Wikipedia:Peer review/Valley of the Kings/archive1

Valley of the Kings
Peer review/Valley of the Kings/archive2

Hi, I have done quite a lot of work on this article recently, and need some more feedback. Cheers Markh 10:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, don't say you you didn't ask for it. ;-)


 * Intro para: on the whole, too short and vague on key points. It ought to be a summary of the major points that follow, but instead it is vague on how and why it came to be, and why the VofK is considered "important". Also, the material about Ay's tomb being open is too specific (so are others) for the lead.


 * I have reworked the introduction, and it now was a paragraph for each section, still woolly though. Markh 14:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Satellite image: is the red square in the image the Valley? If so, note it in the caption and provide more context (near which town, the name of the river, etc).


 * There's very little on its actual location and outlay, so there is no context when the East/West VofK tombs are mentioned. Why not a "north" or "south" as well? (Don't get me wrong, I know, but it ought to be mentioned somewhere). Also, locating it geographically in relation to Thebes and Deir el-Bahri would also be good.


 * Geology section: ought to come earlier in the article, before history. Talking about the unique geography of the place and why a certain feature (hint, hint) attracted the New Kingdom pharaohs would be good.


 * I have reinforced the al-Qurn influence from the introduction. Markh 13:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * History section is okay, but as I see it is missing several important points:
 * why did the pharaohs of the New Kingdom pick this spot (and why did they move from the previous location of royal burials?)
 * how the VotK impacted life in nearby Thebes in antiquity? (i.e. artisans, guards , ancient tomb robberies, etc).
 * some background on why the pharaohs thought it necessary to a) be buried in a place thought secure and b) why it was thought important to "take things with them" when they died
 * could talk about separation of mortuary temples from actual burial spots


 * Tomb development: too short, and concentrates exclusively on descriptions on their shape. Descriptions themselves are poor: am unclear as to how "bent" differs significantly from a "jogged" axis tomb. An illustration of each type would help. Notable absence of any talk of the development of tomb art, the quality of the rock (and the issues tomb-builders ran into when building a tomb), any precedents in rock-cut tombs of this type elsewhere, etc.


 * There are pictures on, but they are a bit big, so I might come up with my own. Markh 15:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Listing of tombs: while the list is supposedly of the more important tombs, many are missing descriptions as to *why* they are considered important. Either remove the ones that are not considered significant, or expand.
 * I have added a section for each tomb, may need to revisit later Markh 14:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers for doing some updates. These are now great. Markh 10:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Tourism section: A mention of the general climate in the area would also be informative. Other than the impending visitor's centre, what other amenities are available to tourists? And how has the influx of great numbers of tourists affected the tombs themselves?


 * I also noted a couple of sentences that appear to be leftover vandalism of the article (look for "mgjiewngieng is the Arabic name for Egypt" and "They just found a new tomb!"). There are also a few spelling errors in the text, so I suggest you run it through a spell-checker.


 * There are other minor points, but these suggestions hopefully give you some ideas for future direction/improvement.


 * Cheers! Captmondo 13:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers these are really useful. Markh 14:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 19:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)