This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Valley of the Kings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Valley of the Kings 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The validity of the following paragraph is questionable:
It was added by an Anon who contributed only twice, both times to this article. Possible invalidity roots in:
I have removed parts and modified others. Improve them if you will. -- Menchi 06:50 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I agree with your changes. I have further changed the statement that "Almost all of the tombs have been ransacked except for Tutankhamun’s", since it is false. Howard Carter himself clearly documents the ample evidence he found of robbers having entered the tomb. What was different here was that the robbers were either disturbed, or apprehended. Either way, the tomb was re-sealed, but the contents were in total disarray.
Fab 21:39, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't really know Arabic, but isn't "wadi" the term for a dried-out river bed turned into a sort of canyon? Is that really what the Valley of the Kings is? I've found the name Biban el Muluk (not sure about the spelling) in the article on the subject in Nationalencyklopedin's internet edition.
Which one is correct? - karmosin 16:18, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
I have tagged the three VofK articles as merging with this to create an uber-page! Basically there is a lot of repeated information, and it needs to all be in one place, so as to be consistent. Have created a page Valley of the Kings/temp (not sure whether this is the correct place though) that has the possible merge of the articles. This is partially for the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team so the One Article can be added as a possible FAC. Any objects / suggestions ? Markh 16:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
We could do with a map! Markh 22:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
On commons:Category:Valley of the Kings, we've got two pics:
Can anyone confirm those? I don't know about the first second one: KV7's never been open when I've been there, but I didn't know it was stylistically so similar to KV2. As for the first one, it just doesn't look like KV34.
–Hajor
05:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I have put this article into peer-review. The main comment is that the list is too long! It might be better to reduce the list in this article to be the 'principle' burials – just the open and important ones, and the list part of this article be split off (again) into a seperate article. Any thoughts? Markh 18:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I am removing KV63 from the list of Important Burials because it's significance is unknown, it might not be an important burial at all. Martin Hinks 16:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Markh 12:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The hieroglyphic name featured here is not accurate.
Hey, I wanna contribute here with the
Valley of the Kings tomb map, I could create it as a svg file. --
Walter Humala
|wanna Talk?
01:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
|wanna Talk?
06:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I came over from the GA page and noticed that the photo KV 2 appears on top of text -- at least on my computer (mozilla/mac). Also, do you mean to be on the GA and FA candidate pages simultaneously? Katsam 01:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed this article was still posted at GAC, and I think it meets the criteria for that so I passed it. Good luck at the FAC. DVD+ R/W 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Valley of the Kings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia: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.
I have found the article very interesting, and I think it contains a lot of good information. I did some minor copyediting (comma splices were a problem). The biggest issue is with sourcing. There are a few places where references should be added. I marked them with "citation needed" tags. These should be addressed in order to retain Good Article status.
Other problems include:
If these concerns are not addressed, the article will be delisted. I realize that this is a lot of work, so I am willing to extend the one-week hold if progress is being made. If anyone has questions about the concerns I have addressed, please bring them up here (or contact me on my talk page). Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 00:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I am satisfied that all of these points have been addressed and that substantial improvements have been made to the article, so I am closing this reassessment and keeping the article listed as a GA. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 105 metres, use 105 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 105 metres.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Markh ( talk) 18:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
i moved the discussion here. -- !linus ( talk) 23:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't have time right now, but people might be interested in this report: [2], Dougweller ( talk) 10:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Valley of the Kings with the Constellations.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
