered in 1984." perhaps?
Nit: I'd say that Ptolemaic Kingdom is a more relevant link for "Ptolemaic period" than the Ptolemaic dynasty (in the "Pharaonic temples in Upper Egypt " entry). This is referring to the era, not the specific family.
They mainly date from the Middle Kingdom to the Roman period. - Is there doubt on some of these? This sentence makes it sound like there are exceptions, but the document says "the tombs can be all dated between the Middle Empire and the low Roman period." So either kill "mainly", or explain the exception(s) in text IMO.
Nit: and the Saint Mary Deipara - is "the" needed here?
They were strategic forts during the Crusades but lost importance after 1291 and were later abandoned. Strictly speaking, not supported by the source. I'd say to either add a source that indicates they were abandoned, or to weaken this claim. (The source writes "it seems to have lost its importance and may even have been abandoned.")
The observatory quickly became a tourist destination. This is referenced. While I'm fine with saying we're trusting the UNESCO documents, I don't think we're obligated to mention everything in them, and this claim seems... aspirational. Neither ar:حلوان nor Google suggests a major tourist destination to me. Up to you, but I'd weaken this claim or outright remove it.

Anyway, largely looks good. Take a look at the above comments, and happy to support if they're resolved (many of which are nitpicks / optional anyway). SnowFire (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But just to talk more on the topic... does anyone talk anywhere that apparently countries can just list the same sites over and over on the Tentative list but chop them up different ways? If so, we might want to change the way they're described, since Temple of Hathor is essentially in twice, St. Catherines Monastery is in twice, etc. SnowFire (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

The images are relevant and all of reasonable quality.
Egypt adm location map.svg has an appropriate CC license.
In the list, there are a few entries without illustrations, including El-Gendi Fortress, Rutho Monastery, Wadi Feiran. Temple of Hator built by Ramses III has no illustration, but it is commented "No information provided in the nomination documentation".
All Gizah Pyramids.jpg was a featured picture and was picture of the day. It is appropriately licensed.
Templo de Luxor, Luxor, Egipto, 2022-04-01, DD 01.jpg is a quality image and has an appropriate CC license.
Abusimbel.jpg has a Swedish PD tag. It needs a US PD tag.
Islamic Cairo (2005-05-385).jpg has an appropriate CC license.
Abu Mena Ancient Monastery 05.JPG has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
Katharinenkloster Sinai BW 2.jpg was a featured picture and was picture of the day. It is appropriately licensed.
The whales fossils.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
Siwa Oasis, Western Desert, Egypt.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
SerabitBothChapels.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
Bent Pyramid 曲折金字塔 - panoramio.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
DimaiLandscape.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
Aqaba Castle.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
TunaGebelPtolemaios.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
Ballon fish Ras Mohammed - panoramio.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
Lake Moeris 034.JPG has an appropriate CC license.
Dakhla Oasis view (May 2007).jpg has an appropriate CC license.
2012 Bardawil (Egypt).jpg has an appropriate CC license.
Wadi el Gemal National Red Sea.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
GilfKebir1.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
SiwaSandDunes.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
AlexSarapeionPompeysPillar.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
Abydos Tempel Ramses II. 04.JPG has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
Dendera 7 977.PNG has an appropriate PD license.
Exterior view of tombs of Khety and Barquet III.JPG has an appropriate PD license.
Cairo Nilometer 2.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
Deir as Suriani.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
Sand Castle. Pharaon Island (9198174615).jpg has an appropriate CC license.
Nakhl00040v.jpg has an appropriate PD tag from the Ottoman Empire. The US license is assumed as the source is the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Photograph Album.
Faiyum Oasis by Zorbey Tunçer.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
لمعالم الاثرية من رحلة رشيد 5.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
Dababiya 3.jpg has appropriate GNU licenses.
Helwan Observatory.jpg has an Egyptian PD tag and is public domain in the US as it was published before 1946 and copyright had expired in Egypt before January 1, 1996.
Bagawat.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
The Egyptian Museum.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
Images from Flickr (such as Castle. Pharaon Island (9198174615).jpg and Faiyum Oasis by Zorbey Tunçer.jpg) have been reviewed.
All images have ALT tags for accessibility.

@Tone: This looks a good use of images to illustrate the list, with two of the images appearing as picture of the day. The only adjustment I can see is to add a US public domain license to Abusimbel.jpg and to see if there any of the missing illustrations can be found. simongraham (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. I am not that well-versed in licenses, can you add the right one to Abusimbel? I kind of like this photo in the article because it shows action, not just the monument. Tone 08:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]