Talk:Mummia

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rewrite

This article is really bad and most of the information in it is wrong. I am going to try to completely rewrite it.--67.164.139.172 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref to be added

Here's another good reference for the present article.

Dawson, Warren R. (1927), "Mummy as a Drug", Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 21(1): 34–39.

Keahapana (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the lead too long?

St.nerol, you've added a "lead section may be too long" maintenance template to the article, can you explain your rationale behind it? The lead currently has about 225 words, the whole article about 2000 – so it's 11% of the total, which hardly seems too much. Originally the lead was formatted as a single paragraph, and for that it was too long, I agree with that. However, I have now split it into three paragraphs, and I think it's fine now. Do you agree, or do you still find it "too long"? Gawaon (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was likely fooled by the single long paragraph. Removing template.–St.nerol (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]