This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt 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.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article was copy edited by Macwhiz, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 13 November 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This redirect is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This entry still needs an enormous amount of cleaning.
Definately... This article is badly worded, and verb tenses are switch randomly, including use of the first person when referring to events in the 1800s... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnyj (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed a stem-to-stern copy-edit of the article. As much of the text originates from the 1911 Britannica, there are parts of the article that have an old-fashioned turn of phrase. I generally have not disturbed that where it is still grammatically correct and not terribly impenetrable. If there are specific sections that still need rephrasing, give a shout here and I'll have a look. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]