The image showing the Nile Valley and the Valley of the Kings seems to be at a scale not conducive to showing the latter. It is unclear what the red arrows are pointing at, and looks like it might be a feature to small to see clearly at this scale. Perhaps the addition of an inset, or an image at a more zoomed-in scale would be a better indicator? I like that it shows the relative position of the Nile Valley, but I think you can zoom in a bit and still show part of the Nile, while showing more detail on the VotK. 12.11.127.253 ( talk) 16:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The mountain at the head of the valley is the same shape as the pyramids. Had the pyramids not existed, then the shape of the mountain would have no relevance. The mountain is relevant because it appears to have a similar shape to the pyramids. Unless you can find a source that suggest that the pyramid builders saw this particular mountain, and said "Golly that's pretty,let's build our tombs the same shape as this mountain", then the mountain is a metaphor for the pyramids, and therefore the mountain echoes the pyramids. IdreamofJeanie ( talk) 13:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't check the source, but with ] https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Valley_of_the_Kings&diff=prev&oldid=160444042] this edit " It has a pyramid shaped appearance, and it is considered to have been the reason why the kings of Egypt started to be buried beneath it, echoing the pyramids of the [[Old Kingdom of Egypt|Old Kingdom]], more than a thousand years prior to the first royal burials carved out in the Valley of the Kings.<ref>Dodson (1991), pp. 5-7</ref><ref>Reeves and Wilkinson (1996), p. 17</ref>" was changed to It has a pyramid shaped appearance, and it is probable that this echoed the pyramids of the [[Old Kingdom of Egypt|Old Kingdom]], more than a thousand years prior to the first royal burials carved here.<ref>Dodson (1991), pp. 5-7</ref><ref>Reeves and Wilkinson (1996), p. 17</ref> - according to the edit summary to eliminate weasel words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
(EC) See [3] - The Egypytian Supreme Council for Antiquities, Last sentence of second paragraph which reads Archaeologists believe that this natural feature influenced the choice of this site for the royal tombs. IdreamofJeanie ( talk) 14:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a general heads-up that in the last year or so there have been more quality photos uploaded to Wiki Commons for several of the tombs, thanks to the Egyptian authorities now allowing photography inside the tombs (with certain restrictions). I've uploaded some myself, among others. I've switched some photos of tombs in the article for higher-quality photos of the same tombs, but editors who know the article better can have a look around for more. From what I've seen, there are decent or high-quality photos for KV9, KV14, KV11, and KV17 in particular, and a few more for KV2 and KV6. Cheers, R Prazeres ( talk) 20:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Valley of the Kings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Valley of the Kings 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The validity of the following paragraph is questionable:
It was added by an Anon who contributed only twice, both times to this article. Possible invalidity roots in:
I have removed parts and modified others. Improve them if you will. -- Menchi 06:50 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I agree with your changes. I have further changed the statement that "Almost all of the tombs have been ransacked except for Tutankhamun’s", since it is false. Howard Carter himself clearly documents the ample evidence he found of robbers having entered the tomb. What was different here was that the robbers were either disturbed, or apprehended. Either way, the tomb was re-sealed, but the contents were in total disarray.
Fab 21:39, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't really know Arabic, but isn't "wadi" the term for a dried-out river bed turned into a sort of canyon? Is that really what the Valley of the Kings is? I've found the name Biban el Muluk (not sure about the spelling) in the article on the subject in Nationalencyklopedin's internet edition.
Which one is correct? - karmosin 16:18, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
I have tagged the three VofK articles as merging with this to create an uber-page! Basically there is a lot of repeated information, and it needs to all be in one place, so as to be consistent. Have created a page Valley of the Kings/temp (not sure whether this is the correct place though) that has the possible merge of the articles. This is partially for the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team so the One Article can be added as a possible FAC. Any objects / suggestions ? Markh 16:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
We could do with a map! Markh 22:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
On commons:Category:Valley of the Kings, we've got two pics:
Can anyone confirm those? I don't know about the first second one: KV7's never been open when I've been there, but I didn't know it was stylistically so similar to KV2. As for the first one, it just doesn't look like KV34.
–Hajor
05:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I have put this article into peer-review. The main comment is that the list is too long! It might be better to reduce the list in this article to be the 'principle' burials – just the open and important ones, and the list part of this article be split off (again) into a seperate article. Any thoughts? Markh 18:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I am removing KV63 from the list of Important Burials because it's significance is unknown, it might not be an important burial at all. Martin Hinks 16:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Markh 12:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The hieroglyphic name featured here is not accurate.
