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 Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
I absolutely was expecting to click "View history" and see only this version listed, as this article reads like it was written in one pass, without the author ever even reading it again before and after publishing it .
But i was surprised to see that i was wrong, and there are in fact many revisions. Why ? There are so many syntactic errors that i could easily see it being dictated out loud to a speech-to-text and pasted here .
And there's stuff like :
"Religious and funerary influence on ancient Egyptian art is great as is made it utilitarian rather than aesthetic "
Oh boy, ancient Egyptian art sure seems cool to me too, thanks wikipedia.
The first version of the article includes this from the start, and it remained untouched trough multiple significant edits to its containing section, of which it is the very first sentence of. Meaning that everyone reads it. Why is no one changing it??
Well, ive read it and i too didnt change it, i simply cant find a way to rephrase it properly with my limited knowledge on the subject. Id need to explain why this is such a great thing in order to do that; And there it is , thats probably why it resists change.
So please, knowledgeable person reading this, rescue this article !!
_01.svg){kind=small}
