Talk:Raherka and Meresankh

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

Ancient Egypt

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

???

This article has not yet received a rating 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.

References etc[edit]

This article needs reliable secondary source(s). And it is basically an orphan. Not sure why this was created with so little going for it. --AB (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we should have article about him, he was a person of some importance being an inspector. We know only this what is written, however.--Mychele (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that every person with a title that ever existed should be given a wikipedia article. The problem here is that this article is isolated. There are no other places where we can link to this article (except maybe his wife). And notable does not mean that someone had a title. The page on notability mentions: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." And that's the problem here. There needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources. Maybe there is, but one link to a museum webpage does not show that in any way. --AB (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTE for guidelines about when an article is appropriate or not. --AB (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found one reference from google books that has some detailed coverage of the statue, so I added that information to the page. --AB (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solution[edit]

Maybe we should try this: redirect Meresankh on Raherka and then write something about their statue. We would get a little longer article, with several sources - websites, and I will try to find encyclopedic sources.

We would have:

their biographies
their statue
translations of names

What you think? - Michelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.179.227 (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is much better. But note that websites are not reliable sources and should be avoided. The page from the Louvre can be an exception because that one has a bibliography and so is verifiable. Encyclopedic sources are tertiary sources and what we really want is secondary sources: reliable books, reliable articles published in peer reviewed journals.--AB (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]