Hey, I wanna contribute here with the
Valley of the Kings tomb map, I could create it as a svg file. --
Walter Humala
|wanna Talk?
01:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
|wanna Talk?
06:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I came over from the GA page and noticed that the photo KV 2 appears on top of text -- at least on my computer (mozilla/mac). Also, do you mean to be on the GA and FA candidate pages simultaneously? Katsam 01:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed this article was still posted at GAC, and I think it meets the criteria for that so I passed it. Good luck at the FAC. DVD+ R/W 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Valley of the Kings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia: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.
I have found the article very interesting, and I think it contains a lot of good information. I did some minor copyediting (comma splices were a problem). The biggest issue is with sourcing. There are a few places where references should be added. I marked them with "citation needed" tags. These should be addressed in order to retain Good Article status.
Other problems include:
If these concerns are not addressed, the article will be delisted. I realize that this is a lot of work, so I am willing to extend the one-week hold if progress is being made. If anyone has questions about the concerns I have addressed, please bring them up here (or contact me on my talk page). Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 00:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I am satisfied that all of these points have been addressed and that substantial improvements have been made to the article, so I am closing this reassessment and keeping the article listed as a GA. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 105 metres, use 105 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 105 metres.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Markh ( talk) 18:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
i moved the discussion here. -- !linus ( talk) 23:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't have time right now, but people might be interested in this report: [2], Dougweller ( talk) 10:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Valley of the Kings with the Constellations.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
The image showing the Nile Valley and the Valley of the Kings seems to be at a scale not conducive to showing the latter. It is unclear what the red arrows are pointing at, and looks like it might be a feature to small to see clearly at this scale. Perhaps the addition of an inset, or an image at a more zoomed-in scale would be a better indicator? I like that it shows the relative position of the Nile Valley, but I think you can zoom in a bit and still show part of the Nile, while showing more detail on the VotK. 12.11.127.253 ( talk) 16:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The mountain at the head of the valley is the same shape as the pyramids. Had the pyramids not existed, then the shape of the mountain would have no relevance. The mountain is relevant because it appears to have a similar shape to the pyramids. Unless you can find a source that suggest that the pyramid builders saw this particular mountain, and said "Golly that's pretty,let's build our tombs the same shape as this mountain", then the mountain is a metaphor for the pyramids, and therefore the mountain echoes the pyramids. IdreamofJeanie ( talk) 13:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't check the source, but with ] https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Valley_of_the_Kings&diff=prev&oldid=160444042] this edit " It has a pyramid shaped appearance, and it is considered to have been the reason why the kings of Egypt started to be buried beneath it, echoing the pyramids of the [[Old Kingdom of Egypt|Old Kingdom]], more than a thousand years prior to the first royal burials carved out in the Valley of the Kings.<ref>Dodson (1991), pp. 5-7</ref><ref>Reeves and Wilkinson (1996), p. 17</ref>" was changed to It has a pyramid shaped appearance, and it is probable that this echoed the pyramids of the [[Old Kingdom of Egypt|Old Kingdom]], more than a thousand years prior to the first royal burials carved here.<ref>Dodson (1991), pp. 5-7</ref><ref>Reeves and Wilkinson (1996), p. 17</ref> - according to the edit summary to eliminate weasel words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
(EC) See [3] - The Egypytian Supreme Council for Antiquities, Last sentence of second paragraph which reads Archaeologists believe that this natural feature influenced the choice of this site for the royal tombs. IdreamofJeanie ( talk) 14:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a general heads-up that in the last year or so there have been more quality photos uploaded to Wiki Commons for several of the tombs, thanks to the Egyptian authorities now allowing photography inside the tombs (with certain restrictions). I've uploaded some myself, among others. I've switched some photos of tombs in the article for higher-quality photos of the same tombs, but editors who know the article better can have a look around for more. From what I've seen, there are decent or high-quality photos for KV9, KV14, KV11, and KV17 in particular, and a few more for KV2 and KV6. Cheers, R Prazeres ( talk) 20:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)