Wikipedia:Peer review/Mummy/archive1
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review/Mummy)
I've recently done an extensive rewrite, moving sections around, rephrasing the lead and making a clearer distinction between artifical and natural mummies, adding pics, refs and ext. links and most of all a description of the Egyptian mummification process. I know it's not finished or feature-able yet, but I'd like some opionions on what still needs to be included. I'd specifically like opinions on whether I should include a short section on a few of the listed mummies linking to their main article above it. -- Mgm|(talk) 15:19, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I think it should talk about what happened to mummies after they were buried. In various regions, mummies were considered to have magical and medical properties, and were used for medicine. It had been widely used in China as a part of Traditional Chinese medicine. I'm also going to add the mummification practice in Japan. Revth 03:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Magical and medicinal purposes should indeed be mentioned and I welcome the addition of the Chinese mummification process. 131.211.210.15 07:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Basically, it is too short. 'Mummies in Ancient Egypt' should be at least 30kb by itself, and in this article I see it as much larger with a subarticle. 'Mummies in modern times' should go after 'Mummies in other civilizations', and the latter, together with 'Famous mummies' need expantion from a list into large sections. Finally, the 'Famous mummies' should be cleary divided into real mummies and those popularised by books/films/etc. Which reminds me, there needs to be a Mummy (disambigation) (for the film, at the very least). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- (Copied from my talk page). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- "Mummies in Ancient Egypt" probably should be expanded as you said, but what do you think needs to be included?
- "Mummies in modern times' should go after "Mummies in other civilizations". That's a good idea. I'm not really sure about expanding the list yet. After all, they do have articles on their own, and the article may end up being too large if I do. I'm hoping to keep the mummy article as general as possible.
- Finally, the 'Famous mummies' should be cleary divided into real mummies and those popularised by books/films/etc. If there are any fictional mummies listed, please point them out.
- I'll see what I can do about a disambiguation. Wikiwax showed me there's a lot of mummy topics floating around.
Cheers! Mgm|(talk) 11:25, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Re1. I am not a mummy specialist, but it is just way to short. I suggest some research and reading. After all, when people think mummy, they most of the time think 'mummy from AE'. For now we have 2 screens worth of info - good for an introduction, but I am sure a detailed article could have several times that info. Re2. Well, atm the article is too short, so I suggest expanding anything. We can worry about it being too long when it is no longer too short :) Re3. Hmmm, I thought that they would be added. As long as there are none, well, ignore this comment :) Re4. What is wikiwax? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)