Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Talk:Great_Pyramid_of_Giza".

content
An editor has initiated an individual reassessment to determine if this article meets the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. Please add comments to the the reassessment page, but the decision to list the article as a good article should be left to the editor initiating this reassessment.

Date: 21:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Great Pyramid of Giza article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article Great Pyramid of Giza 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 delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 10, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
This is not a forum for general discussion of your personal opinions about the Great Pyramid of Giza.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.
 
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Archive
Archives


Contents

Messy end

I'm no expert, but the External Links it of this page is very muddled. I don't want to try and change it, because I haven't the knowledge of how to change layout of an article, so this is more of a request for someone 'in the know' to sort out the final section and make it a bit easier on the eye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uranium grenade (talk • contribs) 03:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spurring me on to doing this, it's been bothering me also (as does the editorial bit in at least one link). I just deleted the bits about div.Doug Weller (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Be bold, remove more. -- Secisek (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

More what?Doug Weller (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Links. The EL section is in bad shape. -- Secisek (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work on them. The problem is, I think, that most of the article was created by someone who doesn't agree with the mainstream arguments on dating, construction, etc, and put emphasis on those aspects both in the article itself and the links (which is why I guess so many of the links are about construction, with few about anything else other than views). I'm sure there are a number of links that should be included and are not.Doug Weller (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, work must continue to preserve the GA rating. -- Secisek (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Egyptian pyramid construction techniques

This article: Egyptian pyramid construction techniques needs serious work before this one does. -- Secisek (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)i think its fine really great info


i thinks that we dont need the rating any more

Italic text

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Meiskool4skool (talk • contribs) 07:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

GA

Following revision, the article would likely pass GAR as is. Any new material added must be cited with reliable sources to maintain this status. -- Secisek (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Design of the Great gallery

The article mentions that the design reason for the small 'sockets' at regular intervals in the gallery has not been found. This is incorrect as the sockets was used to arrest the granite blocking stones now residing in the lower part of the ascending corridor (the lower extension of the gallery). The gallery was simply a necessity if you wanted to store the 'door-stones' inside the pyramid while at the same time being able to pass them before the final closure of the pyramid. This also explains the vertical shaft between the lower corridor and the base of the gallery. This shaft was the exit for the workers who sealed the pyramid (it would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to ascend the shaft thus making it an effective 'one way exit' for the workers. It is also interesting to note that the 'grave robbers corridor' (The modern entrance) ends exactly behind the last of the blocking stones in the ascending corridor indicating that the people making that corridor had inside information (pun intended) about the internal arrangement of the corridors and thus likely the corridor was made less than 100 years after the pyramid was finished (possibly by the same workers who made the pyramid of relatives of officials with access to the archives where information of the pyramid may have been kept). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yazeran (talk • contribs) 17:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfinished Chamber

Could it be that the Unfinished Chamber was excavated to check for cracking or other signs of stress in the bedrock beneath the pyramid? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC) zbvhs


i think that that was the case but it could have also been for the lime stone casingMeiskool4skool (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Inside the Great Pyramid: Needs More!

The Great Pyramid is such a unique, interesting building. I say we need sub-sections on:

  • The ascending passage
  • The gallery
  • The graverobbers’ corridor
  • The well shaft & grotto
  • The antechamber
  • The relieving chambers ...

... and perhaps the shafts, you know, the ones with ”Gantenbrink’s ’door’” and all that hoopla. I see they’re mentioned in some paragraph but a lot of the above, like the well shaft, doesn’t even get a mention.

I’m not very knowledgable about the pyramid, and I don’t have any reference books, so I’m not in the best position to write this myself ... Bossk-Office (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


yeah sub sections would be really great for kids with projects and stuff like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meiskool4skool (talk • contribs) 07:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Limestone concrete"

'A recent theory proposes that the building blocks were manufactured in-place from a kind of "limestone concrete".'

Surely such an unlikely sounding theory needs a citation and indeed should be from a reputable source - after all there are a myriad of strange theories about the pyramids and their construction etc and we cannot and should not include every fringe theory in the article.
This theory sounds very unlikely to me because I am sure a geologist or other scientist would be perfectly capable of distinguishing limestone from a man-made material. Booshank (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It is where I think it belongs, in the Egyptian pyramid construction techniques article. Doug Weller (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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 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.

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#Inside the Great Pyramid: Needs More! 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?
  • From the beginning of the "Inside the Great Pyramid" section: "ingenious corbel halloed" — "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:

  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.

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)

Infobox

I've removed the world's tallest buildings infobox from this article. Not only is the really most notable information about the pyramids not the fact it was once, several millenia ago, the world's tallest building, but is also carries the rider "Fully habitable, self-supported, from main entrance to highest structural or architectural top;" which just makes no sense whatsoever.--Joopercoopers (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Cost?

It might seem like a rather odd question, but has anyone got an idea of what the cost (in modern USD) would be, for instance if a construction company were comissioned to build an exact replica, what would be the likley cost? 81.149.82.243 (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
© jGames.co.uk 2007 (some content from Wikipedia under GDL ) !-- ValueClick Media 468x60 and 728x90 Banner CODE for jgames.co.uk -->
Your Ad Here