Talk:Nebka

Nebka has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 23, 2019. (Reviewed version).

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Ancient Egypt Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed 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.

A nebka is also a type of sandune

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=nebka
The article Nabkha already exists; I guess adding hatnotes to both articles is the best solution... Edit-pi (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nebka. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khruner (talk · contribs) 20:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the lead is somewhat not concise enough. Compare it with the brief yet splendidly informative lead of Neferhotep I also written by you.

I have cut down on the lead, let me know if this is still too long.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ennemies -> enemies.

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is wrong, but when I wrote my one and only Good article, the reviewer told me that the lead, being a summary of the whole subsequent article, does not require citations which would only be a duplicate of those in the article.

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to standardise the style of dynastic notation, since we have many "Third dynasty" together with "12th Dynasty" etc. Adopting one type over another is a matter of personal taste.

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that each "Dynasty" should be capitalised.

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A further picture in the "Tomb" section would be great, if possible. Maybe something from Unfinished Northern Pyramid of Zawyet El Aryan.

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything looks fine. The sources are undoubtedly reliable and well used, and the article itself seems to be exhaustive, well written, stable and neutral. Khruner (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]