Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza/GA1

GA Reassessment
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

Looking over the article quickly, I'm impressed with what I see and I think it will remain listed with a little bit of work. I made some fixes myself (general copyediting as well as formatting the book and internet references). At present, my concerns are:


 * A "citation needed" tag in the "King's Chamber" section.
 * Does the video in the "Media" section really contribute to the article (I'm flexible on this one, as I don't think it hurts anything)?
 * The book in the first citation (Edgar) needs more information, including a page number.
 * Note: I replaced the reference, so this is no longer a concern. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the "Construction theories" section, it would be nice if at least a couple of the theories on how the stones were "conveyed and placed" were mentioned, rather than just stating that theories exist. No need to go into a lot of detail on them, though, as there is a separate article.
 * There is a comment on the article's talk page (see Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza that subsections should be added about various locations within the pyramid. For GA level, I don't think this is the case, but I would be interested in hearing from a contributor to this article about whether mentioning (at least some of) these places in the article would make sense.
 * Just to clarify, the Queen's Chamber is a misnomer because it was not the burial place for the queen, right?
 * Correct, the name stems from arabic times, but is agreed to be used in egyptology. The queens had their own pyramids right at the eastern side.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.133.27 (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From the beginning of the "Inside the Great Pyramid" section: "ingenious corbel halloed" &mdash; "ingenious" is point of view, and I'm confused about "halloed" (should it be "haloed")?
 * Note: I took out the word "ingenious", as it isn't sourced (feel free to add it back with a source). I also changed the other word to "haloed" (feel free it back with an explanation if "halloed" was correct). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead section should summarize the article, but it currently contains information that isn't included later in the article. I think that most of the second paragraph (starting at "Despite..." and going to the end of the paragraph) would be better if it was moved to the relevant section(s) of the main text.
 * Note: I moved the other information to the relevant sections, so this should be find if nobody has any complaints about my changes. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The title of the "Wonder of the Ancient World" section doesn't seem particularly appropriate, as it doesn't deal with the pyramid's status as a wonder of the ancient world. Something along the lines of "Construction" or "Building the pyramid" would be better, in my opinion.
 * I changed the title to "Building the pyramid" (I wanted to avoid repeating "construction", as this is already the title of a subheading). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to keep this listed if these changes are made, but I did feel as I read the article that more detail would have been nice. For example, is the inside of the pyramid decorated? Has anyone found out what is behind those doors? This doesn't need to be included now, but I recommend adding more detail if you plan to nominate this as a possible Featured Article.

I will place this reassessment on hold for seven days to allow for these changes to be made. If more time is needed, the reassessment can be extended if progress is being made. Please feel free to respond here with comments or questions, as I have this article and this reassessment on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I won't be home for a week, but when I get home I've got the resources to help if I remember! Doug Weller (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am out of wiki-work right now, but would like a final 24 hour warning if the article is to be de-listed, perhaps I can bring it up to standard. It already passed a review earlier this year in more or less the same condition it is in now. -- Secisek (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Dougweller's request, I have extended the hold to allow more time for the fixes. To summarize what remains to be done: I will allow one week for work to be done; if needed, an extension will be granted at that time if progress has been made. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Cite the last paragraph in the "King's Chamber" section.
 * 2) Briefly mention a couple more theories in the "Construction theories" section.
 * 3) Either confirm that the misnomer is the fact that the queen isn't buried there or clarify what it is.
 * 4) Reply with thoughts about whether any other parts of the structure should be added at this time.

Due to lack of progress, I have delisted the article. I urge editors to address the remaining concerns regarding breadth of coverage and to renominate the article once these have been addressed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)